Maybe not, or maybe you have, who knows. But what I do know is that you've expressed fear of homosexuality (as opposed to a homosexual person). Or at least the stripping of power of your particular brand of morality?

If you have no fear, than clearly you would have no problem in letting two consenting adults who love each other marry. Similarly, you wouldn't feel the need to express differences to homosexuals, assign values to them, and alienate them.

What? No it doesn't. You could be right and be a bigot.

Curious, is intention really relevant here?

Hmm, and some considerably more active than others.

I could understand this being an issue of priority for say, a homosexual couple. But for a heterosexual, I think it is an expression of insecurity or bigotry.

I beg to differ. Opinions shape policy.

You're presuming non-heterosexuality is defective. Your definition of defective seems to be uncertain. Is something that is defective merely abnormal, or is it something without intention?

Do you really spend most of your time here with semantics? Or is it something much more?

Definitions change. Marriage in its modern usage has come to mean a partnership of love. Perhaps your point of a union between 'a man and a woman' would make more sense a couple centuries ago when marriage was primarily a contractual agreement. Oh wait, how can that be, marriage has always meant the same thing, it's the deformed nasty homosexuals hijacking decent morality .

At least we agree on something....although I've never said they were deformed. Although I guess technically you could consider them deformed for their sex drive since the human body wasn't designed for homosexual activity.

Normal as conforming to the common, homosexuality obviously isn't normal. Normal as a natural occurrence, then it certainly is. There's nothing relative about the cold hard facts of science. Your slippery-slope fear mongering about accepting homosexuality as natural as a morality willing to accept 'anything' is not grounded in logic, on the contrary it is grounded in fallacy.

For someone who likes to think his stance on this issue is grounded in logic, you sure do present a lot of different logical fallacies.

A tree cannot love a man, and equally it cannot consent.

Debate forums aren't designed for the purpose of stressing differences. They're designed for the purpose of debating. We can have a perfectly logical discussion on what it means to marry, to love, and to be natural without alienating certain groups.

I'm not. Although I disagree with your position I'm not intolerant of you. But I'm not tolerant of intolerance.

You don't seem to understand my question. I don't think intention is relevant to the discussion; I don't believe something absolutely needs intention in order to be tolerated.

With the unfortunate exception of today, I rarely ever post in this board and I don't seem to have a problem with it. Your theory fails because, not only do you spend an unreasonable amount of time discussing gay issues, but in many instances you end up bringing gay issues into other topics.

Then, as you would say, what is the point of taking part in a debate forum with a purpose to express opinion? In other words, if you really believe that, why are you here?

Again, zoophilia and pedophilia are irrelevant because both are instances where one party cannot consent.

And, really, fx, what are the 'natural laws' of marriage? Marriage is a man made legal and contractual construct and always has been. Do not confuse "marriage" with "love" and/or "sex".

Hence, homophobe. Like the racist, you assign negative connotations to differences (nasty, deformed) so you can feel justified in your discrimination.

and stupid.

Of course the body is designed for homosexual activity. Homosexuals do not engage in any activity that heterosexual do not engage in.

I've never had any problem getting the parts to fit.

TMI. Wee willie.

How interesting of you to suggest you have a better grasp of my arguments than I. Tell me, is there anything else personal about me that I don't understand?

Simply because homosexuality as a natural occurrence enters my world view doesn't mean "anything goes". A rephrasing of your slippery slope fallacy in a more pompous tone doesn't assign any more credibility to your argument.

I don't have to show anything, you've presented yourself fully capable of showing your own fallaciousness.

Hmm, I think you're having a hard time concentrating. Love doesn't necessarily have to be reciprocated but in the context of our discussion (namely, marriage), it does. Hence the inherent fallacy in your slippery slope irrationalities of zoophilia and pedophila. Love between two men is simply not analogous to a man's love for a tree, and it certainly doesn't bring us anything of worth in the debate of gay marriage.

So you're acknowledging my point, that you assign value to differences in order to justify legal inequities.

Your intolerance is highlighted in your self admitted intolerance for not only homosexuality but homosexuals as a group. Intolerance, quite unequivocally, is the refusal to tolerate or respect opinions and/or groups, and in this you fit quite nicely.

I am anything but relativistic in my ethical approach, but I doubt you would be able to see that within the parameters of your simplistic ethical dualism of black vs. white.

Yes, quite really. And in any event, even if you were not the one to start it you don't seem to have any reproach from continuing on such a hijacking.

Obviously we're all sinners in this context at some points in our lives but I'm curious as to the instance that would render such an ad hominem (indeed, more fallacy from you) warranted in this discussion.

Other non-arguable topics is supposed to exclude the debate of gay marriage?

Quite interestingly I find debate in gay marriage with some, such as yourself, to be more unmovable and faithful in their convictions than any religious debate I may engage in. Even if a religious debate is non-arguable to which it usually is reduced to, I still engage in it because usually I gain at least some extent of value to which may be applicable in my quest of critical self-consciousness and reforming my metaphysical beliefs. One of the reasons why I usually so adamantly avoid topics such as gay marriage is because usually there is absolutely nothing valuable extractable from such discourse.

Congratulations that you find enjoyment in the suffering of others, because let me tell you I'm not enjoying this discussion in the least bit. I felt it imperative to respond because of some of the absurdities and misunderstandings you attacked with, some, that I felt just couldn't go unresponded to. But I guess I should thank you for testing my abilities to end worthless debate (or lack thereof) so that I may reform them.

Such as those who hold the indefensible position that animals (and apparently with you, trees) have a consciousness worthy of moral culpability and consent. Indeed, assigning intention behind nature is one of the most predictable and simultaneously folly of human perceptions.

Which says nothing about cognitive maturity to the extent of consent and moral culpability.

The natural end of procreation has sexual attraction, not marriage, as its means. Though, love can be independent of mere sexual attraction and vice-versa. Therefore love can play a entirely different biological reason for its existence. Surely, without love and a complete indifference to the conditions of other humans, the human race would not have survived just as it would not have survived had procreation not been of an interest.

Love and procreation can exist without marriage, and vice versa. Marriage isn't a natural right endowed by the nature of our existences but is merely a man-made construct.

Yes, and when I said it, it was in sarcasm. I know it can be hard sometimes to pick out sarcasm in text, but surely, I thought the way I wrote it, it was obvious.

See, the difference is, a true Christian recognizes lust as a sin. Even though they may still lust, they are in repentance of there sin. A homosexual that refuses to see himself as a sinner, runs into big problems biblicaly, and litteraly has to change the whole consept of Christianity to still call him/her self a Christian. "Those who seek there lives will lose it, but those who give up there lives for my names sake will find it"- Jesus Christ

No, the Bible equates them, which is what this thread is about, remember?

There are no big or little sins. They are all equal.

So if you claim that a homosexual cannot be a Christian, then neither can a man who thinks impure thoughts about a woman.

And that pretty much takes out everyone.
Which, of course, is ridiculous.

Lustful people can be Christians, just as gay people can.

It's all there in John 3:16. No exceptions for the lustful or the homosexual.