quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. On first inspection, they seem persuasive, but when broken down and examined, they are based on illogic. That's not an insult: its a statement of fact.
I acknowledge that debate is something of a science, with a set of debate rules. But a courtroom or debate event has an impartial judge (one hopes), and I feel that you're a biased judge in this debate essentially. And that skews the "scientific" rules of debate here.

I've answered a number of points, and I don't think my detailed and well-thought out answers have been given fair weight by you. And often, quite frankly, my views have been misrepresented and paraphrased in a biased way.

( for example, you come back again and again and allege that I single out homosexuality but excuse heterosexual immorality, and I've answered AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that the Bible has the same standard for both. And then you come right back and make the same allegation that I single out homosexuality for selective enforcement. Which is simply not true, in your --by all appearances-- deliberate misrepresentation of my views and Bible interpretation. )

( For a second example, you allege that I say that AIDS/HIV is a gay disease and is proof that homosexuality is immoral. I've come back AGAIN AND AGAIN and explained otherwise, that homosexuality is ONE FORM of immoral behavior that spreads the virus, that it is a manifestation that homosexuality is not a "victimless crime". But each time you come back and allege that I'm ignorantly saying that AIDS is only spread by gays. )

Again, you're smart, Dave, you're an attorney, you know how to read the fine print. And I could understand if ONE time you misrepresented what I was saying. But for you to do it repeatedly indicates that you either subconsciously want to believe I'm wrong, or are consciously misrepresenting what I've clearly said, OVER AND OVER. In either case, I don't buy your contention that yours is at this point an unbiased evaluation of the facts. Your opinions are self-appointed as facts, and mine, no matter how logical, dismissed as opinion.

I reject the "logic" of this court.

Logic, in your subjective opinion, which rejects a spiritual Biblical perspective (i.e., the Bible is inspired by God, and the ultimate authority on human behavior) OUT OF HAND. The subject of Gay marriage is regarding religious faith and Bible interpretation, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation is very relevant, and not to be easily dismissed, in any fair and impartial review of the issue. And yet it IS dismissed, so how can you fairly evaluate?

Dave, I could go through your posts point-by-point and clarify the fallacy of each point you raised, but I've already answered 98% of the issues you've raised already in my prior posts, 4 and 5 times.
And I'm frankly tired of spending 2 and 3 hours going through your posts point-by-point, giving logical and consistent arguments in favor of the Biblical position, only to have you repeatedly ignore my logical responses and again imply ignorance, when I've clearly made a factual argument.
My points are dismissed by you arbitrarily, based on a pseudo-factual argument that unquestionably favors your liberal/secular point of view. You're not an impartial judge. And yet you set yourself up as both the prosecution and the judge. That's a loaded verdict.

The cornerstone of my position is the Bible I believe in as a Christian. If not for the Bible, then anything goes, and virtually the entire argument for not allowing gay marriage can be dismissed as "just opinion", and gay marriage would therefore be permissible. Without that clear Biblical standard, then I would probably acquiesce to political correctness, and say "sure, whatever, if you want to."

My argument's cornerstone is the Bible.

And basically, your rules of "logic" instantly reject at the outset that the Bible is a valid basis for opinion, even within the Christian community. (You allege that my opinion is logic by consensus(a.k.a., the "this is how it's always been done." fallacy. You ALLEGE that my opinion is basically a consensus of the ignorant, that just because many people believe it, that doesn't make it true. But in point of fact, my opinion is based on a consensus of Bible scholars, who have translated and approved the NIV, American Standard and King James versions of the Bible, who are familiar with the original greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, who have prepared the study Bibles that are commonly used. It is not a consensus of the ignorant, it is a CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO BEST UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE. By your allegation, if only one person disputes that interpretation, then the consensus of scholars means nothing, no matter how specious and contrived the dissenting single view is. I don't consider that a "logical" standard to use. )


THAT is bias. And is certainly not to be confused with an impartial debate.

Even within the INTERNAL CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE (cross referencing verses for a consistent theme, which I used with my quoted passages), you defy logic and refuse to accept that what the Bible says about homosexuality is consistently and unquestionably a condemnation of the practice.
Well, in no uncertain terms, that's your evasiveness against logical evidence to the contrary.

You CHOOSE not to acknowledge the true Biblical position on homosexuality, despite the abundance of passages, and common themes that run CONSISTENTLY through the Bible, in the contexts of sexual purity, spiritual purity, sexual immorality,phrases "the Bride", "the Whore", ad infinitum. MY ARGUMENT is consistent with recurring Biblical themes. Yours is NOT.


And I found your latest characterization rather insulting:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Which is precisely the trap you've allowed yourself to fall into. Allow gays the right to get married in a church, and soon we'll all be sleeping with animals." Its a fallacy, without logic.
I never said this.
You presented it as if that were part of a "logic" argument that I'd written. It is an oversimplified and mocking misrepresentation. I only said that allowing gay marriage, and the legal precedent it would set, would open the door to rights and legal precedents for other sexual/moral abberations. You have attempted to FABRICATE a "slippery slope" in my argument, where one does not exist.

Similarly, other paraphrases of my opinion, that you have skewed to favor your liberal position, and ridicule/oversimplify my own:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

Finally, a concession! So its not just gays, it's heterosexual but promiscuous people who are corruptive. So, I guess promiscuous people are also not allowed to get married in a church?
It's not "finally", I've been proclaiming the same standard for heterosexual and homosexual immorality since this topic began. And it's not a concession, it's what I've been saying over and over and over. Either you're not reading my posts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.

And I never said that "promiscuous people are not allowed to get married in a church". I ALSO never said "gay people are never allowed to get married in a church". But I did say that, CONSISTENT WITH BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF FORGIVENESS, AND ALSO BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF SEXUAL PURITY, that they can be forgiven, and begin practicing premarital abstinence in line with Christian pre-marital behavior, and THEN marry in a Christian church.

There are so many other points I'd like to respond to, but what's the point?

I'm not mad or anything, Dave . But it is frustrating for you hold yourself as prosecutor, judge and jury, and expect me to consider that "logical" and impartial.
Especially when you've bypassed and compelled me to repeat myself so often, and you STILL come back with the same misrepresentative allegations (see the two parenthetical examples above. )