hrmm exvept the scientists are using evidence, so they are drawing logical conclusions based on factual realities. That's not an appeal to authority.
And it's not an appeal to nature because it is literally proven that all species have popukations of gay individuals..
thats not a fallacy thats just how it is.
it would be as if there was an idea that humans breathed soul air, and to prove it false, we looked at other animals saying humans must breathe normal air because all life needs oxygen to live.appeal to nature would be "we have males and females designed to reproduce. homosex isn't natural"

Wow, this post is barely legible... I'll try to make out the meaning.

@Appeal to authority:

Yes, the scientists themselves are using evidence, but the posters are certifying their arguments using special authority. Here, you are using special pleading because, though the scientists are using evidence, it doesn't remove from the fact that the poster is employing special authority to base his claim on the scientists rather than on the evidence of the scientists.

Special authority: Poster says "I'm right because it's supported by the scientific community."

Reasonable Poster says "I'm right because here is the evidence brought forth by the scientific community and it makes sense to me."

As such, you just used special pleading (by shifting the goalposts).

@Appeal to nature:

As for homosexuality, to say that all species have populations of gays to support homosexuality is using "appeal to nature". It is natural, therefore it is correct. I personally agree with neither of your claim and the fallacy rule of "Appeal to nature".

As for your second idea that highlights a typical religious claim of "we have males and females designed to reproduce. homosex isn't natural", it is also an appeal to nature. Both are "fallacies" given OP, but it all depends on what your rules are for morality. If something being natural means it's moral, then you're golden. If not, well, it's a fallacy.

Here, you employed the double-standard fallacy (I'm adding it), by saying one case of appeal to nature is correct and the other is incorrect.

Regarding the weakness of the Appeal to nature rule, the fallacy commandments aren't free of their own scrutiny either.

barely legible?
thanks for reminding me why i don't respect you.

What is soul air, why are your sentences not capitalized, and why are your sentences not in paragraphs?

Right.

EDIT: I'm aware that you don't respect me, but if your disrespect leads you to say things that are incorrect because you think I'm wrong just because I'm not on the same level as you (fallacy rule of "genetics"), then you can be sure I will prove to you that I am worthy of respect by showing how incorrect you are.

Briefly, on the topic of homosexuality, the predominant argument that exists in the western world today is not whether homosexuals should be able to pursue their sexual preferences without persecution, the argument is whether a homosexual relationship can be equal to a heterosexual marriage ...

This is not a question of what is natural, it is a question of what the real meaning and purpose of marriage is; and when you look at the measurable benefit of marriage and the traditional (pre-Hollywood) definition of it, it seems to be a formalized binding of individuals to create a stable household for raising children to provide the best outcomes for them. "Love" or "social recognition" has little to do with Marriage, and (for the most part) homosexual couples seem to want weddings not marriages.

i haven't said anything incorrect, and im not disputing your arguments based on who you are.
soul air is a term i made up to help elucidate why we can judge what is natural for humans, scientifically, by using other animals, because humans are animals. It is only due to my lack of a good comparison that i used the term.

my sentences not being capitalized has absolutely zero to do with your ability to understand a post.
The sentences not being in paragraphs is likewise irrelevant to comprehension.

@bold. You don't know that.

@Your logic was incorrect, as I've shown. You said that the religious violated the "appeal to nature" and "appeal to authority" rules, and your demonstrations were incorrect, they didn't follow the definitions.

@italics. You're going to have to prove that over time.

@squirrl
the main contention is that homosexual couples have no rights.homosexuals dont all care for marriage...it's about having the rights that come with marriage. since, as is claimed , homosexuals have no choice in being homosexual, technically, reserving marriage benefita and rights to only those who are married to an opposite sex should be considered discriminatory.

yet you were able to read it. Astounding how you just proved yourself wrong. Can you read in all caps? can you read in all lower case? can you read sentences ? then, you should be able to read uncapitalized sentences that at least had line breaks. Had it been a wall of text, you would have a point. But there were linebreaks at the end of each portion, you can check the coding in the html viwer if you like.

The logic is not incorrect. Those fallacies are made. All you've shown is that the other side also uses fallacies. That does not counter my point, nor prove it incorrect.

And I don't  have to prove you anything. You can either take what I'm saying and try to listen, or you can continue thinking that I'm persecuting you. Your choice.

Is it a strawman argument when atheists claim that God cannot exist because the idea of Him being omnipotent and humans having free will is a contradiction?