Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

The logical fallacy you used here is appeal to authority.

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if: A) The authority is fallible and B) The authority is not qualified as an expert in the area being discussed. Neither of these applies to God so it is not a fallacy to appeal to God’s authority.

You've created an arbitrary definition and then used it as "proof" for another belief. I used to think this was called "begging the question" but there may be another name for this fallacy. First, you need to explain why I should accept your "proof", in this case your definition of marriage.

A) Scripture defines marriage this way
B) The dictionary also defines marriage this way (the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. ).

So your un-acceptance of that definition is what is actually arbitrary and fallacious.

you'd still not have the right to force it on someone else.

So if I don’t agree with the definition of “murder” the government has no right to punish me for committing murder? This is a silly argument you have used here. Christ was very clear that scripture has always defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Your conclusion is based on your arbitrary definition of sin combined with your arbitrary definition of marriage.

If he is using the definition of sin that scripture uses (something contrary to God’s decreed will), and the definition of marriage that both scripture and the dictionary use then he is not being arbitrary at all.

The logical fallacy here is a red herring. You've introduced an irrelevant topic as a distraction, possibly as an attempt to change the subject and possibly as an attempt at implied false equivocation. Let's stay on topic here.

Not really, he was trying to reduce the opposing arguments to absurdity by showing that something that most everyone believes is wrong (bestiality) is wrong for the exact same reasons as homosexuality is.

Once again, you've presented an unproven assertion as "proof" for another belief. Even if it is true, we have an appeal to authority. CauseGodSaysSoThat'sWhy is not a logical reason to believe something.

This was not a fallacious appeal to authority for the same reasons as I stated above.

You seem to be repeating the same argument and putting different bullet points on it. First, you say it's a "sin" (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's not legitimate form of marriage (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's unacceptable (GodSaysSo). Then you say it goes against God's plan for the family (GodSaysSo). Now you say it's an abomination in God's sight (GodSaysSo).

Yes, homosexuality violates God’s law in a number of ways.

Kindly show me peer reviewed case studies either in history or in psychology that back your assertion. The real field of psychology does not regard homosexuality as socially destructive.

The “real” field of psychology? No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of Christian psychologists who do view homosexuality as destructive; I could just as easily arbitrarily define them as the “real” psychologists like you have done here with secular ones.

Logical fallacy: slippery slope.

Ehhh, kind of, although since there are numerous movements to justify pedophilia in countries that are more progressive on the issue of homosexuality than the U.S. his argument does appear to hold some water. His entire argument did not hinge on this point so it is not a real big problem that he used it.