Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble

[bytor2112]

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!

__________________

I think the original OP was referring to homosexual marriage....not homosexual sex. You have referred numerous times to homosexual sex, rather than marriage.

So, I guess one could say that homosexuals having sex doesn't affect traditional marriage...so why do they need to be married? (aside from our LDS beliefs that it does affect them and society at large)

Edited April 19, 2012 by bytor2112

[Klein_Helmer]

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.

Thank very much for your thoughtful response. I am looking forward to giving it a closer reading, and offering a few more thoughts of my own. I will not be able to do so just now, but I wanted to be sure you were aware that I had read your post, and appreciate the time you took to put it out.

[PeterVenkman]

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!

DevtheWind,

I know that many people in this thread are encouraging you to abandon the debate, to read the scriptures and strengthen your testimony. Many people in this thread say that you have nothing to gain from talking about this issue with others. I disagree, and I truly hope you keep up the spirit of intellectual debate!

I am a college and high school debate coach. One thing that I have learned as a debate coach is that there is immense value in disagreement (also known as "agonism"). I believe agonism is inevitable, and that debating is the key to actualizing a true democracy. The real promise of democracy is that people can govern themselves, but that requires the public to desire a robust discussion about different perspectives and promote education and critical thinking. Running away from disagreement isn't going to solve anything. In fact, running away from disagreement seems to cause more hardship.

If your faith is being tested by your debates with others on Youtube, I say that is AWESOME! There are two reasons why I say this:

1. The LDS church invites and encourages every member to question the truth of the gospel. It is common in the church to hear church leaders say that meditating about the gospel and questioning its truth will lead to a sign or a message or a spiritual feeling that will guide you to the truth. When people bear their testimonies, they usually say "I know this church is true", but they have to come to that knowledge some how. In my opinion, this requires some sort of inner searching. It seems to me that your debates online with other people are a means of testing the contours and limits of your faith, which is good. After all, the church believes that the holy spirit will step in to defend you (like the power to speak in tongues) and that may be the most powerful sign you can ever encounter regarding the truth of the gospel.

2. In my experience with debate, I have learned that every good argument has a good response. I fundamentally believe that learning the arguments of your opponents and understanding the positions that you absolutely hate are a method for strengthening your own beliefs. I think that your debates online will most likely have the effect of strengthening your testimony, because it will force you to develop THE BEST arguments in defense of your beliefs. After all, you can't make a diamond without a little bit of pressure.

Finally, I just want to repeat a line from law school that was very valuable to me: "The answer to bad speech is not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech." In other words, if you disagree with someone's perspective, you should not ignore them. On the contrary, you should talk about it EVEN MORE because that is the only way you can overcome what you consider to be bad speech. It helps you think through your arguments and strengthen your resolve.

So, ultimately, my point is that continuing to debate and challenge yourself will actually strengthen your testimony in the long run.

[PeterVenkman]

And to the others in this thread:

Klein Helmer I like your writing style and its not just because I agree with your arguments. Give us more of you to read.

Not sure whether to post this in this thread or the other homosexuality thread that is happening right now (Gay LDS students make video), but I have been thinking about how to more clearly express an opinion on this.

A few years ago the Proposition 8 campaign was happening and there was a very robust debate about gay marriage on this forum. I had a big part in those discussions and posted some arguments that I think are still relevant today. Specifically, I made arguments about:

1. the right to marriage under equal protection and due process (constitutional guarantees)

2. marriage as a form of expression protected by the first amendment

3. the need for a secular (non-religious) justification for denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians (which doesn't exist)

4. the social implications of heteronormativity

Despite the fact that we are re-hashing some of the same issues, I am glad that the discussion is still occurring today. In truth, the fact that we are still discussing the exact same concepts as we were in 2008 seems to show that, as much as some would like, this topic is not going away. Gay rights will continue to be a topic of conversation until something changes. Simply put, the status quo is no longer sustainable.

I could type out an extremely long post laying out the basic concepts once again (since they are starting to bud in this thread), but instead I simply refer you to a few books from which many of my arguments derive. I HIGHLY recommend that you read these books, because they present important arguments about sexuality, power and relationships:

1. The History of Sexuality (volumes 1, 2 and 3) by Michel Foucault

2. Gender Trouble by Judith Butler

We talk so much about the "institution" of marriage, but marriage today is vastly different than it was 100 years ago. Aspects of human behavior that we consider "human nature" today didn't exist or were reversed at the turn of the 19th century. This is an important part of the conversation.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

I get this but respectfully disagree. Morality does get legislated--every day. We cannot speed, we cannot pay sub-minimum wages, and in most states gays cannot marry. Social consensus can be presented as draconian, but every society has it to some extent. I agree with the libertarians amongst us to some extent--less is better. However, I disagree that none is best. Therefore, I find it totally reasonable and worthy for some to take up a defense of your church's moral stance on marriage.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

Sometimes the victim is so conditioned that s/he does passively, yet voluntarily participate. And alas, are we not discussing whether or not society should recognize these partnerships to be the same as marriage? Okay, so not criminal law...but we are discussing law.

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

Two adults who demand that society give them the same moral approval for their choices as given to traditional married couples. Just who is it bringing the relationship out of the bedroom and into the public square?

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!

I'm confused. Is someone advocating criminalizing same-sex relationships? I thought the debate was whether society MUST recognize same sex partnerships as morally the same as traditional marriage.

[Vort]

Despite the fact that we are re-hashing some of the same issues, I am glad that the discussion is still occurring today.

Of course you are. People don't approve of child rape, but if we will just keep talking about it long enough, it will finally seep into the public conscience, and people may eventually quit seeing it as such a big deal. I mean, age of consent? That's totally arbitrary. What we call "child rape" is just another expression of human sexuality. And as well all know, all expressions of human sexuality are equally beautiful.

I don't buy this argument, of course, but I have heard it so many times over so many years that I know just how it goes.

[PeterVenkman]

Of course you are. People don't approve of child rape, but if we will just keep talking about it long enough, it will finally seep into the public conscience, and people may eventually quit seeing it as such a big deal. I mean, age of consent? That's totally arbitrary. What we call "child rape" is just another expression of human sexuality. And as well all know, all expressions of human sexuality are equally beautiful.

I don't buy this argument, of course, but I have heard it so many times over so many years that I know just how it goes.

Or...maybe the reason there is so much child abuse is because there aren't enough conversations about how to deal with such a huge problem. Child abuse is rampant all over the world, and maybe that is because any discussion of the matter is silenced as quickly as possible. In a previous post I recommended the writings of Michel Foucault, who argues in a separate text that exposing violent power is a method for disarming it.

I'm not sure who you are associating with that keeps defending child abuse in your debates, and I don't agree with the line of thinking you've presented, but then again you are making a slippery slope argument so I guess it doesn't matter. My point is that more conversation about a topic sharpens its logical justifications rather than making them more ambiguous. For instance, debate about the age of consent has given rise to the best arguments why it is not arbitrary. Vort, you and I probably disagree about everything except for the power of reason. I believe the power of reason will ultimately pave the way to federal legal marriage equality. More conversations will eventually sharpen the arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if you felt similar about the opposite conclusion.

[HEthePrimate]

Okay, part of the confusion is my fault. I was sloppy to switch between same-sex marriage and homosexual sex. So for now I’ll stick to same-sex marriage. It was not meant to be a bait-and-switch, and it was not me being dishonest. It was just me being sloppy.

Having said that, I’m sticking to my basic argument. Nobody has yet explained to me how same-sex marriage threatens the traditional family. In my opinion, the bumper sticker slogan “Don’t agree with same-sex marriage? Then don’t marry someone of the same sex” is valid. Just because it’s on a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Heck, I could have “Love thy neighbor as thyself” printed on a bumper sticker, but the words of Jesus would not suddenly become “specious logic” as a result.

In an attempt to show how “ridiculous” my bumper sticker slogan was, Vort introduced another one, “Don’t agree with wife beating? Then don’t beat your wife.” Though that superficially resembles my bumper sticker, it is actually quite a different thing, and therefore represents a straw man argument—Vort was not addressing the same argument. Wife beating is different than same-sex marriage for a number of reasons, including having nothing to do with love, being non-consensual, and involving bodily harm. If Vort wants to use his bumper sticker to invalidate mine, then he’ll have to explain how that’s not a straw man argument. Until then, I feel fully justified in calling it a stupid comparison.

Instead of addressing the real issues, Vort instead resorted to ad hominem name calling. Just a few examples:

You are either too ignorant to understand logical argumentation or too dishonest to engage in it.

You are lying.

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

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.

Vort, instead of addressing the actual question of the debate, instead repeatedly attacks my character by calling me dishonest, and a liar. I have not lied once throughout this debate, and have argued in good faith. I have already admitted to sloppiness in mixing up same-sex marriage with homosexual sex, but I have never been dishonest, and so I would appreciate it if he would stop making those accusations against me and instead stick to the topic at hand. When it comes right down to it, though, I suspect that the problem people have with same-sex marriage IS homosexual sex, not hospital visiting rights or questions of inheritance.

You will notice that I have not called Vort dishonest or stupid. I called the comparison of the two bumper sticker slogans stupid. The former would have been ad hominem, but not the latter.

Anyway, stupid arguments with Vort aside, my basic point is that I see no reason that same-sex marriage should be illegal. People like to assert that it somehow undermines the family, but nobody is willing or able to explain how. The LDS religion asserts that it would be sinful. That's fine, assert away. But other religions do not believe the same way, and want to be free to marry homosexual couples. Why should one religion be allowed to use the force of law to impose its standards on people of another religion if the practice in question (same-sex marriage) doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

Just to be clear, I am not arguing in favor of homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage. I am simply questioning our right for force our ways on people of other faiths. A few blocks from where I live is a Methodist church that openly supports gay rights. What gives Mormons the right to deny the Methodists the ability to marry gay couples according to their beliefs?

[DevtheWind]

Hey, thanks all for your wonderful posts from previous to those who will post in the future, including the debates, although I never intended it to really blossom into a gay marriage debate, It's always fun to see how those turn out. Anyways, thanks all, it has really helped, especially the first 4 or 5 posts (not hating on the rest of ya) I'm feeling a lot better now, reading the BoM, praying, and studying my PB.

[Dravin]

Just because it’s on a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Heck, I could have “Love thy neighbor as thyself” printed on a bumper sticker, but the words of Jesus would not suddenly become “specious logic” as a result.

Nobody claimed something being printed on a bumper sticker makes it wrong. If you're attributing this position to anyone in this thread you are engaging in a straw man. If such is the case it is comments like this that get you accused of using dishonest debating tactics. As does asking people who have not stated that X and Y are equivalent to explain how it is, maybe it shouldn't be the case but in situations such as these doing such usually gives the implication that you are attributing that position to them. I have in mind your asking Vort to explain how homosexual sex is morally equivalent to wife beating.

In an attempt to show how “ridiculous” my bumper sticker slogan was, Vort introduced another one, “Don’t agree with wife beating? Then don’t beat your wife.” Though that superficially resembles my bumper sticker, it is actually quite a different thing, and therefore represents a straw man argument—Vort was not addressing the same argument.

No it's not. It's highlighting the argument, "Don't like it, don't do it." So it is addressing the argument. In this post I'm quoting you go forth to make some qualifications such as, apparently, "Don't like it, don't do it." only applies to love, consent, and not involving bodily harm. This is good, it gets to the heart of the matter, that is the validity of the logic that was used.

Here is the issue Primate, none of that is mentioned on the 'bumper sticker', the sum logic of the bumper sticker is, "Don't like it, don't do it." Which clearly is insufficient when unqualified else you'd be in agreement with Vort's bumper sticker (which is what his bumper sticker was designed to highlight). [As an aside this is why your foray into stating your qualifications (instead of leaving them implied) is a good thing.] So when you accuse Vort of comparing homosexual relations to wife beating you meet dismissal because: He did not compare homosexual relations to wife beating, he compared the logic of the two bumper stickers/arguments.

If someone says, "I bought something at a fast food joint, so it must be a Big Mac." and someone responds, "That logic is on par with: I picked it off a tree, so it must be an apple." They are not comparing Big Macs to apples, they're comparing the logic. This is the fundamental disconnect. You think Vort is saying something he isn't, so when you ask, "Why did you say that?" his response is, "I didn't.*"

*And in your defense he did so in a blunt and terse way.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Dravin

[Mute]

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!

If you were a bit older, I'd ask if you were in my class. Our college class also had a debate on whether or not gay marriage is wrong. I'm around 51% agnostic and 49% atheist. So my views had absolutely nothing to do with religion. I could give you a lot of my secular reasons for disagreeing with gay marriage but I don't know what good that would do you. Arguing things can help you to think and develop better arguments but if it's not making you happy, I'd stay away from it and just take two steps back.

Think for a moment. Why are you against it? Is there any reason other than religion that you are against this topic? If there is such a thing as a spirit, I can't imagine that is what you're feeling when searching out arguments for this subject. If I were in your shoes, I'd just avoid the arguing with others. Think on the subject for a bit and sort out your thoughts for why you feel the way you do. It may help give you a peace of mind but I would avoid going out of your way to look for people to debate with.