a) fallacy of insufficient options – the either/or of his two presented views of marriage.

b) observational selection (which ties into the “insufficient options”)

c) special pleading – attacking only one aspect of a complex subject, yet ignoring the entirety

d) strawman argument

e) a touch of the “slippery slope” argument throughout.

Of these, the most glaring and obvious are A and B.

Again, I encourage anyone who would engage to also read the amicus briefs from GGA filed to the appeals court for the Prio8 Trial. It goes, I think, hand in hand with the Journal work.

For the morality is not discovered through the use of reason, but revealed through the use of revelation. Law is what God commands, not based on the nature of reality. And what is real is, at any moment, open to revision by God’s commands. Trying to merge the oil of supernatural law with the water of natural law only discredits the latter by associating it with superstition and fantasy.

A bit more on natural law as “natural” and not “supernatural” is here.

http://storeyinstitute.blogspot.com/2010/12/natural-law-theology-and-good.html

The verse is referring to law, not to knowledge. Most Jews would understand this verse to be talking about some future renewal of the covenant with Israel, and most Christians would say this verse concern the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

I don’t think George believes we’re born with knowledge that needs claimed. He does, as you point out, believe that we can use our God-given reason to discover morality.

I really enjoyed this intro. and look forward to the rest of the series.

My problem is with what George defined as “real marriages”. His suspect claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I’m sure many LGBT people talking about same sex marriage have come up with perfection good conceptualizations of the de facto reality of “real marriage” as straight, gay and trans people of all kinds actually live it.

But I also knew that with his phrasing, “‘real’ marriage”, he was gonna shut us out, because the belief of all anti-gay bigots is that gay relationships aren’t “real” relationships, while straight ones somehow always are. And this “only a relationship where coitus goes on is a real marriage” crap isn’t new either. I remember with the advent of the gay liberation movement the phobes actually argued that our sex wasn’t real sex, that same sex couples weren’t made to be together sexually, because we weren’t physically complementary. Yes, youngsters, those fools actually said that. We don’t hear that anymore, because our sex is all too real to them now. But I bring it up to show that George’s coitus argument is yet another old, retreaded anti-gay argument. These idiots truly never come up with anything new.

Which makes it easy to beat them, because all you have to do is wait as you listen or read for what you know is coming, and when it does you’re already ready to jump on it and tear it apart.

[reads previous posts...]

and then of course, there are the non-intellectuals… how do these people find the brain power to use a computer?

I mean, everyone can do what they want, obviously!

I was just trying to draw where the bullseye was, I guess.

Opinions could differ, but #3 is the most important, right now.

If the other two don’t fit with #3, then the work is just going to end up on the next list of quotes from “leading gay activists”.

If you are going to do #1, stop and think through who your audience is. I’m sorry but “general audience” or “everyman” is probably not tailored enough, with few exceptions.

As for #2, if one “wins” this argument, who is going to notice, how and why?