Atheist archaeologists would disagree with you about the accuracy and validity of the bible.
OH NO! Archaeologists will find some accuracies in the bible! Holy ****! Call the Pope! I can find archaeological and social accuracies in Huck Finn too, yet I don't use it in reality.
PS: there isn't even any realistic evidence Jeebus existed. That's probably a defunct myth too.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
As well, the Papacy has long since declared that the Bible is not accurate on many accounts. Whodathunk--the Bible? Wrong? Duh!
----------------------------------
"Religions are not universally applicable ethical doctrines, and they rely expressly on Appeal to Authority from a being who likely doesn't exist."
That's a very nice opinion, but the bible remains to be your primary hurtle in convincing me to support gay 'marriage.
Ethics isn't a democracy. I don't have to "convince" the masses of something for it to be moral or immoral. I cannot convince a Creationtard he's a moron, any more than I can convince you that you are wrong. There's nothing anyone could do to falsify your belief, thus it is pointless.
This isn't cultural relativism, and your "opinion" of the law doesn't matter. The law is fact; the government is violating it illegally. Facts don't disappear because you ignore them.
-----------------------------------
"Your "conversion" is not required for justice to take place."
Justice is in place now.
My conversion is required if you want me to support gay 'marriage.
No, Justice is not in place. Injustice is in place, and eventually, SCOTUS will squash your hate and prejudice. It's up to the courts, who have already spoken and begun to dismantle your bullshit. You have no power, and soon, your little 13th century christian world-view will go bye-bye. Then I will have won.
----------------------------------
"Yes, Abnormal != wrong (as in immoral)."
No, it doesn't. Abnormal just refers to a variation for the norm. Morality is not included in it's definition.
Thus, mentioning abnormal is a Red Herring. Thank you for that useless introduction.
---------------------------------
"Dictionary also says your full of ****:"
Here we go with the personal attacks......you wish to call me on Logical Fallacies when you commit them your self? (Attacking the Person)
1. Tuo Quoe Fallacy
2. Style over Substance fallacy
I committed no fallacy, but you did just now. Keep it up. I have yet to see a logical argument from you.
Note* Saying your full of **** is rude, but not a fallacy. Ad Hominem is when you attack on character of an individual and assume he's wrong because he has "poor character." I said you are full of ****, and I have already explained why. You just can't comprehend that. That's not my problem. Neither fits the definition of Ad Hominem.