| Runa216 said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man How is the OP a straw man? Sounds like a pretty accurate representation of religion to me. perhaps not all religious people, but by the sounds of it, it seems like that the OP is only complaining about the types of religious people described in the OP. The repeated insistences of "you can believe what you want" would indicate that, as long as you're responsible about your faith you should be allowed to practice it without fear of persecution. Sounds to me like the complaint is specific to people who try to use God as an argument to hate, judge, or restrict something. In which case, the argument is sound. |
Generally, if you want to criticize someone's argument, you take the strongest form of their argument and criticize it.....if you don't, you committ a straw-man fallacy because you are criticizing a weaker form of the argument. As you said, not all religious people subscribe to the views expressed in the OP, and the gay rights argument that is presented is clearly a straw-man.....because some religious people accept gay marriage and others who don't support gay marriage just don't utilize that argument, which really limits the validity of this claim:
"The issue is that religious arguments require so many leaps of faith and sometimes flat out faulty logic to get to the conclusion they do. Take the gay rights argument"
As I said in a previous post, taking a non-literal translation of the Bible actually solves most of the OP's criticisms of the gay rights argument (except #4,#5, and #8)......and interestingly, the fundamentalist strains of Christianity are relatively new. People as far back as Thomas Aquinas advocated for non-literal translations of the Bible, and these interpretations tend to provide better representations of religion. The OP fails to take this into account. That's why its a straw-man argument.
