It is always intellectually defective to say anything against the scripture, but recently I heard a comment that was particularly irrational.
Their argument went like this. “Because I have homosexuals in my family, therefore if someone says something against homosexuals, then they are morally wrong, and need public governmental (or an authority) punishment and or to be silenced.”
First. This is a type of ethical dogmatic zealotry, that would make the catholic church portrayed in anime, blush in envy.
Second, the reasoning is so illogical, that it is barely comprehensible.
If I have a family member who is a murderer, then an ethic is produced. It is now morally wrong for any person to say in public that murder is wrong. ??? LoL.
The other ethic they used was “they felt offended.” However I felt offended that they felt offended at their irrational opposition at a biblical ethic. I feel offended at all persons who disrespect my Lord Jesus. If Hitler was offended at the Jews or if I’m offended at a particular skin color, then it produces a dogmatic ethic that the authority or governments use their power to suppress and silence these people?
If all offenses were used to silence other parties who offended, and since there is somebody who is offended at every known worldview, then it would mean the government would have to silence and suppress everyone, including itself. Such an ethic is implausible with reality.
But beyond the implausibility with reality, the knowledge of such an ethic doesn’t exist, except in delusional fantasy.
Ethics is not the same category as metaphysics or reality (any created reality). Ethics is God’s command. God’s command and what He causes is not the same category. Any anti-Christian definition of ethics is intellectual nonsense and even to understand the nonsense of anti-Christian ethics, these must use biblical intelligibility to do so. However, the Bible they presupposes to make up their ethical nonsense, is necessarily true, and says all anti-Christian thinking is false. Thus all anti-Christian systems are false by logical exclusion.
However, a simpler example might be helpful. If I say, “(A) All humans have sinned. (2) Oshea is a human. (3) Therefore mockingbirds are trees,” it is easy to see that I made a category fallacy. My first two premises have nothing to do with the category of mockingbirds or trees. You cannot have different categories in your conclusion and still be rational or intelligible. To have premises about your feelings (being offended), or metaphysical statements about your family, to then conclude in a different category of ethics (something is righteous or unrighteous), is to be intellectually broken. Yet, this is always the history of anti-Christian thinking. To reject Scripture is to reject truth, reject reality and to reject logic.
To boil it down even further, to have “is” statements about reality in your premises (this is that) and conclude with an “ought,” is always invalid and insane. To go from an “is” to an “ought” is unintelligible. To go from descriptive premises of reality to a different category of ethics in the conclusion is not comprehensible. It does not exist in the mind or in reality. It has no being.
It is no less delusional to say, “all cat blues 15 mist happys are houses, and so all people cloud 5s are super 9 flying backward dog 2s,” than saying, “this offends me, it hurts me, therefore it is wrong.” Do you think the latter is more understandable than the first? Really? If you think the second argument is any less delusional than the first, then you are intellectually broken and deceived in an abyss of delusions. This is the bible’s definition of people like you, therefore it is a true definition of you. Obviously, to reject Christianity is to reject ethics, but is much more foundational than that. To reject Christianity is to reject thinking itself.
 This understanding of apologetics I got from Vincent Cheung. See Systematic Theology and Ultimate Questions. For a specific reference of the above argument see Captive to Reason, 2009 page 44.
 Some might confuse a piece of innate knowledge (Romans 2:15) in them with that is being said in second argument, and by this think it is understandable. Other than presupposing the Scripture to do this, this presupposing of innate knowledge is separate from the argument. The argument as it is, is unintelligible.