they absolutely are relevant.
No, they're not. You set it up that way yourself.
Here's how it works: when you argue that we should treat a particular thing (in this case same-sex marriage) in a certain way because of a given characteristic (in this case, the fact that a segment of the population thinks that God doesn't like it), then there are two possibilities:
- either all things that have that same characteristic should be treated that way as well.
- you're committing the logical fallacy of
special pleading and your original argument is invalid.
If some other characteristic is relevant, then it's your job to identify it and justify
why you think it's relevant.
When you propose a different scenario in a way to explain your position you cannot use examples that have nothing in common with the main topic.
Religion is a choice and is not behavioral.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
Choices are most definitely behavioural... or at least they are when they involve behaviours, like adhering to religious codes, or praying, or going to worship services. Religion is
all about behaviour.
Your position is that homosexuality is not a choice correct? Yet it is behavioral correct?
Apples and oranges dude.
A: it's good to eat apples, because fruits and vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet.
B: but oranges are fruits, too. Doesn't that mean it's just as good to eat an orange as an apple?
A: no! Where did you get that from?! Apples and oranges, dude!
