"It is statements like the above that destroy dialogue. If someone states that homosexuality is a choice and someone else challenges the statement, then they are accused of making judgments. This is an ad hominem argument and is thus invalid.

What it does, instead of presenting evidence for your opinion, it attempts to degrade, debase. or discredit those who disagree with you."

That's entirely incorrect Bob. First of all, stating that my question would lead to an Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy in of itself, as it's a Hasty Generalization.

The point was that simply because an issue is a choice, doesn't mean it should be regarded as wrong on its face. That wasn't a response to the religious argument, but the question itself.

Let me offer you a few examples of an Ad Hominem:

"relying on a website that quite clearly has an agenda"
"In as much as your excuse for not answering her has been exposed to be false"

Both of those were replies you gave to me, and as you can see they were both attacks (one on the site, one on me) and they are perfect examples of Ad Hominem's.

"Basically, the example that Justin gave has nothing to do with the question at hand."

That's a Red Herring, not an Ad Hominem. But that assumes you're right, which you aren't. It's an analogy formed as a rhetorical question. That, isn't a logical fallacy.

"My objection to the concept that people were born gay has to do with the fact that they have really not presented any solid evidence support it and that anybody who disagrees with them is attacked as being either homophobic or judgmental and so, unless someone wants to risk being labeled as such, they must accept what these people say, even if there is little or no evidence, as truth."

Actually there is extraordinary scientific evidence supporting both nature and nurture being responsible for same-sex attraction. We've already proven homosexuality occurs in nature (fruit flies and some species of primates). Science has also managed to make homosexual mice by genetic altering a single chromosome.

The fact is, we KNOW it occurs in nature, the true argument we haven't proven is how much of it is HUMAN nature, and how much of it is environment.

"Secondly, for those who actually do read the Bible, and I'd prefer to discuss this on a separate thread I'd started, it would be very difficult and dishonest to say that practicing homosexuality is not a sin."

Appeal to Belief. Simply because "most" people believe something doesn't make it true.

"So, if one can't accept what is clearly there, they do one of two things. They try to find a way to wiggle out of what was actually said and written finding ways to misinterpret, usually by ignoring context and what might be written elsewhere in the Bible."

Straw Man. Your attacking I position I have not represented.

"Or they do what the people on the website that Justin has apparently used. They state that the translation was wrong because the translators had an agenda."

The Religious Tolerance site I posted has no agenda. They present both sides of the issue. But that's moot... unless you want to claim either side is perfectly objective, than we all have one agenda or another. Subjectivity = agenda in this case.

"What they're really saying is that they don't like what the Bible is saying because it doesn't match their own agenda, and if you have any doubt about that, all you need to do is go to their web site."

In a similar construct, you are countering everything I say (with a great deal of logical fallacies) because you don't like what I am saying. Of course, you are still using Ad Hominem attacks against the site, since you've consistently refused to argue the information they've presented, and instead attack the site itself. We do agree, however, that such acts degrade the purpose of a debate.

"First of all, when did marriage become a right? It's not. Various jurisdictions throughout the world have certain requirements that must be met before you can be married. Rights don't presuppose that one must meet any requirements other than being a citizen or resident of a particular place. Also, the government cannot bestow rights."

You contradicted yourself. First you say marriage is not a right, then you say the government can't bestow rights anyway. You're correct... the government can't bestow rights, it can only remove them. As such, the moment marriage became legally defined as "between a man and a woman" the government did, in fact, take away the right for homosexual couples.

I won't get into the marriage debate too much, as IMHO, the government has absolutely no right to marriage in the first place. It's a religious institution, and as such, the government shouldn't even be involved.

As for your final comments on the DPA and other such acts, history has already dictated how effective "separate but equal" is. We tried it, and it doesn't work.

This was an interesting mini-debate, but in reality that wasn't my purpose in replying. My only reason for doing so, was to present information that allows those that are interested to investigate further, and I hopefully, I've done that much.