Thanks for that, Dan. Here is what I wrote:

*The truth is,” the author instructs us, because he clearly believes he is someone who knows a) what the truth is, and b) what most of us think the truth is, “homosexuals do not at all have in mind what most of us understand marriage to be”. I have to take Muehlenberg up on this, because I was taught from an early age to always question terms such as “most of us”. To someone from my background (and there are many of us), the use of the term “most of us” to support an argument implies an unsubstantiated but hegemonic perspective that may well be highly inaccurate, if not delusional, and we must treat it with caution.*

I stand by that use of delusional. Many people are treated as psychiatrically disabled if they claim the kind of knowledge Bill claims to have, obtained from exclusively supernatural sources, as does Bill.

Because Bill's Christianity is normalised doesn't make it rational or sane. It's just a normalised delusion.

Delusion: *false belief or opinion that cannot be modified by reasoning or demonstration of facts. When persistent is characteristic of psychosis.*

Which, come to think of it, also describes Bill's beliefs about homosexuality.
Cheers, Jennifer.

Briar Rose,
In standing by your accusation that Muehlenberg is DELUSIONAL, it appears as if you are (something like Paul Keating) trying to justify your AD HOMINEM.

In one sense I'm with you. I'd stand by my description of 'TURKEY' towards that guy who argued that my university degrees should be revoked because my opinions are out of step with his. He deserved the ad hominem.

Muehlenberg justified what he said by reference to what was written by homosexual writers and advocates. He did not make any reference to any supernatural beliefs in that article.

It appears that the problem that you have with Muehlenberg, and the reason you call him delusional, is that he holds to Christian faith, and thus subscribes to supernatural beliefs. I don't see why this justifies the use of the ad hominem, unless you are saying that all Christians are delusional (which perhaps you are).

You say his Christian faith is delusional because it cannot be modified by reason or facts. Which FACTS are you talking about? I believe I know of certain facts which should dissuade you from your atheism.

I think Muehlenberg's statement was fair comment. Most of us do believe that the concept of marriage ideally implies marital faithfulness and the safe environment for the procreation and raising of children.

Most people in the world do believe in a supernatural supreme being, codified or expressed in religious beliefs that most of society understands as falling within the bounds of normality. And if you want to disagree, then that's fine.

And if you want to argue that it's good for our society to change our marriage laws so as to promote the idea that gay and lesbian couplings reflect some kind of healthy normality, then I think you are delusional.

Michael Viljoen     

It's true that Bill didn't make reference to his faith in this article. However, as his belief is well known, I felt it was safe to assume that Bill's truth claims about heterosexual marriage and gay people have their origins in his faith.

If they don't, then I'm surprised he didn't explain where his truth claims come from.

I see you again bring in the ubiquitous *most of us.* Most of the people I know don't hold religious beliefs - that's my *most of us,* but I don't feel I have to extrapolate my *most of us* into a universal.

The *bounds of normality* are not set in stone. They are fluid. Once slavery was *normal.* Once removing indigenous children from their parents was *normal.* Once Christians murdered and tortured non Christians and that was considered *normal.*

Personally, I don't care what people believe or don't believe. The problem for me is when they are driven to force others to abide by their systems. If you don't want to marry another man, nobody will force you to do that. So why if you do want to marry a man, should somebody force you not to?

Better not pursue this, its off topic - the thread is about ad hominem arguments. Write an article about it, and then I'll respond in the forum.
Cheers, Jennifer.

"Force others to abide by our systems?" 
Nobody is forcing or withholding marriage upon anyone. It is gay advocates themselves who are wanting to have the marriage laws changed to suit their wishes.

Now Jennifer, when I say that you are delusional over your beliefs about gay marriage, or when you say that Bill is delusional over his beliefs about gay marriage, which if either of these arguments is valid and which is ad hominem?

Yours, mine, or neither?  

I think as we are both expressing our opinions, an independent arbiter would have to decide which, if either, was "right." I don't really think it's a matter of right and wrong.

I'm not actually claiming any belief system to support my opinion that gay marriage should be available to those who want it, as is Bill. I think that's what makes his argument delusional.

I just think its a decent thing to make marriage available to people who love each other. I can't see any reason to deny it to people on gender grounds. That's my own thinking, not coming from any supernatural source, just making up my mind from observing people I know.

This argument is also feeling a bit weird as I have just put up a post on my blog, http://www.noplaceforsheep.com
defending Bill Muehlenberg's right to his opinion, as the ANZ Bank and IBM have withdrawn their advertising from OLO because Grahame published it.
Go figure.