Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble

[Klein_Helmer]

Dravin, may I interpret your and others' recent activity in this thread as an overruling of Che's earlier judgment?

I would rather not make another thread; I would not want to become overexposed, after all.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Klein_Helmer

[Timpman]

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!

Wickedness affects all of society. Doesn't God judge societies? We all benefit or suffer according to the righteousness or wickedness of America as a whole. While this is true, I do not know what should or should not be legal. That's another matter. However, I know that the activists should not try to FORCE us to acknowledge and/or condone their relationships by granting marriage.

[Vort]

That comparison is stupid.

No, it's perfectly valid. If you insist on classifying things as "stupid", look no further than your (il)logical statement.

[Timpman]

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!

More on this: When marriage is applied to to same-sex couples, it degrades the significance, sanctify, and meaning of marriage. Yes, opposite-sex couples degrade marriage in various ways, but that doesn't mean society should go ahead and make it even worse. Edited April 18, 2012 by Timpman

[HEthePrimate]

No, it's perfectly valid. If you insist on classifying things as "stupid", look no further than your (il)logical statement.

No, it's not valid. If you don't understand the difference between physical assault and two lovers having consensual sex, then you have serious issues.

[HEthePrimate]

More on this: When marriage is applied to to same-sex couples, it degrades the significance, sanctify, and meaning of marriage. Yes, opposite-sex couples degrade marriage in various ways, but that doesn't mean society should go ahead and make it even worse.

How?

[Vort]

No, it's not valid. If you don't understand the difference between physical assault and two lovers having consensual sex, then you have serious issues.

Yes, it's perfectly valid. You are either too ignorant to understand logical argumentation or too dishonest to engage in it.

[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.

Dravin, may I interpret your and others' recent activity in this thread as an overruling of Che's earlier judgment?

I would rather not make another thread; I would not want to become overexposed, after all.

It seems the debate has resumed, and this thread is in need of a dissenting opinion.

Would anyone care to address my earlier thoughts on the matter, from a secular point of view? I believe that could make for some laughs, and after all, is there any other reason to be posting on internet fora?

Vort? monkeytown?

[HEthePrimate]

Yes, it's perfectly valid. You are either too ignorant to understand logical argumentation or too dishonest to engage in it.

Okay, assume you're talking to a four-year-old.

Explain to me how having sex with someone you love is the moral equivalent of beating somebody up.

Look, Vort, I get that you consider homosexual sex to be a sin. But there's a difference between a sin and a crime.

That you're resorting to ad hominems is a signal that you don't have a good argument.

[Klein_Helmer]

More on this: When marriage is applied to to same-sex couples, it degrades the significance, sanctify, and meaning of marriage. Yes, opposite-sex couples degrade marriage in various ways, but that doesn't mean society should go ahead and make it even worse.

What did you think of Who wants to Marry a Millionaire and the like, or any number of fashionably meaningless (heterosexual) celebrity marriages?

[Vort]

Okay, assume you're talking to a four-year-old.

All right, four-year-old.

When we talk about one thing, we usually only talk about it. Talking about other things, especially if they're related (big word -- means that they're kind of the same but not really), makes things confusing.

Explain to me how having sex with someone you love is the moral equivalent of beating somebody up.

No.

Look, Vort, I get that you consider homosexual sex to be a sin. But there's a difference between a sin and a crime.

And there's a difference between edible snails and the Constitution of the United States of America. Which has just about as much relevance as your offering.

That you're resorting to ad hominems is a signal that you don't have a good argument.

You are lying. It is you, not I, that resorted to ad hominems. I'm quite sure "stupid" was your word.

[Connie]

Okay, assume you're talking to a four-year-old.

Explain to me how having sex with someone you love is the moral equivalent of beating somebody up.

Look, Vort, I get that you consider homosexual sex to be a sin. But there's a difference between a sin and a crime.

That you're resorting to ad hominems is a signal that you don't have a good argument.

HEP, you are thinking in terms of secular legality. Put secular legality aside for a minute and think in terms of God's law.

Now, in terms of the law of God, what do sex with someone you're not married to (God's definition of marriage being "a covenant or contract between a man and a woman"), regardless of whether or not they love each other, and wife beating have in common?

Ding, ding, ding... that's right! They're both considered a sin and are against the law of God. And what's the law of God?.... the truest definition of morality (secular legality being a good definition of morality only insofar as it follows God's law). Yes?

[HEthePrimate]

All right, four-year-old.

When we talk about one thing, we usually only talk about it. Talking about other things, especially if they're related (big word -- means that they're kind of the same but not really), makes things confusing.

You're the one who started comparing apples and oranges (homosexual sex to wife beating), not me.

No.

Presumably because you don't have a logical argument.

And there's a difference between edible snails and the Constitution of the United States of America. Which has just about as much relevance as your offering.

What the heck are you talking about?

You are lying. It is you, not I, that resorted to ad hominems. I'm quite sure "stupid" was your word.

Had I called YOU stupid, that would have been an ad hominem. However, I did not call you stupid--I called your comparison of homosexual sex to wife beating stupid. That was not an ad hominem. Look it up.

[Hala401]

A frustrating problem I have seen in people is that they seem to somehow feel entitled to judge the actions of another, even when their own actions are less than stellar. I do not "get" homosexual intercourse, it is icky to me. However, and this is my Islam sticking with me, is that we are not to judge another person. Yes, Islam has the same sorts of rules in that regard but they too seem to think it is somehow acceptable to weazle out of that and set themselves up as little Gods.

Yet, some Islamic authorities seem to think it is right to stone and hang the offenders. I would hate to think that the LDS church, with all that the members present and past have experienced would do it.

My feelings are quite harsh and strong on the subject because I have experienced it myself.

[HEthePrimate]

HEP, you are thinking in terms of secular legality. Put secular legality aside for a minute and think in terms of God's law.

Now, in terms of the law of God, what do sex with someone you're not married to (God's definition of marriage being "a covenant or contract between a man and a woman"), regardless of whether or not they love each other, and wife beating have in common?

Ding, ding, ding... that's right! They're both considered a sin and are against the law of God. And what's the law of God?.... the truest definition of morality (secular legality being a good definition of morality only insofar as it follows God's law). Yes?

You're right, I am talking about secular legality. Nowhere in this conversation have I argued that homosexual sex is not a sin. But there is a difference between sin and crime, unless you live in a theocracy.

I live in a secular nation that separates church and state. That allows people of different religious faiths to believe and practice their different religions, or lack thereof, as they will, and peacefully coexist. Some religions do not consider homosexual sex to be a sin, and allow same-sex marriage. Do we have a right to prevent them from practicing their religion by legally disallowing same-sex marriage?

The state can forbid certain religious practices if those practices infringe on the rights of others. If you can demonstrate to me how a homosexual couple getting married infringes on other people's rights, then you may have a case for a legal proscription against gay marriage. However, all you folks are telling me is that "God says gay people shouldn't get married." Well, Jews and Muslims say "God says you shouldn't eat pork," but I enjoy a nice porkchop every once in a while, so they're just going to have to deal with it. If I eat a ham sandwich, that doesn't force a Jew to eat a ham sandwich.

So, ONCE AGAIN I ask, how does a gay couple getting married infringe on my rights, or on anybody else's? HOW does it threaten traditional marriage? As far as I know, straight couples are still free to get traditionally married and live happy lives all they want.

[Timpman]

How?

A Ferrari is an awesome grand tourer (GT). Apply the moniker to a Ford Mustang, and then people think a GT is like a Mustang. People look at and and think "that's it?" A real GT, however, is much grander. Yes, it is a perception thing. Others can't do anything to degrade the marriage of any specific couple, but it lowers the perception of marriage as a whole.

Also, as homosexual acts are condoned more and more by society, participation in those acts increases. Yes, that does mean I believe someone who is heterosexual can "change teams" or go "both ways." Then society continues on it's downward spiral.

With the way the Church has shown opposition to same-sex marriage, how can you possibly believe it's not a bad thing?

[Vort]

All right, Primate, I will try again. Please pay attention and, unlike you typically do, read carefully. Do not assume you already know what I think or what I am going to say. Rather, read what I write, then analyze.

You made the following statement:

"If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex."

The logic (such as it is) of this statement and of your subsequent explanation is obvious: "If you don't agree with X, then do not do X. But do not stop anyone else from doing X."

This logic is specious -- as I characterized it, "bumper sticker logic". From this same (il)logic comes saying such as: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." "Don't like child molestation? Don't molest children." "Don't like wife beating? Don't beat your wife."

Clearly, the unqualified logic is insufficient. On its own, it cannot withstand scrutiny. Yet you offered no qualifications, just the mindless slogan. I pointed out your logical failure (though, please note, I did not call personally you out on it; I simply quoted your silly statement and named it as poor logic).

Your response was, of course:

"That comparison is stupid."

But then you utterly fail to illustrate how or why the comparison is stupid. Instead, you start talking about "consent". But your initial bumper-sticker-worthy statement said nothing about consent. It was a statement of equivalence: "Don't like X? Don't do X." Why didn't you qualify your logic? I certainly do not know. Instead, you start throwing around words like "stupid".

So I point out that, if you really want to start calling things "stupid", you should begin with your silly statement. And then, in a humorous irony, you (Mister "That comparison is stupid") accuse me of using ad hominems!

Surely even you can appreciate the absurdity of this.

After saying my comparison was "stupid", you then go on to talk about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT: Consenting adults engaging in homosex. But of course, that is not honest of you. It is classic bait-and-switch. You were talking about "homosexual marriage", not homosex.

A dishonest debate tactic, Primate. So why did you use it?

Then you demand that I somehow illustrate the equivalence between consenting adults engaging in homosex and a man beating his wife.

Now, why on God's green earth would I possibly consent to attempt a justification of such a ridiculous opinion?

You were dishonest to try to imply that I had stated any such thing. I will not take responsibility for your lies, Primate. And I will not jump through your ridiculous hoops while letting you pretend I have said something that I manifestly have NOT said.

You have acted dishonestly in this entire exchange. I invite you to admit your dishonesty and pledge to be more honest in the future, or else to explain in detail how the lies that you told, which I have quoted and named above, are in fact not lies at all.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Vort

[HEthePrimate]

A frustrating problem I have seen in people is that they seem to somehow feel entitled to judge the actions of another, even when their own actions are less than stellar. I do not "get" homosexual intercourse, it is icky to me. However, and this is my Islam sticking with me, is that we are not to judge another person. Yes, Islam has the same sorts of rules in that regard but they too seem to think it is somehow acceptable to weazle out of that and set themselves up as little Gods.

Yet, some Islamic authorities seem to think it is right to stone and hang the offenders. I would hate to think that the LDS church, with all that the members present and past have experienced would do it.

My feelings are quite harsh and strong on the subject because I have experienced it myself.

You would think that LDS people, in light of their history with polygamy--and society's condemnation of that practice--would understand this. It is supremely ironic that the arguments non-Mormons made to make polygamy illegal are the very same arguments that Mormons are now using against same-sex marriage.

[Vort]

You're the one who started comparing apples and oranges (homosexual sex to wife beating), not me.

You are lying, Primate. Nowhere did I make any such comparison. I defy you to find something I wrote that says any such thing.

Presumably because you don't have a logical argument.

Says the person openly engaging in dishonest and illogical argumentation.

What the heck are you talking about?

I am talking about the irrelevance and non sequitur nature of the statements you have been presenting in your attempt at "logic".

Had I called YOU stupid, that would have been an ad hominem. However, I did not call you stupid--I called your comparison of homosexual sex to wife beating stupid. That was not an ad hominem. Look it up.

Ah. I see. Then please illustrate where I have engaged in any ad hominems.

Your arguments were wrong. I have illustrated that. I see two possibilities for your wrong arguments:

1. You are ignorant.

2. You are lying.

Is there a third possibility I'm missing? If so, please fill me in. Otherwise, my statement was not an ad hominem, but a full explication of the possibilities of the situation.

[Connie]

So, ONCE AGAIN I ask, how does a gay couple getting married infringe on my rights, or on anybody else's? HOW does it threaten traditional marriage? As far as I know, straight couples are still free to get traditionally married and live happy lives all they want.

But that's not the question i was responding to.

I was responding to this:

Explain to me how having sex with someone you love is the moral equivalent of beating somebody up.

Which i explained to you.... You're welcome. :)

[Timpman]

I live in a secular nation that separates church and state.

That's not as concrete as you might think. The Constitution merely says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does NOT say that morals and religions can not or do not affect laws.

[Backroads]

It does NOT say that morals and religions can not or do not affect laws.

Me thinks that would be pretty trick to prevent.

"All right, folks, we want to make a law for such-n-such, but it can't agree with anyone's personal morals/codes of conduct".

[HEthePrimate]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now for a full response, and will have to get back to you later.

Suffice it to say, Vort, that your bumper sticker thing was a straw man argument. Your bumper sticker bore a superficial resemblance to my bumper sticker, which resemblance you attempted to use to discount what I was saying. But in reality it wasn't relevant, which is why I was talking about it.

Apologies for this short answer, but I've got to go for now.

[Vort]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now for a full response, and will have to get back to you later.

Suffice it to say, Vort, that your bumper sticker thing was a straw man argument. Your bumper sticker bore a superficial resemblance to my bumper sticker, which resemblance you attempted to use to discount what I was saying. But in reality it wasn't relevant, which is why I was talking about it.

Apologies for this short answer, but I've got to go for now.

In other words, you refuse to admit to your lies, even when they are pointed out and made explicit.

Why am I not surprised?

EDIT: To repeat, I invite you to admit your dishonesty and pledge to be more honest in the future, or else to explain in detail how the lies that you told, which I have quoted and named above, are in fact not lies at all.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Vort

[Vort]

Fair enough, I am in a similar situation at the moment with regard to my availability for an involved discussion.

To get the ball rolling, my position, in a nutshell, is this:

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.

This is a clear explanation of your position. Thank you for it. I actually agree with much of it, but obviously I don't agree with your conclusions.

Consider: Throughout the history of human society, there has never been a recorded period when homosexual unions were blessed as "marriage" in the same way as heterosexual unions. Never (unless you include very recent Western trends).

Now, it is manifestly false to claim that homosexual activity has been uniformly condemned throughout history by all human cultures. On the contrary, homosexual activity was tolerated and even encouraged in various cultures. One egregious example is the ancient Greeks, among whom homosexuality was very literally institutionalized and formed an important part of their worldview. Yet even here, the Greeks never made the idea of "marriage" something that included same-sex individuals.

Why is that? It's not because the ancients hated homosexuality or homosexual acts. So what is it?

I believe the answer is so obvious that we don't see it. Life itself is created by a union of the sexes. I believe that human society is likewise a creation due to the union of the sexes. The family -- parents and children -- are the very foundation of society. There have existed a very few societies that did not embrace something resembling the "nuclear family"; I am aware of one, though there may be others. Their life was that of hunter-gatherers, technologically primitive and exceptionally violent. In almost all human societies, ancient or modern, old world, new world, Africa, or Papua New Guinea, society has been organized around the family, consisting of a man and his wife (or, rarely, wives) plus their children, possibly extended for several generations.

There is a reason we exalt this union of man and woman above all other social or even sexual unions between people. Societies are very literally built upon this family unit. In biological terms, the family is the basic funtional unit of society, just as the cell is the basic functional unit of life and the atom the basic functional unit of chemistry.

Homosexual unions per se do not directly threaten so-called "traditional marriage". But elevating homosexual unions to the status of "marriage" undermines the very foundation of our society -- the union of the sexes. If that heterosexual union is not widely recognized as the (singular) basis of social construction and interaction, the foundation upon which we have constructed society is deeply and importantly changed.

It is my opinion that this change will lead inevitably to the collapse of society. I have no hard proof of this, but of course, those who disagree with me have no hard proof that it won't do so. Can you prove a negative? Of course not. But those who advocate the absolutely unprecedented broadening of the institution of marriage to encompass homosexual relationships are the agents of change, so the onus is on them to demonstrate that it will help and not harm society.

Philosophically, I recognize that men and women, though both human and therefore mostly similar, have many fundamentally different perceptions of the world, society, each other, and themselves. It has been argued (somewhat convincingly, I think) that societies were really established to protect women and children, and that the result was that men, too, benefited as much as anyone else.

This is a much easier argument to make from a common religious basis. Denying or rejecting the religious argument means that we have to find some other basis of commonality to build from. The desirability of human society seems to me as good a basis as anything on which to found the conversation. Looking through the long view of history and considering an evolutionary view of the matter, how does humanity or human society benefit from establishing homosexual union as being of the same societal value as heterosexual marriage? Do you believe that the children of ten million homosexual couples will grow up to put the same value in the union of the sexes as the children of ten million heterosexual couples?

Consider one fairly popular science fiction scenario: The societal separation of men and women. This is the obvious end point of pursuing the homosexual union establishment. Is this desirable? Silly sci-fi ponderings aside, we have an approximate real-world example in ancient Sparta. The men were culturally as well as societally separated from the women, and the two sexes lived separate, parallel lives. Obviously, homosexuality was established and formalized at every level of this society*, starting from about age six. One of my children had a female teacher who rhapsodized about Sparta, openly claiming that if she could choose the historical period in which she could live, she would choose Sparta, because the women had so many rights and such self-determination. I would be only too happy to see her gain her wish, though I suspect that after about two minutes, she would be screaming for relief. Read about life in ancient Sparta some time. It was as close to a true depiction of living in Hell as I can imagine. Torturous death would literally be preferable to living in ancient Sparta (though life there often ended in exactly that manner). These are people who denied and eschewed all but the most basic functions of heterosexual marriage and the societal union of the sexes. They were in many measures a very successful society, yet I don't believe that one person in a thousand would actually wish to live in such an indescribably hellish society.

*(Amazingly enough, even in ancient Sparta, same-sex unions were never considered "marriage". That was between a warrior and his woman -- though the bride was normally shaved bald or given a very short haircut on her wedding day, ostensibly to make the groom view the sexual experience with her as more "normal", similar to the sexual experiences he was used to having.)

And for all its unthinkable horrors, living in ancient Sparta would probably have been much preferable to living in the hunter-gatherer-level societies that most of our ancient ancestors were a part of. Yet those are the only societies of which I know that did not give special and important consideration to the fundamental man-woman union known as marraige.

I believe that we literally could lose our society, right down to the foundations, by abandoning the sanctification of male-female marriage above any and all other social structures. And while I concede that I cannot prove my misgivings, I maintain that it is the responsibility of those who advocate social change to prove sufficiently that such fears are misguided before we irresponsibly risk twelve thousand years of painful societal evolution on a grand experiment whose purpose is, frankly, to gratify the sexual appetites of a very small minority of the population.

I have not done a great job of explaining my position, I realize. But the issues are large and complex, and I have never tried to put them to (electronic) paper before. I do not expect you to agree with me, but hopefully you can understand the basis of my arguments from what I have written.

EDIT: Reading through this, it occurs to me that your basis for marriage appears to be of personal benefits accruing to the couple. In my view, the importance of marriage is from the benefits accruing to society, which are so desirable -- indeed, vital -- that we work to make marriage as attractive as possible to young men and women. Those benefits -- the intercourse, sexual and otherwise, between the sexes upon which society rests -- do not follow homosexual unions. So whether a society allows or forbids homosexual unions, it must never place them, or any other relationship, on par with so-called "traditional" heterosexual marriage.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Vort