Expert Witnesses

... while I'm in rant mode...

Another thing that drives me crazy: people claiming that the leaders of any given religious sect have more expertise in what it means to be gay -- because they talk to God.

You know what, on May 27, 2009, I will have approximately 228,000 hours of experience of intimately studying what it's like to be homosexual. While this does not mean I am an expert in what it means to be a homosexual in all cases... it damn well makes me an expert -- the leading expert -- in what it's like to be me.

And yet I can't say, "This isn't working for me" because the leaders of the LDS Church are more expert in what it means to be me and know what's best for me? What bullshit. Runny, bloody, diarrhea from a bull dying of colon cancer.


It's also bullshit to claim that the leaders of any given religious sect are experts on the fundamentals of a successful society or psychology or what-ever. What makes them experts? Because they talk to God? Because you believe they talk to God? And, since God is omniscient, they are vessels of omniscience?

CRAP-O-LA.

This is especially true when we ignore actual experts -- for example, the American Psychological Association (APA) -- in favor on non-experts -- for example LDS General Authorities.

The APA, an expert organization in the field of psychological development, has studied and stated that gay couples and children raised by gay couples are healthy and contribute possitively to psychological well-being.

But the leaders of the LDS Church say, "Nope, the leaders of the Church are more expert because they talk with God" -- therefore, gay couples and children raised by gay couples are unhealthy. (See appeal to authority and begging the question.)

And the stance is further compounded in crap-o-la with more logical fallacies such as appeals to belief, appeals to common practice, appeals to consequences of belief, appeals to emotion, appeals to fear, appeals to popularity, appeals to spite, appeals to tradition, bandwagon, biased sample... the list continues and includes almost every logical fallacy available.

And then those of us who disagree with this illogical stance because we are relying on actual experts on psychological development and on actual data and resources are the illogical ones?

Really?

It drives me crazy!!!

And more craziness: when they claim that we aren't listening to their stance. Give me a break! I could probably argue their case more aptly and logically than they.

Take one of the comments on my post, Reconiliation: The Family, where a previous accantance of mine posted the link to Elder Oaks & Wickman's "interview" (I used quotes because the questions were asked by the PR department of the Church... it is a mock interview) on same-sex attraction. As if I've never read that. I've more likely than not read it more times than he and am more familiar with exactly what is said therein.

Now, could they argue my case? Not likely -- and definitely not very logically. They wouldn't know logic if it were spelled out on the palms of their hands.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying, "therefore, they are wrong and I am right" -- that would be a logical fallacy, itself, (which they use often) -- I'm merely saying, "therefore, they are asses."

And, yes, I am fully aware my ranting attitude is quite unchristian. However, to use this current unchristian attitude of mine as bearing of any validity or invalidity of my beliefs about anything I've said or believe -- say, for example, about gay marriage -- is yet another logical fallacy.

"He called me an ass. Calling people names is unchristian; therefore, his stance on gay marriage is unchristian." FALLACY.

"Treating others contrary to how you would be treated is unchristian; therefore, expecting gays to live a lifestyle you are unwilling to live is unchristian." LOGICALLY SOUND.

"But, if I were gay, then I would be willing to live the lifestyle I expect gays to live." FALLACY -- this is a fallacy because it is impossible to prove the conclusion with the premise as you are not gay and, therefore, do not know what you would do were you gay. In other words, the premise is neither true nor false and cannot be proven to be true or false. Conclusions cannot be supported by something that is neither true nor false.

"But I am a celibate priest; I am willing to live the lifestyle I expect gays to live; therefore, my stance is christian." LOGICALLY SOUND.

"But I am a gay Mormon who is celibate; therefore, my stance is christian." LOGICALLY SOUND.

"I am temporally married to a woman because my Celestial partner died and I need a help meet as I endure to the end; gays should not be allowed to marry because their relationship cannot be made eternal -- they must live a life without a help meet; my stance against gay marriage is Christian." ASSHOLISH, HYPOCRITCAL FALLACY.

*deep breath*

*turn my head and cough*

... okay, I think I'm finished ranting...