Justin, your orignal statement was that if you were attracted to dark haired women and it was your choice, the nobody has a right to judge my choice.
In the context of this thread, what you are in effect saying is that, if one says that the Bible condemns homosexual practices, then whether it's a choice or not has no bearing. Perhaps, this is not an ad hominem argument, but it really has nothing to do with what we're discussing. I think that you and I both know that whether or not you're attracted to a particular type of woman, while you and I may be attracted to different types of women, is not something that you're likely to be judged on. However, to try to apply that statement to the topic at hand is, imho, a big stretch.
Also, I still don't buy your statement that it's difficult to refute Biblical passages that are in English. It's done all the time and there are differences in interpretation even among those whose beliefs are basically the same. If you had said that you didn't have enough knowledge to refute it, that you weren't going to do it, etc., I'd have no problem with your saying that, but it's really not very difficult to refute the interpretations of Biblical passages if one has enough knowledge to do so, and if there is in fact really a reasonable refutation. I'll let others judge but I think that I refuted what was said on the website that you recommended fairly effectively and I'm by no means a Bible scholar. All I had to do was read the passage in context and it was fairly clear that the given interpretations were, at best, a stretch.
It was you, not I, who introduced the idea of people having agendas, and so partly I was just following in your footsteps. However, when I open a blog and the first thing that it says in rather large letters is that the Bible endorses homosexuality, I don't know how you could not say that is not having an agenda.
Then, if you go to the actual verses cited, you find that they totally ignored the context of the passage in order to prove their point. What I see is that someone wanted to prove that the Bible had a particular point of view and then chose some verses that, if you ignore the context in which they were written, can be interpreted in the way that they've already decided. If you use the Bible in that way, you can "prove" that the Bible, or almost any other work of any significance, says pretty much whatever you want it to say. Most christians I know, myself included, read the Bible and try to interpret what it is really saying whether or not it contradicts what I might already believe, and very often it does exactly that. If instead, I tried to pick only those verses that supported my beliefs, and on top of that, ignored the context in which those verses were written, then other than to prove how smart and wise I am, there would be little point to my reading the Bible. If I did that, it would be a sin, a sin called pride and, while what I've read in the scriptures make it very clear to me that God doesn't rank any sin above another, I believe that pride is the source of a good many of the other sins that men and women commit.
Does that mean that I'd never look at the Bible to verify to test my belief? No, of course not. However, if I have to extrapolate things from verses that don't fit into the context of what is written or I ignore what might be written elsewhere in the Bible, then I'm not making an honest evaluation, and on the blog that you cited, they seem to me at least to be doing exactly that.
"Basically, the example that Justin gave has nothing to do with the question at hand."

For this, I owe you an apology. When I first went to Philemon, the verse that you cited or that I thought that you cited seemed to have nothing to do with slavery. After reading the entire chapter, I could see how some people might have tried to use that particular chapter to try to justify slavery. However, if you read the passage, which I gave, you can see that it hardly justifies slavery. I had originally meant to delete that sentence after that. However, I would still maintain that citing Biblical passages that have absoutley nothing to do with homosexuality don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Straw Man. Your attacking I position I have not represented.
I never said that this was your position. However, if you go to the websites that you cited, at least the ones that I can access, do exactly that and I've already presented evidence on the other thread to show this to be so, which you are more than welcome to try to refute.

First, you said that their agenda was religious tolerance. Now, you're saying that they had no agenda. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. What I said was that the only agenda of almost all the translations, except the KJV and the last two, that I cited, had no agenda other than rendering an accurate translation. If you have evidence to the contrary, you're more than welcome to provide it.

since you've consistently refused to argue the information they've presented

Justin, I spent a lot of time doing exactly that, arguing the information that they presented, at least the sites that I was allowed to access, or did you not bother to read what I wrote?

"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.

Except that I did present quite a bit of evidence to back up the above statements and, again, you're more than welcome to attempt to refute that evidence.

And you still haven't provided anything to back up the statement that you quoted that states something like, if the Bible is interpreted properly, it shows something like that homosexuals and heterosexuals should live separate lives or something like that. You cited a website which I'm unable to access. If you're going to quote statements like that, it seems to me that you need to at least tell us on what this statement is based.

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.

You totally lost me here. Where did I contradict myself, particularly since you seem to agree with me? In fact, if you'll reread your paragraph, I think you'll see that you contradicted yourself. First, you state that you agree that marriage is not a right and then you say that they take away the right for homosexual couples. In any case, if you read what I said about this, as far as granting any couples the same privileges as those, who are married, providing that they also accept the same responsibilities, I believe that you'll find that we're essentially in agreement on this.

What is the DPA and where was there any discussion at all of "separate but equal"?

As far as the scientific evidence that you discussed, what is your source for this? It's not my intention to necessarily refute it, but instead of making such statements, it might be helpful if you'd cite your source, and that would benefit everybody.