The Bible, gay marriage, and moving goalposts

About a month ago, our angry liberal friend CanadianCynic had a period where he was frothing at the mouth several times about conservatives supposedly "moving the goalposts" in relation to various issues. (It almost became a catchphrase for him.) Considering that and his obvious and violent disdain for all things Christian, I wonder what he'd have to say about this:

The Bible and Heterosexual Marriage (DavidLimbaugh.com)

Alabama state Rep. Alvin Holmes promised on the floor of the House to give $700 to any person who could show him a biblical passage stating that marriage is to be between man and woman. When someone took him up on the offer, citing several passages, he reportedly replied:

Anybody could have any interpretation they want of the Bible but that's not my interpretation.

He has apparently now upped his offer to $5,000, apparently growing in his confidence that he can deny the handbook on Absolute Truth.

Well, of course he can be confident about that. Anytime someone proves him wrong, he can just move the goalposts by tossing out the old "that's not my interpretation" line. How completely unclever and thoroughly dishonest. CanadianCynic would no doubt approve.

UPDATE: Here's what Don Johnson (no, not that Don Johnson) of Runaway Planet had to say on his blog:

That is obviously a ridiculous and unsavory way to handle the wager, but let's clarify just why. Holmes initial claim was that the Bible didn't dictate that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. He was so sure of this supposed fact that he wagered $700.00 just to make the point. Now in order to make this claim, and in order for the wager to work, he had to be appealing to some common, objective standard of literary interpretation. After all, he was appealing to scripture for vindication of his position and putting money on the fact that his position was correct.

If you are going to appeal to a book for proof of your position or challenge people with monetary rewards to prove you wrong, you have to expect people to be able to interpret that book the same way you do. I assume that would mean some sort of "plain sense" reading of the text - taking the words at face value. You can't make a wager or support your position based on a floating, subjective standard of interpretation such as the one Mr. Holmes appealed to when confronted with the texts. It destroys the support for your initial proposition and makes the bet ridiculous.

Well said, Don!