Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble

[Timpman]

Ohhhhh, I am going to say it President Monson style: blog your beliefs, tweet your testimony, Facebook your faith, and don't debate with dolts.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Timpman

[Klein_Helmer]

Ohhhhh, I am going to say it President Monson style: blog your beliefs, tweet your testimony, Facebook your faith, and don't debate with dolts.

I will never be able to wrap my mind around the notion of a grown man engaging in an activity known as, *sigh*, "tweeting."

[FunkyTown]

Do not address me with imperatives.

If you seek to dispute that which I have said, you will need to do better than a coarse and impolite, "No."

Nope.

[Klein_Helmer]

Nope.

As I suspected.

Fare thee well.

[FunkyTown]

He can either say homosexuality is wrong, because he has derived this notion from faith in the social standards which he believes to have been outlined by a specific supernatural entity, and the conversation is over; or he can attempt to conduct the conversation on any other grounds, and get crushed again.

There! Now, to the meat: I had to write 'Nope' because it's technically longer but has the exact same meaning, thus fulfilling the letter of your request without touching the spirit. It was funny on several levels.

You state that the beliefs of people on here cannot be sustained in the face of logic. You stated it in numerous words without any significant meaning, so I simply repeated it back to you more succinctly. Your argument was the equivalent of 'Nuh uh' and mine simply repeated said nuh uh right back.

[Klein_Helmer]

There! Now, to the meat: I had to write 'Nope' because it's technically longer but has the exact same meaning, thus fulfilling the letter of your request without touching the spirit. It was funny on several levels.

You state that the beliefs of people on here cannot be sustained in the face of logic. You stated it in numerous words without any significant meaning, so I simply repeated it back to you more succinctly. Your argument was the equivalent of 'Nuh uh' and mine simply repeated said nuh uh right back.

It is a good thing you have explained your jest, and indicated it to have been, "funny on several levels." I fear, had you not, it may have gone unappreciated. Truly you are a wordsmith with a sparkling, silver tongue.

Unfortunately, with regard to substance, you have missed your mark; and it was a wide miss.

If you are looking for a genuine discussion of this matter, pursue it. If you are looking to ineffectively trade verbal barbs, you should probably bow out.

Here is what I have said, I will gladly respond to any objections you may have.

If the answer to which you are referring is, "Because God (specifically the god described by the church of latter day saints) said so, you are correct.

Beyond that, not so much.

Certainly it is the right of anyone to believe in the supernatural, and any behavioral mandates thereof; but it is unreasonable for any such a one to expect those outside of their specific belief system to grant any credibility to (or entertain in a debate) truisms based on faith alone.

When two people disagree with respect to any given issue, differing spiritual belief systems derived from faith must be left out of the discourse, or there is simply not enough common ground to prevent an impasse.

My point is this: if the lad desires to debate what he deems to be the inherently problematic nature of homosexuality, he has two options:

He can either say homosexuality is wrong, because he has derived this notion from faith in the social standards which he believes to have been outlined by a specific supernatural entity, and the conversation is over; or he can attempt to conduct the conversation on any other grounds, and get crushed again.

Modern western marriage is an institution comprised of mutual love, and legal/social obligations. Assuming we are viewing the issue through a lens which does not involve the disapproval of a god or gods, I believe that two individuals of the same sex are no less capable, and no less likely to love one another, and fulfill their marital obligations than are couples consisting of a male and a female.

Beyond that, I do not believe that human beings are inherently distinct from other mammalian species with regard to their biological sexuality. Seeing as homosexuality occurs in other species of mammals, whether it be consensual, or an act of domination, it only follows that these behaviors would also be present in human beings.

I see these behaviors as natural, and believe that if anyone wishes to make the claim that such behaviors are inherently problematic or wrong, the burden of proof lies with them.

[FunkyTown]

It is a good thing you have explained your jest, and indicated it to have been, "funny on several levels." I fear, had you not, it may have gone unappreciated. Truly you are a wordsmith with a sparkling, silver tongue.

Unfortunately, with regard to substance, you have missed your mark; and it was a wide miss.

If you are looking for a genuine discussion of this matter, pursue it. If you are looking to ineffectively trade verbal barbs, you should probably bow out.

Here is what I have said, I will gladly respond to any objections you may have.

My objection is that you were dismissive? Smarmy? I'm unsure where I'm being unclear. Maybe you can clarify what you don't understand?

Or maybe you don't understand that this isn't your thread and that you should open a thread for debate if you wish that as this thread is about someone claiming to be a fourteen year old who got shouted down on YouTube?

[Klein_Helmer]

My objection is that you were dismissive? Smarmy? I'm unsure where I'm being unclear. Maybe you can clarify what you don't understand?

Or maybe you don't understand that this isn't your thread and that you should open a thread for debate if you wish that as this thread is about someone claiming to be a fourteen year old who got shouted down on YouTube?

Has this degenerated into petty trolling?

If it has not, and you are being serious, allow me to clear something up for you:

It is not your place to moderate this forum, and I am not interested in your misguided thoughts on what is or is not relevant to this thread.

I will say this one more time, as you are the one who seems to be having issues of comprehension:

Discuss this issue with me in a mature fashion, or let it go.

Stop saying you would be able to rebut my arguments, and have a go. I am nearly quivering in anticipation.

[beefche]

I am a moderator and I'm telling you that this thread isn't for debating. Further invitations for debate will be deleted.

[Klein_Helmer]

I am a moderator and I'm telling you that this thread isn't for debating. Further invitations for debate will be deleted.

Owned.

Alright, funkytown, see you on the front page.

[FunkyTown]

EDIT: Beaten to the punch! Cleared this.

Edited April 17, 2012 by FunkyTown

[Vort]

I am a moderator and I'm telling you that this thread isn't for debating. Further invitations for debate will be deleted.

I disagree with you, beefche. Care to debate the point?

[Klein_Helmer]

I disagree with you, beefche. Care to debate the point?

[HEthePrimate]

So a few weeks ago I did a paper on why homosexual marriage is wrong, and ever since then, I have been looking for people to debate on the topic with, as I feel a strong sense of "spirit" whenever I do so. I eventually found myself on youtube, arguing with around 23 different people over 7 videos, and I was soon overwhelmed and depressed because not only was I not able to rebuke the arguments, but I was being bashed for being LDS and my faith began to take a huge nosedive. After about two weeks of bashing my faith and relationship with God had been reduced to rubble and I finally deleted my email account but I still am pretty much back to Sunbeam level. Does anyone have any advice for me? I've fallen back into my old sins again and I feel absolutely horrid and confused because I don't know what to do!

Okay, so I'm reeeaaallly late to this thread. But honestly, my advice is to heed what the bumper sticker says: "If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex." You believe homosexual behavior is sinful, so don't do it. Other people have their free agency, and it's okay if you want to try to convince them to change their ways, but be prepared for them not to accept what you say. Maybe you'll get lucky and convince someone, or maybe not. But if it distresses you that they don't all suddenly convert, then maybe you'd better not get involved with debates.

In any case, whether or not same-sex marriage is right or wrong is not central to the Gospel. IMHO, you would do better to focus on what the gospel is really about, rather than fretting so much about what other people might be doing in the privacy of their own homes.

[Hala401]

Yes, we forget that God has no helpers.

[Vort]

Okay, so I'm reeeaaallly late to this thread. But honestly, my advice is to heed what the bumper sticker says: "If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex."

Typical bumper sticker logic. "If you don't believe in wife beating, don't beat your wife."

[jerome1232]

"If you don't believe in wife beating, don't beat your wife."

Of course we should allow others to do so in the privacy of their own homes, since it doesn't affect anyone but them.

[Dravin]

Of course we should allow others to do so in the privacy of their own homes, since it doesn't affect anyone but them.

Marriage isn't confined to the privacy of one's home, it's a legal contract, social contract, or both depending on how you look at it. One can argue that the interaction between such and society is good, neutral, or outweighed by other considerations but, "Homosexual marriages won't affect anyone besides the participants" is false. It's a question of how, not if.

[jerome1232]

I guess I forgot my <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags, I thought the eyerolly smiley served that purpose though.

[FunkyTown]

I guess I forgot my <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags, I thought the eyerolly smiley served that purpose though.

Herein lies the problem of communication on the net. The eyeroll could have meant "I utterly disregard everything you say and find anything you say as foolish."

When speaking in text, it's generally best to speak as plainly as possible. However, I've been guilty of speaking sarcastically a time or two, so I don't always listen to my own advice.

[Dravin]

I guess I forgot my <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags, I thought the eyerolly smiley served that purpose though.

Your sarcasm came through just fine. You used sarcasm to insinuate the two thoughts couldn't be comparable because wife beating effects other people but homosexual marriages only affect the two participants.

If I've read you wrong then please, restate your thought without sarcasm.

[jerome1232]

Actually I was attacking the line of thought that "Things done in private have no consequences on me or society"

[Dravin]

Actually I was attacking the line of thought that "Things done in private have no consequences on me or society"

Okay, I did not take that from your post as that wasn't a thought Vort was advancing. Quoting Vort as you did I assumed your sacrasm was aimed at rebuttle.

One of the downsides of sarcasm, it's easier to tell what isn't being said than what is being said sometimes.

[Hala401]

Of course we should allow others to do so in the privacy of their own homes, since it doesn't affect anyone but them.

Only if wife consents.

[HEthePrimate]

Typical bumper sticker logic. "If you don't believe in wife beating, don't beat your wife."

That comparison is stupid.

In a case of domestic abuse, the victim does not voluntarily participate or consent to being beaten. A crime has been committed by one person against another.

Two consenting adults having homosexual relations is an entirely different matter.

I keep asking people to explain to me exactly how homosexuals having sex affects anybody else, and how it threatens traditional marriage. Nobody's ever answered that question. If you can, please, enlighten me!