Gay Marrige

Because all of your arguments based on religion have fallen due to the now empirical impossibility of proving any of them, right now, the status is this: you have one argument "on the board", if you will:

1. A "gay lifestyle" is harmful to its participants, and thus should not be allowed.

I have, in fact, responded to that argument - my response, I should note, went entirely unaddressed.

I, on the other hand, have these arguments on the board that you have not responded to:

1. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah constitutes a human rights atrocity.
2. Turning people into salt constitutes senseless murder.
3-8. Homosexuality is not a choice for 6 reasons (1 being the evidence, and 5 being the analytics)
9. Liberty ought to outweigh.
10. Homosexuality during those times referred to pederasty, not relations between consenting adults.
11. Killing people for being gay constitutes a human rights atrocity.
12. There is no evidence to support the proposition that God exists.
13-17. There are 5 independent reasons to believe that he does not.
18-22. There are 5 independent reasons to negate the idea that we ought to do what God says.
23. Inconsistent revelation is an independent reason to negate 3.

And, of course, my response to your above argument:

24. Same-sex sex is not intrinsically less safe than differed-sex sex.
25. The government ought not force people to be healthy anyway.
26. There is no way you can logically support opposition to gay marriage because of the level of health of gay individuals (whatever it may be) but support black marriage, since blacks have a similar level of lack of health.
27. Such an argument would be racist in the extreme, and ought to be wholly rejected on that basis.

I have 11 groups of arguments, and 27 individual arguments, that remain unaddressed. Each *one* is an independent reason to negate your position; that is to say, if ANY of them are true, then your conclusion ("Gay rights ought not be affirmed") no longer logically flows from the premises. Thus, you must prove all 27 of them to be without merit in order for your position to have a remote chance of being true.

I should note that if I were to insist on using my links from Internet Infidels and the Skeptic's Bible as sources, then the number of arguments you need to respond to goes up by several hundred. I'm not insisting on that because your concession on whether the Bible ought to be interpreted literally renders the question of the Bible (and of theology) moot for this discussion, but all of those too remain independent reasons that negate your position.

Thus, as the debate has progressed up to this response, there is an overwhelming reason to affirm gay rights, and no reason to disaffirm.

Quote:So is your argument still saying that if God [assuming that he exists] said that committing homosexual actions is wrong, then liberty nullifies God's commands?

No. My argument is that if we accept God's word to be literally true, then the idea of personal freedom (in either a personal freedom sense or in a society-wide sense) is destroyed. Again, why ought there be any need for debate on these issues when the answer is right in the Bible?

You have failed to address that question. Most people support the idea that the United States ought to remain a democracy and not a Christian dictatorship, and thus the liberty argument can be used effectively. Since you don't value liberty, though, it isn't effective against you. Of course, since you don't take the Bible to be literally true, then once again all of your arguments negate themselves anyway (the big problem suddenly becomes: if parts are to be interpreted figuratively, then the answer *isn't* just in the Bible, but rather requires that you apply your own standards to what the Bible says, meaning that different people will come up with different interpretations).

To be honest, I wasn't expecting that you would give me that the Bible is not the literal truth of God, since that is such a poisonous position for those that would use the Bible as a guide for common morality or public policy. But, I suppose, it'll be interesting to see how you then defend using the Bible as such given your beliefs.

Still, I strongly recommend that you drop the theological arguments and instead move onto secular arguments. I actually create lists of all the arguments that I have ever encountered on some issue I care about and why I believe those arguments do not succeed. In fact, your argument from health is #4 on my list regarding gay marriage :P I've encountered about 37 or 38 secular arguments you could attempt to employ against gay marriage/homosexuality, so it is quite possible. As well, in my judgment, you'll have much greater success with them.

I should also note that, as a final recourse, you can simply say "I don't like homosexuality, and therefore it is wrong to me." - that is, simply place an anti-value on homosexuality. That is one argument I cannot mount any offence against. In fact, under Humean thought regarding motivating reasons, if you are still unable to salvage your position then it already implies such a value on your part.

hmmm and I thought I had long posts... anyways for the sake of keeping it simple, all of the people who are basing their arguments off of religion are forgetting a major fact. God (since you assume he is real) gave humans the choice to choose him and heaven. If homosexuals "choose" (as you once again assume they do) to be gay then are acting upon God's gift to choose their eternal fate. Since the constitution says all men are created equal why then should men that are gay have to suffer these indignities? If we could accept and treat slaves, men and women who we once considered inferior (not saying they are), then why can we not accept another humans lifesyle even if it does differ from your beliefs and lifestyles. If you want to go into the theological debate using "God's will" as your argument just remember that fact...

Quote:Traditional Abrahamic views are inclined toward such, yes. Traditional views also held that women are unequal and thus deserve unequal political rights.

Provide a source for the traditional Abrahamic view that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed merely for inhospitality.

The second statement is biased coming from someone who examines ANE society in comparison to American society.

Quote:Actually, I'm more interested in your defence of the destruction of cities.

BE SPECIFIC. CITE VERSES. I don't want to assume which cities you are talking about.
Quote:
Your case dissolves right here. If the Bible contains figurative language, then I can use language to attach any meaning I wish to any section of the Bible. Thus, I'll choose to attach the interpretation "All references to same-sex relations in the Bible are intended to figuratively portray a situation where the traditional order has been turned upside down, and are not meant to be taken literally". I could make a Marxist interpretation, a feminist interpretation, a conservative interpretation....Once we get into interpretive readings, we can make the Bible say anything we want it to.

Wrong, because you assume that it allows the Bible to be a relative moral standard. You cannot extrapolate one instance of a biblical metaphor and assume that the punishment for homosexuals is also a metaphor. No, the Jews did practice such laws.

If I'm misinterpreting you, correct me, but it seems that you assume that literary devices such as metaphors destroy any set meaning to a writing.

Quote:If the Bible itself is not literally true, then you have no basis whatsoever on which to ground any challenge of this interpretation.

You assume that the Bible allows for multiple sound interpretations. There can only be one. Show me a single verse where the Bible approves of homosexuality.

And what of historical evidence for the Bible's accuracy. Are we to assume that they are 'interpretations' though attested by history?
Quote:
Thus, you lose arguments 2 and 3 if the bible contains "figurative language". All your warrants for Argument 1 disappear as well, meaning that your conclusion is wholly unsupported.

No, you cannot extrapolate literary devices such as metaphors or hyperboles into parts of the Bible where it is obviously meant literally. Furthermore, false interpretations will eventually openly contradict the Bible.

Quote:And even with Shakespeare everyone who reads Hamlet or other great works takes away a different impression of what really happened. The situation is infinitely worse, however, when one begins to claim that Hamlet is true.

Yet Shakespeare intends for a meaning. It is Shakespeare's interpretation that is the correct interpretation one not ours. Furthermore Hamlet is not meant to be taken as true, while the Bible is.

Suggesting that practices such as stoning were 'interpretations' just like Jesus said to 'eat his flesh' would be an obvious violation of context, which you have been ignoring even now.

Quote:Of course it does. What gets to decide which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted and which are to be taken literally? The Bible certainly can't help us in this process, because it isn't 100% literally true: thus, we can't tell whether any part that supports interpretation OR literalism ought to be interpreted or taken literally. Thus, the only "genuine" source of knowledge has come into question.

Offer an interpretation without contradicting with the Bible and you win. I highly doubt you will.

Quote:The only way to resolve the impass is for you to arbitrarily determine which parts are to be taken literally and which parts are not. Once you do that, though, the Bible becomes a reflection of YOU, rather than a reflection of the reality of the universe.

Please show me how I can interpret "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." other than it's literal meaning. Apparently you want to strip all context and all meaning from the Scriptures.
Quote:
I don't need to make any further arguments now. By accepting non-literalism, you've destroyed the Bible as a source of any objective knowledge whatsoever. It becomes a tool for personal reflection rather than a tool to explain the universe. Only you get to decide which areas to interpret literally and which areas to interpret figuratively, and so unless you want to make the argument that *you* are Jesus himself, it is meaningless in any debate.

You're assuming that the Bible can support multiple interpretations without directly contradicting them. If you think that my 'interpretation' is flawed, then show me where in the Bible it contradicts my statement that the Bible condemns homosexual activities.

Quote:I mean, your language betrays this rather large feat of cognitive dissonance. You say "Traditional Jewish views are X, therefore hospitality *is not* the sole reason blah blah" - but if that whole story is meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally (which is what Jews do), then you have no basis whatsoever for making such a sweeping, categorical statement of truth. Hell, by your own position, it isn't even truth-apt! If YOU get to decide that the part regarding homosexuality is literal, but the part regarding the Earth being flat is figurative, the part regarding the water cycle is literal but the part regarding heliocenterism is figurative, then you are doing nothing but picking and choosing what you want to believe. "Anything that contradicts anything I want to be true is figurative, and so no contradiction exists, but anything that confirms what I want to be true is literal."

Show me any implication where the passage is meant to be taken figuratively. Don't isolate passages of Scripture and exclude context in order to promote the idea that "any interpretation works!"

Please explain this.

1. The part regarding homosexuality is part of the Hebrew LAW. It was an actual practice. Show me how this can be taken figuratively.
2. Show me how the writer could 'figuratively' mean that it rains and then water returns to the sky.
3. The passage obviously states that the tree that was seen from all over the world was in a dream.
4. I guess our daily speech is flawed whenever we use simple idioms like sunset and sunrise.

Sorry, I know I haven't addressed everything. I've been a bit hardpressed on time and I know my posts are much less eloquent than yours.

I will try to to get back as soon as possible.

Bye!

Wow, I'm being way too impolite. Let me rewrite.

See above.

See above.

See above.

See above.

in all fairness its a debate not a politeness contest people should realize that you are just debating your point of view and that in no way at all reflects your views toward them... at least people in AP classes should be able to realize that...

i dont know i mean its cool that love is all in the mix and stuff with gay people and feel happy its just that the influence in which they portray publicly is pretty much frowned upon and i mean personally if i were to be a parent that would love to have grandchildren, in which i would, i mean it just wouldnt seem fair all because some gay people came out to express themselves becasue they love each other i mean i guess gay people can love each other but not publicly cuz then who knows what would happen i mean maybe another hitler would come outta no where and start roundin up gay people i mean im pretty sure the Westboro Baptist Church would probably end up doin that one day im not even gunna lie