I don't think either of them have crossed the line, yet. Which is why i've ignored the stream of reports coming from the two of them against one another.

I would advise that both stop before moderation kicks in, however.

Done and done:

Now I can see what you're going to say already, and if you bring up the whole "environment" thing, then you're only making the argument for choice. For example, there are many known cases of rich people coming from poor families. Despite being raised in a poor environment, they don't turn out the same way. There are many people who don't believe in the same faith that they were raised with.

Don't start this technicality bullshit about gay being a thought, because if being gay came to thoughts about such, then EVERYONE WOULD BE GAY. You know exactly what was meant, and don't try to deny it.

Nice try with the reverse bigotry, but I could say (for example, if you hated Nazism and their beliefs on genocide) that you're a bigot too. The difference is, my intolerance comes from bigotry expressed by the religious fanatics, which is, in essence, an attack on bigotry, not bigotry itself. When someone crosses the line and begins to hurt others with their opinions, resisting said opinions is not bigotry. Unless, of course, you can tell me HOW gay people are hurting religion to make them retaliate in such a way?

Oh and by the way, I wouldn't call "piss off" being polite, respectful or honest. Either your sense of politeness is out of whack, or you're looking at this argument with rose-tinted glasses.

Okay, now you're being as silly as killerX. It's one thing to come on here and be ignorant to logic and then whinge when people argue his points like he did, but it's a completely different matter to say "It's okay. His logic is based on faith" and expect it to hold water, and quite frankly, if you're using that as justification to his argument, then I'm seriously starting to question YOUR logic.

This is a forum. If you come on here and say stupid things that you can't back up by logic, you should expect them to be questioned. Faith WANTS the opposite (ie. express views but cannot be questioned), but cannot have it. My advice? If you cannot stand questioning of your faith, then keep it to yourself. 

OK, first of all, there's a difference between "people aren't born gay" and "being gay is a choice". Environment is one of the factors. Genetics is another, as is the conditions in the womb. And yes, for a significant number of people it is a choice... and for a significant number of people, being straight is a choice (I'm referring, here, to the fact that sexual orientation isn't black and white, one can be 'mostly gay').

Keep in mind that I don't in any way endorse killerzX's opinion. I think it's wrongheaded and only likely to harm his family, should one of his children actually end up being gay.

You invoke nazism (which is a fascinating example of a classic law, by the way), and you seem to fail to realise that, yes, hatred of someone because they're a nazi is bigotry. Hating a person for an action is fine, hating a person for their opinion or worldview is bigotry, just as much as hating them for their gender, skin colour, or heritage is bigotry. You aren't hating killerzX for anything he has done, but for the fact that he holds an opinion that differs from yours. That makes you a bigot.

Yes, he was being polite until the point he was truly fed up with your actions. He said "piss off" when he realised that you weren't interested in debate, but in attacking him.

You speak of "questioning" his views. Where have you questioned them? What you have done is ridiculed him for his views, and imposed your own belief system on the discussion, as though yours is somehow inherently superior to his. That is exactly what you complain about when it comes from religious people, something which killerzX didn't do (try to impose his opinion, not complain).

And it's convenient to define faith as "holding a view and refusing to ever question it or allow others to do so"... it makes it so much easier to refuse to allow anyone to question your own view. While you and I may consider logic to be a better approach, this is not something that logic can prove, and it's something that we take as an axiom - that logic provides the best conclusions. I'm fine with having that axiom, but anyone capable of actually applying logic, rather than just defining their own worldview as "logic", is capable of understanding that the axiom is not a perfect one, that there are equally valid justifications for faith (equally valid in that neither can really be shown to be better or worse). If you can't comprehend what this means, then I recommend you start reading up on books on philosophy, to try to expand your capability to understand things, and to perhaps open your mind to possibilities other than your own.

Perhaps I should now explain my qualifications in this area. There was a guy that came into the Wiire IRC chatroom, quite a few years ago, and began interacting with others. He was devoutly christian, in a very devout christian family (adopted, as it so happens), and in a discussion that popped up about various things, he asked questions about why anyone would do certain things, like be gay. They were meant mostly rhetorically, but I provided him with answers anyway, and gave him questions that, without forcing the issue, just left him with things to think about. Over time, I emphasised his need to understand his own beliefs, and to question them to determine whether he really believed them, or if he was simply taught to do so, with part of the reasoning being that, if his belief was strong, it would hold up to questioning, and if it was weak, then it wasn't really a belief to begin with.

Skip forward a few months, and he admitted to himself that he was gay. It was something he had been rejecting about himself. He came out to his family, and while it took a bit of time to reconcile everything, they handled it well enough. He's now an atheist, by the way - not because I ridiculed him or anything, or even tried to push him towards atheism. All I did was get him to think about his beliefs, to question them to determine their strength. He could have ended up being even more religious. And I would have been fine with that, because it was the result of questioning his beliefs, and being true to himself.

My point in telling this story is to emphasise that ridicule and pushing doesn't convince people, they just become defensive. Unsurprisingly, after trying to debate you and others, killerzX became defensive after all of the ridicule, etc... eventually, reaching the point of even saying things like "piss off".

Part of the process involves trying to understand things from the other person's point of view. You'll never convince somebody of something by describing the view of the world from YOUR eyes. You need to see it from theirs.

the only thing i could think of is re-procreation, other then that. to each is on. i love pie.

I already answered your first paragraph in my previous reply. The only part I have to add is that you're mixing up two completely different meanings of choice. The encompassing one (ie. The choice to actually perform homosexual acts and act on thought) is the one at topic, not the choice on which way to o if you're in between. I do agree however that there are shades in between. The choice you're talking about, however, does not change that shade. That will always remain, even if you choose to take a straight path.

Are you accusing me of Nazism, or are you hypothesising? If the former, what do you have to accuse me on? I was merely using it as an example of how actions against anyone/anything can be labeled as bigotry. Now let me ask you this. Is it bigotry to show opposition over people who show beliefs or have tendancies towards child abuse, or should the opposition wait until the child abuse actually happens? What about the KKK? Surely calling them out on their beliefs isn't bigotry...Be careful with what you label as bigotry here...

Please show me the spot where I was forcing him to respond. He could have walked away at any time. It was his choice to resort to verbal abuse. Next you'll say I pointed a gun to his head to make him insult me on here....

Okay, why don't you take a break, and read the ENTIRE thread, instead of jumping in near the end to impose YOUR views. If you were around any earlier, you'd have seen me ask HOW he was going to guarantee that his kids werent going to be gay, to which I got no response for that. Your view of "even the illogical has valid points" is incredibly annoying, and looking downright ridiculous.

Let me give you a lesson about Logos (logical argumentative reasoning). You see, the key to providing logical argument is to show the reasoning behind your conclusion. Killerzx did not provide any kind of logic behind his statement (you even admitted it yourself. It was faith. "Because I said so" is not a valid logical answer), therefore his argument does not stand. It's actually an argumentative form called Pathos (argumentation through fear), which does not contrast at all in the thread (or in any reasonable arguments for that matter). On the other hand, my answers (such as the reverse bigotry), show WHY, in a logical sense, your accusation does not hold. Of course, you're free to counter with another logical argument (that's the whole basis of a logical argument), like has been happening, but for the love of god, explain to me why "because it's my beliefs" a logical reason in an argument...

Are we learning yet? The difference between this argument and the previous one was that logic is being used from both sides to build on the argument. Faith has no place in an argument, especially when it adresses the welfare of people other than themselves.

Cool story bro, but did this guy come straight on the chatroom displaying straight prejudice, or was he open minded and willing to learn to begin with? I know killerzx from previous arguments. No amount of argumentative reasoning is going to change his views. If people want to be enlightened, they need to be willing to admit when they're wrong, not use a scapegoat like faith to hide behind. Also, it wouldn't have hurt to start on a better note than what he did. If you flame a thread, don't cry if you get burnt...

Once again, the process of seeing the world through other eyes works on the premise that they have to be willing to do so, and yes I have tried countless times to think like these people, but I always come to the conclusion of "WHY am I hating gays again?". that's why faith in an argument doesn't work, because it's impossible to see ANY kind of reasoning from another's eyes without logical thought behind it. Once again, faith belongs to the individual, and if they don't wish to be open to questioning of it, then they should be keeping it to themselves.

I live in a country (Australia) that is very secular and has an ever increasing number of atheists and non practicing Christians. Despite that fact we still have not legalised same sex marriage. Though civil unions are allowed of course. I think even when taking religion out of the equation many people will maintain a disliking to something that is different or is not considered the norm.

Also doesn't help that many in the gay community and especially in Sydney where I live don't do themselves any favours by mocking Christians at events like the mardi gras by dressing up like nuns and priests. This only hardens attitudes and increases distrust and disrespect.

Now with that in mind and considering same sex civil unions are legalised why is there such a strong push to allow same sex marriages? And how would they propose that this be enforced?? Do we force Churches and other religions to wed same sex couples against their will? How do we do so without infringing on their beliefs?

Personally for me this is a non issue. It only becomes one if someone attempts to force their values onto my own. I think the majority in Australia feel the same way and that it is only a small but vocal minority that want to change the status quo.

edit- I can understand a push being made if civil unions don't have equality under law compared to traditional marriages but if not then laws simply need to be ammended to have equality without forcing religious communities to perform same sex marriages unless they freely choose to do so.

My point wasn't that Homosexuality in roman culture directly relates to modern culture, it's that openness and acceptence of homosexuality isn't a modern phenomenon. 

It's bigots like you who prevent us moving forward. You have no good reason for stopping gay people having kids except your own perversely bigoted views. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, yes. But when certain opinions prevent loving, healthy, happy and normal (yes, normal!!) People raising a child, you should stfu and stick "your opinion" where the sun don't shine.

homosexuals should be allowed to marry if the church lets them. If they can find a church that allows it they should be able to get married. Marriage is a religious institution, and the government should not be involved.
The problem is that government is involved in marriage. If people really want freedom of religion, they need to get government out of their church.
Of course people will demand equal rights under law of government, so instead of blaming the government for getting involved you blame the people who disagree with your religion. If government wasn't involved your church could have total freedom of how they wanted to define marriage, who they wanted to let marry and everything down to every detail.
I see these catholic charities whining about how they have to adopt gay children. Well guess what? That's what happens when you take money from the federal government, that's what happens when you involve government in your religion. Churches don't even pay taxes ffs.

While i voted "don't care", because people are free to do what they want (it's not like humans are an endangered species whereby homosexuality would threaten our continued existance).But herein lies the non-religious objection a lot of people have. Homosexuality serves no natural purpose in so far as what life *is*, but makes a lot of sense on a personal level. Physical expression of love with no intent to procreate is a uniquely human trait (in animals it's supposedly instinctual - but we won't know for sure until we actually speak to one). This argument falls flat on it's face when you consider that all we do is natural, since we're part of nature (it doesn't define us, we define it). Maybe homosexuality is a natural way humans respond to overpopulation? Fun thought, but unlikely considering how very gay ancinent Greeks were. TLDR: I'm not against gay marriage / civil union, but understand completely why some people have non-religious objections to any kind of homosexual union.