Help with an apologetics question/debate?

[Pat_Payne]

Twitter is surreal. Somehow, I’ve ended up engaged in a debate on the microblogging site with a nationally-known comic-book author over Gay marraige. I sent her a link to CA’s tract on gay marriage, and she’s getting hung up on the following passage:

When the charge of “homophobia” is made, it signifies that those making the accusation do not have reasoned responses to their critics, so they switch to portraying their critics as irrational rather than responding to their arguments.

How best to defend that point and move on? We’re now in a spiral of dueling claims of “argumentam ad hominem.”

So far, thank God, it’s been relatively civil.

 

[ccmnxc]

For their argument to mean anything, those using the term “homophobia” must first explain and demonstrate how someone is being homophobic, and then why that makes them wrong. Make sure they define homophobia and explain why that definition is wrong. Don’t let them change definitions part-way through. If they cannot do that, all it is is unsubstantiated name calling that doesn’t really prove anything.

 

[Pat_Payne]

In fairness, she has not as of yet made the charge of homophobia, but is taking umbrage that anyone who would use the word has no real arguments to make.

 

[ccmnxc]

Well, if someone is trying to make a rational argument, bringing out the homophobia card makes little sense as there little logic behind it. If they are making an argument that is both an appeal to emotion and an ad hominem, it at least implies that logic is not on their side in their debate or they don’t care if they look like a fool. Now would agree with the fact that a person who uses those arguments isn’t automatically incapable of rational debate. However, it does imply either desperation or high emotion, neither of which makes you look good in rational discourse.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Twitter is surreal. Somehow, I’ve ended up engaged in a debate on the microblogging site with a nationally-known comic-book author over Gay marraige. I sent her a link to CA’s tract on gay marriage, and she’s getting hung up on the following passage:

How best to defend that point and move on? We’re now in a spiral of dueling claims of “argumentam ad hominem.”

So far, thank God, it’s been relatively civil.

It’s not a Church position. It may or may not be correct in all cases. Admit it is probably a gross and unfair generalization, (even though “you’re just homophobic” is obviously ad hom in itself and thus not a respectable argument) and move on. (I think that’s more than 144 characters, though.)

 

[LilyM]

For their argument to mean anything, those using the term “homophobia” must first explain and demonstrate how someone is being homophobic, and then why that makes them wrong. Make sure they define homophobia and explain why that definition is wrong. Don’t let them change definitions part-way through. If they cannot do that, all it is is unsubstantiated name calling that doesn’t really prove anything.

Well, a standard definition of homophobia would be ‘irrational fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality’. Now the very fact of someone having an IRrational fear of such things would make them wrong right there.

The whole point is that the fear is unreasonable - in a rightly ordered person fear should not transgress the bounds of the reasonable. To allow it to do so is indeed wrong.

So the only real question is ‘is this really a phobia, or instead a reasonable and justified fear’

 

[Farsight001]

In fairness, she has not as of yet made the charge of homophobia, but is taking umbrage that anyone who would use the word has no real arguments to make.

Well, the only real reason a person would stoop to the ad hominem attacks is because they can’t think of anything else to say. Accusing a person of homophobia is a textbook sign that they are out of arguments.

 

[MPat]

Twitter is surreal. Somehow, I’ve ended up engaged in a debate on the microblogging site with a nationally-known comic-book author over Gay marraige. I sent her a link to CA’s tract on gay marriage, and she’s getting hung up on the following passage:

How best to defend that point and move on? We’re now in a spiral of dueling claims of “argumentam ad hominem.”

So far, thank God, it’s been relatively civil.

Among other things, you can ask her about her opinion on “Godwin’s law”. The reasoning is similar: someone who knows a good argument is unlikely to use a bad argument, thus someone who uses a bad argument is unlikely to know a good one. Of course, by itself it doesn’t mean that a better argument doesn’t exist - and, for all I know, saying that explicitly might make it easier for your opponent to accept this point.

 

[ccmnxc]

Well, a standard definition of homophobia would be ‘irrational fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality’. Now the very fact of someone having an IRrational fear of such things would make them wrong right there.

The whole point is that the fear is unreasonable - in a rightly ordered person fear should not transgress the bounds of the reasonable. To allow it to do so is indeed wrong.

So the only real question is ‘is this really a phobia, or instead a reasonable and justified fear’

Sorry. I wasn’t very clear about what I meant by wrong. I don’t believe homophobia to be “right,” but just because someone’s homophobic doesn’t mean their position or other reasoning aside from fear is wrong.

 

[dmar198]

Among other things, you can ask her about her opinion on “Godwin’s law”. The reasoning is similar: someone who knows a good argument is unlikely to use a bad argument, thus someone who uses a bad argument is unlikely to know a good one. Of course, by itself it doesn’t mean that a better argument doesn’t exist - and, for all I know, saying that explicitly might make it easier for your opponent to accept this point.

bump

 

[Nita]

In a debate, I don’t see how whether one is homophobic or not has any effect on the validity of their argument. One’s argument is either valid or not.

If someone were to accuse me of being homophobic in a situation such as you’re in, I’d just say, “So? What does that have to do with the validity of my argument?”

 

[steve_b]

Twitter is surreal. Somehow, I’ve ended up engaged in a debate on the microblogging site with a nationally-known comic-book author over Gay marraige. I sent her a link to CA’s tract on gay marriage, and she’s getting hung up on the following passage:

How best to defend that point and move on? We’re now in a spiral of dueling claims of “argumentam ad hominem.”

So far, thank God, it’s been relatively civil.

name calling is a dodge.

There is no such thing as gay marriage in the sight of God.

• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

IMV, one of the most insidious phrases is, “I wouldn’t do …(fill in the blank with a grevous sin)…but I can’t / won’t stop or vote against others doing it.”

I think that phrase came straight from Satans lips to people’s ears who use and believe that phrase… somehow thinking in some strange way it’s being simpathetic.

When in fact It violates both commandments Jesus said summarize what the law and the prophets taught

1. • Love God with your whole heart soul mind and body
   • Love your neighbor as yourself
   One can’t let another violate a commandment of God or even help them violate a commandment through the vote or any other means, because they think it’s compassionate. It’s NOT compassionate. By doing so, both people then violate both the commandments. And we see what the consequences to that are.

 

[Ignatius]

Twitter is surreal. Somehow, I’ve ended up engaged in a debate on the microblogging site with a nationally-known comic-book author over Gay marraige. I sent her a link to CA’s tract on gay marriage, and she’s getting hung up on the following passage:

How best to defend that point and move on? We’re now in a spiral of dueling claims of “argumentam ad hominem.”

So far, thank God, it’s been relatively civil.

Twitter is not a good venue for such discussions. Twitter is build for ‘sound bite’ type of responses which are designed to evoke emotional responses. Not good for intelligent discussion of difficult subjects.

 

[Pat_Payne]

Twitter is not a good venue for such discussions. Twitter is build for ‘sound bite’ type of responses which are designed to evoke emotional responses. Not good for intelligent discussion of difficult subjects.

That’s why in the end I abandonded the argument… I could see she just wanted to keep the argument about the semantics of that one sentence, and trying to formulate arguments in 140 character bursts was frustrating.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Twitter is surreal. Somehow, I’ve ended up engaged in a debate on the microblogging site with a nationally-known comic-book author over Gay marraige. I sent her a link to CA’s tract on gay marriage, and she’s getting hung up on the following passage:

How best to defend that point and move on? We’re now in a spiral of dueling claims of “argumentam ad hominem.”

So far, thank God, it’s been relatively civil.

Maybe this will help:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-you-a-hater-or-a-bigot-or-are-you-just-intolerant