You misused the rules in your first post. Other than that, I said barely legible. I can still read it. Also, it was an exaggeration, but it was based on truth. Cheers

it is only a strawman if they are misrepresenting the biblical writing to better suit their argument.
id say that example falls more closely under the composition fallacy. ie; because this contradiction is false, then god is also false.

however, i almost never hear that being said. more accurately id say people use such a contradiction as an example of how the bible can be wrong even if treated as law previously. It's a curiosity of "how can one be so fervently behind a text that has not only been revised dozens of times, but also been flat out wrong? How can one be so sure?".

it was an exaggeration based on trolling and it very much upset me. cheers yourself.

Point out the rules i misused.

welcome!
now we just need someone to make those fakebanners for our profile pics.

The appeal to authority has nothing to do with bold.

As for the appeal to nature, I have no idea what it has to do with bold.

The strawman is just an orphan thrown in there with no logic explained, so I just ignored it this far.

It's natural therefore it is correct. "Appeal to nature"

imho you are not worthy of it.

Burden of Proof, applicable to every claim of God. The sheer hypocrisy of attacking science while failing to substantiate your claim at all.

1. yes it does because it's appealing to god as a source of what is right.
It's appealing to nature because since it's a natural function, it is the right function.
The strawman is misrepresenting the human function to say procreation is our raison d'etre, in order to more strongly argue the other points mentioned above.

2. except that is what is called actual evidence. We are animals. Animals have been proven to have gay populations. Therefore humans being gay is natural. Notice i didn't say it's "right". You are the one who brought up morality.

your argument with my "appral to nature" is completely off base. My claim is 100% logic.

all animals (excepting humans for now) have gay populations.
humans are animals.
therefore humans amust have gay populations.

a=b
x=a
therefore x=b
logic is mathematical.

this is also where the counter-argument comes from that humans are special and therefore above natural law.
This is an actual argument against homosexuality that exists.

to reiterate in a logical way for you, the bolded you pointed out is logical unto itself;
b follows from a.
However, a is an assumption (logical term, look it up)
and a is unproven, therefore because god is unproven (logically), b is not proven by a, but may be proved by something else hypothetically.
As for appeal to nature:
procreation is part of our essential function, god wouldn't make gays.
procreation as a function=a
god doesn't make people gay=b
b follows from a, but a is an assumption and unproven as being essential. Therefore b is unproven by a, but may be proven otherwise, hypothetically.
As for strawman;
the argument implies that procreation is something that defines us. If we were defined by procreation, then the reasoning would be true. However, it is unproven that we are defined as such.