You must confess your own vested interests in order to be scrupulously honest about this, Dakota. This is nothing personal, everyone needs to do this symmetrically once we start scratching down to the ad-hominem level of questioning people's objectivity and motivation. But I warn you, speculating about other people's interests can't be done in a cosy way. Everyone likes to think that other people are biased but that we ourselves are basically incorruptible.

I've already admitted that anyone, including myself, can be swayed in their interpretations of things (not just the Bible) in one of my responses to Blackstone. I've never thought otherwise. That's one reason I have, and will always, question my beliefs and ideas about boylove. One such belief is that man/boy sex is not always harmful to the boy. When I was forming that opinion, I relentlessly questioned my motivation. Do I simply want to believe this because of my sexual desire? Or is it really true. I've come to the conclusion that yes, it's true that boys are not always harmed by intergenerational sex. This is by no means a proven fact and I could still be wrong. But my point is that because I am a boylover, I questioned my own belief system more diligently than I would have if I wasn't sexually attracted to boys. I will always give less credence to thoughts and ideas put forth by a biased party, including myself. I won't disregard them, but I will still question them more than one coming from an unbiased party. I think this is common sense.

This argumentum ad hominen thing that blackstone brings up doesn't apply in the point I am trying to make. I didn't question your point of view because of your character. I questioned it because of your vested interest in the translation you propose. To be clear, I don't think you would intentionally misinterpret something to suit your needs. But when ANYONE has a vested interest in something, they can unconciously be swayed to a certain point of view. Yes, me too. It would be one thing if I questioned your interpretation, of say, the 23rd Psalm, saying that your interpretation doesn't carry as much weight as the next guy's because you are gay. THAT would be argumentum as hominem. But obviously the 23rd Psalm has nothing to say about homosexuality, so you have no vested interest in seeing it one way or another. This argumentum ad hominem thing might be fine in a college debate, question the points without regard to who is making them. But in the real world, who is making a point and what their interest in the subject matter is, is a legitimate point to bring up.

Dakota