Your theological sophistication and your observations on humanity are about as keen as your sense of grammar.

Of course lets be honest, “god” is just as real as Zeus–ie not real at all.

By and by the guys I know who rial against sluts don’t get laid. Their bitter and would use these sluts if they had half the chance.

Beware of moralists–whoever rails agaisnt the whore wants to use her the most

You wrote, “No school accepts wikipedia as a legitimate reference source.”

Duh. But we’re talking about a discussion in a comments section of a blog.

“Way to pay attention to context.”

Indeed.

It is a well known to be an error to declare someone’s argument wrong merely on the basis that the defender does not live up to the same standard they defend. It makes the person a hypocrite, but it does not make their argument wrong.

But it does diminish the argument.

Part of any argument is the conviction of belief by the person arguing. It takes it from “this may possibly be true” to “I am here to witness for its veracity”.

This is especially the case with Carrie Prejean. Her arguments in favor of biblical standards were not based in her theological studies, her anthropological research, her societal studies, or her deep reflection on the nature of human structure.

No. Prejean’s only basis for argument in favor or religious standards was “I believe”.

If it can be shown that Carrie, indeed, did not really believe in the “biblically correct” standards that she argued for, then there was no basis whatsoever for her argument.

That isn’t to say, exactly, that her conclusions are incorrect; even a fool can get lucky. But it does say that her argument is invalid and can be dismissed in its entirety.

Straw man fallacy yet again. I don’t take that position at all and I resent your grotesque mischaracterization of my position. Of course people are able to learn from their mistakes and we are all some combination of good and bad, some more good or bad than others and some more or less deserving of our trust. Nevertheless, you know you wouldn’t trust a Bernie Madoff to invest yoru money or a pedophile to babysit your kids.

Chris said “I think there is a difference between making a judgment call about someone’s fitness to perform a certain job, and judging a person to be wholly less than another person.”.

When you’re judging someone’s fitness to perform a job, you’re judging their character, who they are as a person. To suggest that a person’s past actions have no bering on their character is preposterous. As to whether or not Carrie Prejean is “wholly less” a person than someone like myself, I don’t know enough to make that judgment and that is not the point I’ve been trying to make here. My point is that her hypocrisy reflects negatively on her character and certainly is something I wouldn’t do and in that aspect I’m better than her.

I never said one action by a person “wholly” sums up who they are, you’re beating that straw man to death – please stop and demonstrate some honesty.

Given that Carrie is judging gay people negatively it is perfectly apropriate to note that her hypocrisy reflects negatively upon her character and she is in no position to be judging others based on a standard she herself fails to live up to.

The argument that no people are better or worse is, at heart, a religious contention. All are equal in the sight of God (or the Dalai Lama). Sin is forgiven by divine redemption leaving all equal before God. Intrinsically no one is better or worse. Hitler, Idi Amin, Mother Teresa, St. Francis, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, none are better or worse in the sight of God.

Whether one holds to such declarations of faith (some here do, some don’t, and let’s not argue the point), we should remember that this is but one context in which we measure “better”.

From a human perspective, we also measure better and worse pragmatically. As in many of the examples given above, we use previous behavior and track record to measure who is to be trusted.

We are not just what we come into the world with. We are not just that which is intrinsic. We are also those behaviors and attitudes we choose to adopt. And I am not hesitant to state that some are better than others.

Yes, I am “better” than some people. By that I mean that I am more trustable, a greater contributor to society, less of a threat, more conscientious, easier to get along with, and more inclined to strive for an advanced world.

Does that make me “intrinsically better”? Other than religiously, who cares? It does make me, from a pragmatic point, better.

And, of course, I am also much worse than some other people.

In looking at those who oppose decency and equality for gay people, I am more than willing to assign judgment of who is better or worse.

Those who have flawed information, who truly seek to find resolution, who are inching towards equality, and especially those who are troubled by the way in which their positions harm the lives of others – without question – are better people than those who willfully lie, view us as an evil enemy rather than as people, who close their minds to any consideration, and especially those delight in the misery of others.

If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, actions like theft, rape, and murder don’t make someone a bad person, that being the case there is no reason to punish them at all. Tell me Chris, why have punishments for crimes if the people committing them aren’t bad people?

Yet if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, people who commit bad acts – any bad acts – are bad people forever, never capable of learning from their mistakes, doomed forever to be labeled a “bad person” – unworthy of our trust for eternity.

Priya Lynn said:

And Chris, I don’t think you’re naive, I think you’re dishonest – you know better. You know you’d never trust a Bernie Madoff to invest your money, or a pedophile to babysit your children. You know that is because by their nature these are bad people, their actions aren’t somehow miraculously divorced from who they are as people. You know this, but you’re to dishonest to admit it.

I think there is a difference between making a judgment call about someone’s fitness to perform a certain job, and judging a person to be wholly less than another person.

My original comments, which have now been lost in a battle of argumentum ad absurdum, was that judging Ms Prejean as a person is an undesirable course of action; that we should instead concentrate our efforts on correcting the errors in her statements, and not stooping to the level of Puritanical “Holier than Thou” character assassination.