My comment about the Klan was designed to show you how wrong your argument was. It is an argument the Klan could use: "A club is just a group of people who have shared beliefs."

Secondly, of course I'm partisan in my arguments. I have never said otherwise - in fact, I think I've said just the opposite at least once, if not twice. I think you mistake "a veneer of neutral objectivity" for sheer politeness. The only veneer here is the one over my incredulous disbelief that an obviously educated person can be so misconceived.

In relation to my comments on your slippery slope arguments and the use of other terminology which you clearly do not understand, I realise that you are I are talking a different language here. If you have no appreciation or understanding of principles of logic, I really don't feel the need to take you through the syllogisms backing them up. I think it was sufficient that I provided you with links to a basic explanation of the terms. But, especially your slippery slope "We let the gays have rights to get married, who knows what sort of perversion we'll spawn" is just a classic fallacy. A slippery slope is just never true of itself. You can never prove it to be so. At best, its speculation.

Next,

quote:

I love the way you try to reverse my own use of the word distortion, when it is your interpretation that is clearly liberally bised and distorted.

Gays, having no ideology beyond what rationalizes their lifestyle, can make that claim. But PROVE to me that homosexuality is inborn. YOUR OWN argument is based on a fallacious logic by consensus argument that blindly accepts the gay notion that their behavior is inborn, when there is not scientific evidence to back that up. That, again, is bias.
When did I say homosexuality is "inborn"?

In fact, I think I've said on at least 3 occasions that homosexuality is a choice. "Choice" is not an "inborn" characteristic.

You aren't reading what I say, Dave. You're subsitituting what you think I'm saying, based upon my "liberal biases".

Next,

quote:


a Bible where about 60,000 manuscripts exist for comparison, and as I said, is more verifiable than any other ancient document(the distortions of scripture are obvous, but you choose to evade them in your arguments, Dave )
"Verifiable" for what? Verifiable against what? Truth?

"Distortions of scripture"? I evaded what?

Next,

quote:

If the Bible COULD be disproven, the secular humanists would have done so by now.
Oh, yes. It makes perfect sense that a large omniscient being created the Earth in seven days. Much more sense than the earth being the debris of creation of the sun. Pardon my sarcasm. If you choose to believe this, then fine. Its a belief choice you make, and I won't challenge it. But is it objective truth? Not a chance.

quote:

It is CRYSTAL clear that gays are attempting to warp scripture to whitewash the gay lifestyle, despite what scripture clearly says in opposition to this.
I think more to the point Christian gays choose to ignore it as obsolete, but anyway.

quote:


And the fact that Christianity is open to all who believe, and that one who practices homosexuality is clearly not following Biblical teachings.
And that is intolerance. If someone believes Jesus died for our sins, and that he is the son of God, its a disgrace that any person who honestly believes that can be ostracised by the Church.

quote:

Because gambling is a type of behavior. Bestiality is a type of behavior. Incest is a type of behavior. Why do we render illegal any of these activities?
And pedophilia, and murder, and rape, and adultery, all are behaviors the Bible condemns.
Gambling is not illegal in many parts of even your own country.

I think I'm arguing in circles. I could now say, "How is homosexuality a sin?" and you'd say, "Because the Bible tells me so."

Anyway, Dave has said he's had enough. Personally, I feel I've come away from this argument more vindicated than ever. The only reason Christians ostracise gays from their church is because it is specifically mentioned in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, and because the promiscuous gays spread disease (as do the promiscuous straights). If the Church prevented promiscuous people regardless of their seuxal gender choice entry into the Church, and didn't pick on gays in particular, I'd feel some sympathy for their position. But in barring relationship-committed gays because its an arbitrary sin according to the Bible, I have no sympathy at all.

The Earth isn't fixed (setting Dave's disingenuous arguments to the contrary aside) and homosexuality isn't immoral.