To see just how silly Scot's arguments are, consider the following. According to Scot, appeals to Scripture and nature arguments to reject homosexual practice must be rejected because slaveowners in the antebellum American South also made appeals to Scripture and nature arguments. Never mind that the latter were bad appeals based on misunderstandings of Scripture and the former are good appeals that are based on correct understandings of Scripture understood in its historical and literary context. Scot goes with the view that if a certain type of argument can ever be used badly then all such types of argument must be bad. So let's apply Scot's principles and see what we come up with.

Scot argues that homosexualist arguments are like abolitionist arguments: they both are good because they make general appeals "inspired by the larger arc of scripture," "the message of grace" and "justice and universal brotherhood." But hold the fort: modern polyamorists, proponents of "big love," argue on the basis of the same types of principles. So the Unitarian Universalist Polyamory Awareness group which even the president of the main UU seminary (Starr King) has endorsed. By Scot's reasoning since polyamorists use the same types of argument, but do it badly, then all such types of arguments, irrespective of how equal and accurate their general appeals to scripture and justice/love are, must be rejected. That's how bad Scot's reasoning his.