In fact, you’re turning back towards nominalism with a taste of pragmatism, saying that we define what is and is not moral based on what “works.” That is to say, you’re completely ignoring the entire point of what I wrote and turning to illogical cliched arguments that don’t actually deal with my points. Regardless, I guess I’ll attempt a reply:

You cannot equate pornography to homosexual sex.

I didn’t say they were the same thing. I was making the point that since pornography or premarital sex or what have you goes against God’s design for marriage, they are no different from homosexuality. I was responding to you making the absurd claim that I was somehow lessening homosexuals as people. Instead, I was showing that homosexuality is viewed as a sin, but so are many other “norms” of society, so it doesn’t lessen anyone as a person.

Last time I checked, I was a human being. My problem with Christianity is that it seems to want to deny that and replace NORMAL human desires with feelings for guilt for having those desires.

Someone cut me off while driving today. I wanted to beat the person up. This desire is a normal human desire in the heat of the moment. I guess I should have.

Just because something is a normal desire doesn’t mean it is necessarily a good thing. Desires are amoral; it’s the context and what we do with these desires that makes them count. Thus, I want to beat up a man who is hitting a child. The desire to beat the man up is a good one. I want to beat up the man who cut me in line at Target. That desire is wrong because it’s applied as an overreaction. When applied to sex, the desire to have sex is great. Acting on that desire, however, needs to take place within a certain context. Again, your whole, “You don’t like sex?” argument is a strawman argument. I never even came close to that, nor can you quote anything I said that even comes close to it. Rather, you’re attempting to stereotype me rather than deal with what I’m actually saying.

I do not adopt nominalism my friend.

But you do. When you say things like, “How can you say” and “Who put you in charge of defining this,” that’s nominalism. I don’t get to define anything. There is a form of marriage, established by God, that we are to follow. I didn’t make that up, that’s just how it is.

And it is honestly my opinion that people who equate homosexuality to beastiality have NO place in intelligent conversation. Pretty sure a person who has sex (rapes) animals isn’t comparable to a normal, well adjusted 21-year old college student, with a loving family, who is looking for a legitimate loving relationship with another human being. That’s a deeply offensive comparison, and makes you seem highly ignorant.

The only thing that’s offensive is your inability to (1) approach this subjection rationally and (2) actually understand and deal with what I’m saying, not making these massive leaps in your mind. I never said that homosexuality was like zoophilia. What I said is that if we adopted your idea of self-authentication via desires (especially within a nominalistic context) we then lose our right to condemn any actions, including the ones I mentioned. Further, we lose the right to the criteria of, “So long as it doesn’t harm anyone.” I was pointing out that your criteria of self-authentication via sexual acts (or any acts really) fails. I was not saying that homosexuality is like zoophilia.

Please, if you’re going to have a discussion with me, you need to do a few things:

1) Lose the emotionalism. You keep saying things like “unfair” and appealing to emotion. When discussing the truth of a proposition, I could care less about an emotional attachment to the subject. What I care about is truth.
2) Stop the strawmen. So far you haven’t dealt with what I’ve said, you’ve only dealt with a stereotype of what I’ve said. You need to calm down before you reply and really read my response.
3) Stop trying to make me look like I don’t know what I’m talking about. I do know what I’m talking about, very much so. The sooner you accept this, the quicker we’ll be able to find common ground.
4) Brush up on metaphysics. I provided a link in my updated post. I suggest you read it.

Last time I checked, I was a human being. My problem with Christianity is that it seems to want to deny that and replace NORMAL human desires with feelings for guilt for having those desires. Sex is not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. I’m not going to make a case for waiting until marriage since I’m not sure that makes much difference, but by all means I resent the the heavily sexualized culture of America. I’m not a fan. I think it sends the wrong message to impressionable youth, however there is a balance. I do not adopt nominalism my friend. You seem to be lost in this unattainable ideal. Human beings do not work the way in which you present. For example I think it’s ridiculous for teenagers shouldn’t be being told to strictly abstain from sex. They are going to have sex. You have to be realistic. Human beings want sex. That’s bad? Maybe, if you believe it is. I guess.

What you are basically doing is making a case against homosexual sex, and that is essentially a backhanded way of saying “no homosexual relationships, period.” That’s unfair. Who are you to claim that it’s wrong? If you expect a person to deny the love of another, well, I think you should reconsider the message you send to people.

And it is honestly my opinion that people who equate homosexuality to beastiality have NO place in intelligent conversation. Pretty sure a person who has sex (rapes) animals isn’t comparable to a normal, well adjusted 21-year old college student, with a loving family, who is looking for a legitimate loving relationship with another human being. That’s a deeply offensive comparison, and makes you seem highly ignorant.

I will point to certain relationships within the public eye: Matthew Bomer and his partner have children. Would you suggest that they break-up their family because Christians say their relationship is illegitimate?

At the end of the day, this argument is tired. I know more than you, because I am the homosexual. Pretending to know more about my sexuality than I do is ridiculous. And it also doesn’t matter. I have full confidence that within the next ten years this will be a non-issue.

And your argument for civil unions vs. marriage is still completely muddy. You didn’t answer the question. What are you attempting to define as the difference between marriage and civil unions? Are you suggesting gay partnerships should only be able to claim “I am unionized,” and only straight partnerships claim “I’m married.” IF you really think about that—it’s a word game, and that is all.

If you are saying that gay marriages shouldn’t be allowed to occur in churches, uh…clue…I don’t believe most people want to spent their special day in a place they aren’t welcome.