Is there a biblical, religious, or rational basis for the "Adam and Steve" argument? If so, what?

Asked by: Victorian
  • No responses have been submitted.
  • I have never understood this argument, could somebody please explain it?

    I do not at all understand the "Adam and Steve" argument against homosexuality. I am a Christian, but it makes no sense to me. I created this opinion hoping that someone could explain it to me in religious terms (because all the people who use it are religious). Preferably by someone who agrees with the argument. I want to understand the thoughts of people saying "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". IF YOU JUST WANT TO CLAIM THAT RELIGION ITSELF IS IRRATIONAL, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION!!!!! That is not what I am trying to find out.

    Thank you

  • The argument doesn't make any sense.

    It's not even really an argument. What these religious folk are trying to imply is that "god" made humans purposefully to be male and female together and thus homosexuality is unnatural.
    The fact that we see it in hundreds of other animal species and the fact that it is inborn and not a choice puts paid to that argument.

  • It is a fallacy.

    There are a few, in fact. For one, it fails to provide a representative sample. We cannot form any clear idea of the purpose of this myth from such a small description.

    The Argument relies on the creation of this couple, yet it ignores the facilitation of the rest of humanity - which includes homosexuals. It ignores the part of the story, for example, that describes a male god (in all translations) that becomes lonely and creates a male human for companionship, rather than a female. (If heterosexual relationships were considered the "correct" pairing, then the story makes no sense if Yahweh is to be widely envisioned as a male god, and not a goddess.)

    For another, the "Adam and Steve" argument represents a classic False Premise; there is no reason to take the creation story of the bible any more seriously than the creation stories of the Mongolians, or the Native Americans.

    It is also an "appeal to authority," since it does not rely on anything other than the credibility of these myths to argue it's point.

    Lastly, it is simple, silly sloganeering:

    It was Noah and the Ark, not Noah and Steve.
    It was the Garden in Eden, not the Garden and Steve.
    It was David and Jonathan, not David and Steve.
    It was Cain and Abel, not Cain and Steve.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.