Over at Cracked. Let me save you some time: TL;DNR
Those of you brave enough to soldier forward, enjoy some bonus material:
Broadway musicals, by the way, are where America's most talented friends we haven't seen since high school went to pour all of themselves into America's least worthwhile remakes. It's like opera minus the vocal-power dry-humped a pile of 1997 TV Guides. And that'll bring us to our next point.
Hate for hate is my new love.
I would like to address a few comments you made in your first argument, “Argument from Religion”. Christianity is not the only religion that is against gay marriage (Judaism, Islam, Bahá’í, Jainism, Sikhism, etc).
I also noticed that all of your Biblical references were from the Old Testament. While much of the Old Testament is meant for teaching, there are many books within it that function as historical texts. They are describing what happened, not what God commanded or designated marriage to be. Hagar, Solomon’s wives/concubines, and Lot’s daughters are all considered examples of wrong and sinful behavior. Another example of the Bible recording sinful behavior is Judges 21 where a bunch of guys kidnapped wives for themselves. This is not behavior to emulate, but an example of the sinfulness of Israel.
The rich rapist and his victim argument occurs in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is the reiteration of the law given in the book of Exodus 22:16-17. “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” So we can see that the woman does not have to marry her rapist.
As for Tamar, that was simply a common practice at the time. The point was to get an heir for the eldest brother, as the first born typically received the lions-share of the estate.
Gay marriage is a very important topic that should be discussed, but I don’t want your argument to suffer because you are unfamiliar with the material you are citing.
All true and valid points I would be mindful of in a real debate but I was wading in speciousness after my main point that religious arguments don’t factor into legislation unless they have some secular corollary.
While you and I may know the context, some of your readers may not. I myself have been guilty of quoting Cracked articles (usually concerning feats of bravery or interesting biology triva) without checking the sources. But if your readers go off and confront a (knowledgeable) Christian or Jew with specious points you made, the Christian or Jew will tend to ignore all the following points because they know that the initial argument is flawed or false.
I find that too often, usually in arguments concerning religion, proponents and opponents will repeat arguments made by others verbatim without actually understanding what they are talking about. Spirited debate is important to any society, and the key factor is knowing how to accurately attack an opponent’s position.
You have a soapbox, of sorts, to speak to the masses. I think that it is your privileged and responsibility to equip them with valid arguments. Obviously Cracked is an entertainment source, but it can be one that teaches too.
Agreed, and I’m mindful of that every time.
I would like to point out that your readers would be hard-pressed to find a knowledgeable Christian (I can’t speak for Jews). I am an atheist who knows a little about the Bible and the history of Christianity from both my own study and 18 years of forced church-attendance (mostly my own study) and I have very rarely ever found a Christian who knows more about the Bible and Christianity itself than I do. I am in no way an expert but it seems to me that most Christians are woefully ignorant of their own religion.
Just sayin’.