Discriminatory language in the terms of a christian forum.

[Lion IRC]

See what I did to your logical fallacy?

You equate homosexuality with murder, rape, and paedophila...

No. Read carefully. I equated them with the human population on this planet continuing to grow apace.
It's your logical fallacy pal. Own it.
...homosexuality must not be bad or else the human race wouldnt be where we are now.

...You understand that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, correct?

No - I contest that claim. So do the stats about partner-on-partner violence, self harm, sexually transmitted disease...

Thats not the reason I am against gay "marriage". I have never made that argument against SSM. Try using the quote function instead of the sock puppet ventriloquism routine.

lol, that's EXACTLY the argument you made - the thread began with a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and you immediately brought up procreation.

Go back and read my post. I said dont blame heterosexism on Christians. Blame Darwinian sexual selection.

Nope. I'm not squeamish. If I closed my eyes, I can probably imagine that a ''blindfolded" human orgasm sensation feels pretty much the same no matter what gender or age or other species is involved. Wanna legalize pet brothels?
Or are you one of those..."animals dont like having orgasms err...I mean...animals cant give consent" type folk?

See, now THAT'S a strawman, since I never once suggested beastiality.

I think you need glasses. I did not accuse you. I asked you what you thought about pet brothels and animal consent.
Still waiting for your answer BTW.
*HINT* Look for the "?" at the end of the sentence.

...Why do you lot always seem to resort to that - something to hide?

Still waiting for your answer BTW.
*HINT* Look for the "?" at the end of the sentence.

Well, I suppose if you are running that lame... no harm, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS trope, how about the starving people in Africa? Do we say they are none of our business?
Come to think of it, someone was earlier making the "over population argument" for homosexuality.

You're seriously equating helping hungry people with denying rights to gay people?

Make up your mind. You just got through telling me that what gay people do should be none of my business. Now you are asking me to consider the question. Do I ignore stuff that doesnt affect me or do I give it consideration and take a position?
That applies to every moral/ethical question - not JUST feeding the hungry or making changes to family law. Are you a humanist?

How about those unmarried moms who got pregnant. Their body. Their choice. Should tax payers, (I should say religious charities,) provide welfare for them? Or is that another MYOB look the other way scenario?

Yes, taxpayers should provide assistance to unmarried mums (those who need it, anyroad).

You just argued that I should not stick my nose into stuff that doesnt affect me (SSM). Now you are saying I am a stake-holder in a womans pregnancy. hock: