Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Redbeard The Pink]

It is a wasted rhetorical method that only works on those foolish enough to subscribe to sola scriptura (which I do not). After all the bible does not say you cannot eat people, skin them alive, or have sex with dead bodies... So have at it? The bible further states

Not to mention you (and everyone who makes reference to this quote) are severely misinterpreting it meaning. The quote is taken in terms of the moral standing of the actor and not in regards to the morality of the action. As is commonly said in the Church, "Condemn the Sin not the Sinner". As such while I may say murder is immoral and unethical such that it should be denigrated and legislated against I may not say the murder is a bad person. So the same may be said with any immoral action; the goal of which is to eliminate the improper conduct, not to eliminate the conductor.

Furthermore if I am to subscribe to the bible argument (which I generally do not and am only discussing because you bring it up.)

"If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." - Leviticus 20:12-13

So kill the gay and the incestuous but lesbians are cool?

Like I said I have put for a logical argument in regards to biology. Which has not been rebutted. I further await an argument in their favor that is not a fallacy. Which I have yet to hear. So how about we keep religion out of it and stick to the argument at hand or a logical counter argument?

Have I really brought up the Bible that many times in this thread? I've mostly been highlighting the fact that your whole argument about fallacies is itself rooted in fallacies.

You claim that this victory will lead to victories for people with arguably worse predilections concerning sex and marriage (slippery slope). When called out, you incite special pleading.

You claim that the pro-marriage arguments are appealing to novelty when, in fact, widespread legal pressure against homsexuals is FAAAR more novel than homosexuality itself. Prior to the Christianization of Rome, laws against homosexuality weren't that common in civilized cultures. All evidence indicates that there has been some level of homosexuality throughout most if not all historical human cultures, and for the most part bigotry against it has been pretty limited except for the last 1,000 years or so.

You claim that homosexuality is useless and/or harmful from a biological perspective. First off, evidence indicates that homosexual behavior is ubiquitous throughout nature in various species. When it does occur, it's rare enough to be harmless to species' likelihood to survive and thrive; it is essentially a non-factor in the overall health and well-being of a species.

Furthermore, that argument assumes that the only usefulness an organism poses to its species is to procreate. By that standard, homosexuality is no more or less useless than any other physical or mental abnormalities that preclude a person from reproducing. Procreation isn't the only way for a human to be useful to the survival of other humans, and it's certainly not the only way a human can contribute to civilised society. That whole chunk of your argument is a wash.

There you go. Your whole argument refuted with no bible stuff. Honestly, without "because my holy book says so," the anti-marriage arguments lose what little water they held to begin with. There is no logically sound reason to withhold equal marriage rights from homosexuals.