Bednar claims the church is growing and vibrant

[Marcus]

...Your claim that Bednar labeled SSA as a sin is flat out wrong... Bednar’s whole argument is that being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is not a sin. It’s right there in the transcript of the answer...

Ok. Sure.

[Marcus]

Sigh. I don't know why you've decided to take this route. Maybe it is simple contrarianism. But the point has been fully made that Bednar has inappropriately labeled SSA as a sin, a physical limitation, a defect. You're on your own if you want to keep arguing that Bednar had a more glorious vision than that. You do you, son.

And you still can’t state his actual argument without strawmanning him.

Why? Because going for the silly cheap shot makes it trivially easy to dismiss your opinion based on bias alone. Review the bidding here. First in this thread was a cheap shot about no homosexuals in the church based on omitting context critical to understanding what he said. I mean, the Sun couldn’t have done it better.

We’ve also had the insinuation that Bednar beats his wide based on a joke.

Then we’ve got this claim about what Bednar meant by a couple of clauses that are ambiguous, with you choosing the nonsensical alternative because you have a low opinion of Bednar.

My own opinion is that Bednar takes a proposition we would all agree with, but then engages in some slight of hand to get to a conclusion that is damaging to LDS members that self Identify as anything other than cis-het. The first step in refuting his argument is to understand it, which means making a good faith a attempt to understand his argument without strawmanning it or talking silly cheap shots.

Your claim that Bednar labeled SSA as a sin is flat out wrong. SSA=Same Sex Attraction. Bednar’s whole argument is that being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is not a sin. It’s right there in the transcript of the answer. So, what you claim has been “fully established” is 100% wrong. Before one can legitimately claim that something is fully established, one must actually establish it.

The entire point of Bednar’s answer is the opposite of what you claim he is saying. He is presenting an argument that tries to justify the church’s position on homosexuality without saying that being a homosexual or, as he would put it, a person who is challenged by same sex attraction, is a sin.

Here’s how I would summarize his argument based on doing my best to understand his words:

We are all children of God who are presented with challenges in this life. We don’t all face the same challenges, and we don’t get to choose our challenges. SSA is one challenge some of us face. Being challenged is not a sin. Feeling a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex is not a sin. It’s simply a challenge...

And that's where we disagree.it is NOT a challenge, it simply is you, who escalate it to a challenge,because you still can't see it as a normal part of life.

That is the key point. It is a normal part of life.

[Res Ipsa]

And you still can’t state his actual argument without strawmanning him.

Why? Because going for the silly cheap shot makes it trivially easy to dismiss your opinion based on bias alone. Review the bidding here. First in this thread was a cheap shot about no homosexuals in the church based on omitting context critical to understanding what he said. I mean, the Sun couldn’t have done it better.

We’ve also had the insinuation that Bednar beats his wide based on a joke.

Then we’ve got this claim about what Bednar meant by a couple of clauses that are ambiguous, with you choosing the nonsensical alternative because you have a low opinion of Bednar.

My own opinion is that Bednar takes a proposition we would all agree with, but then engages in some slight of hand to get to a conclusion that is damaging to LDS members that self Identify as anything other than cis-het. The first step in refuting his argument is to understand it, which means making a good faith a attempt to understand his argument without strawmanning it or talking silly cheap shots.

Your claim that Bednar labeled SSA as a sin is flat out wrong. SSA=Same Sex Attraction. Bednar’s whole argument is that being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex is not a sin. It’s right there in the transcript of the answer. So, what you claim has been “fully established” is 100% wrong. Before one can legitimately claim that something is fully established, one must actually establish it.

The entire point of Bednar’s answer is the opposite of what you claim he is saying. He is presenting an argument that tries to justify the church’s position on homosexuality without saying that being a homosexual or, as he would put it, a person who is challenged by same sex attraction, is a sin.

Here’s how I would summarize his argument based on doing my best to understand his words:

And that's where we disagree.it is NOT a challenge, it simply is you, who escalate it to a challenge,because you still can't see it as a normal part of life.

That is the key point. It is a normal part of life.

I’m not sure who you’re disagreeing with here. Are you saying that I’ve incorrectly summarized Bednar’s argument? Or are you disagreeing with Bednar’s argument?

[Marcus]

And that's where we disagree.it is NOT a challenge, it simply is you, who escalate it to a challenge,because you still can't see it as a normal part of life.

That is the key point. It is a normal part of life.

I’m not sure who you’re disagreeing with here. Are you saying that I’ve incorrectly summarized Bednar’s argument? Or are you disagreeing with Bednar’s argument?

Yes. You have incorrectly summarized Bednar's argument. And I am also disagreeing with bednar's position, as I have stated it.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m not sure who you’re disagreeing with here. Are you saying that I’ve incorrectly summarized Bednar’s argument? Or are you disagreeing with Bednar’s argument?

Yes. You have incorrectly summarized Bednar's argument. And I am also disagreeing with bednar's position, as I have stated it.

What is incorrect about my summary? If I’ve misrepresented what he says, I’ll be happy to correct it.

I disagree with with Bednar’s argument as I summarized it. And as you summarized it.

With respect to your counterargument, Bednar portrays challenges as part of normal life: We all have challenges — nothing abnormal about that. The argument that Bednar is actually making is actually a deescalation from the older claim that “homosexuality is a sin.” That’s a tricksy part of the argument — it avoids placing any negative label on someone who experiences SSA.

Look, if you’re going to insist that SSA isn’t a sin means SSA is a sin, I’ll leave you to celebrate Opposite Day. I’ll post my own critique of Bednar’s argument, including why I think it’s fallacious and why I think is pernicious in its treatment of gay folks and call it a night.

[Marcus]

Yes. You have incorrectly summarized Bednar's argument. And I am also disagreeing with bednar's position, as I have stated it.

...Look, if you’re going to insist that SSA isn’t a sin means SSA is a sin, I’ll leave you to celebrate Opposite Day. .

What the actual “F”??????!!!!!!!!

You do you, RI. I Have no clue what point you are trying to make.

[Res Ipsa]

Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin.

[T]he point has been fully made that Bednar has inappropriately labeled SSA as a sin….

Opposite Day.

[Res Ipsa]

Doing me:

In my experience, any persuasive argument has to be grounded in some point of agreement. Otherwise, we end up with the situation described as “talking past each other.” I think that point of agreement is “labels don’t define us.” As a general proposition, I suspect few would disagree.

But here’s what I referred to as sleight of hand: he immediately follows up with “We are children of God,” which is just another label. And the rest of his argument is based on the implicit claim that his chosen label does define us.

The foundation of his argument is a complete contradiction: labels don’t define us & this label defines us. And the beauty of an argument that is based on a contradiction is that you can prove anything.

For me, that contradiction is sufficient to dismiss the argument. Hey Bednar, get back to me when you have an argument that doesn’t involve contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences.

But beyond being just invalid, I think this argument is damaging to gay folks. Think about the label he just slapped on us all: child of God. Who speaks for God? In the video, Bednar does. That’s a pretty big power move on Bednar’s part. The label “homosexual” when applied to a person gives Bednar no power or authority. The label “child of God” gives him tremendous power and authority over his audience. That sets up most of the rest of his argument: these are God’s rules, not mine. If you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with God. That allows him to assert “laws” that pathologize normal human behavior without taking any personal responsibility for accepting and supporting those laws. If we’re all moral agents, then Bednar is morally obliged acknowledge his choice to support laws that do real harm to real people. He chose to do that, despite the strong evidence of harm that results.

But for me, what’s even worse about his argument is it’s flat out denial of individuality. If the only label that is valid is “child of God,” then we are all the same. Bednar’s argument not only denies the existence of individuality, It gaslights you out of that sense of self — sense of identity that we all have.

I think that’s based on an equivocation on the meaning of label. His argument treats a person’s sense of identity as being the same as a reductionist label applied by one person to another. Bednar’s argument denies you the ability to define yourself. You don’t get to do that because Bednar says the only label you get is “child of God” because he speaks for God and you don’t.

I mean, how screwed up is that? You are a free moral agent who doesn’t have the freedom to define who you are.

If a faithful, gay, LDS member comes to Bednar and asks the question Bednar was asked, Bednar’s answer is “I don’t care who you think you are: you’re wrong. You are who I tell you you are. Period.

That kind of gaslighting is mentally unhealthy at best. For gay folks, it’s downright cruel. But the cruelty hidden unless you understand what Bednar is actually arguing and think about the consequences.

A different way to come at the critique is to note how the devoutly religious experience hurt when their religion is attacked. Why is that? Because there are no neat, clear distinction between religious belief and the believer’s sense of self. The self and the religion are inextricably intertwined. Now apply that to something as fundamental as human sexuality. The fact that sexual attraction doesn’t define us does not mean that sexual attraction is not an important part of identity.

The argument is a mess. But it’s not the same mess as “homosexuality is a sin.”

[Marcus]

...But beyond being just invalid, I think this argument is damaging to gay folks....

The point ihq and I have been making all along.

[Res Ipsa]

...But beyond being just invalid, I think this argument is damaging to gay folks....

The point ihq and I have been making all along.

Misrepresenting someone’s argument doesn’t make any kind of point other than something about reading comprehension. Neither of you even tried to engage the argument. You simply asserted that Bednar said the opposite of what he said. Both of you were so fixated on what you claimed was an obvious gotcha that you never got around to addressing what was actually wrong with his actual argument.

In your line of work, is a proof valid simply because it ends with a correct conclusion?