Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

Its natural to be born black so….: You begin to retort homosexuality is not a sin by once again making an analogy with a natural trait like skin color. I already established though last round that Sins are natural, with arguments that you did not address or contend that the examples of sins like murder or cheating on your wife with your biographer. You did not oppose my point that those bad things are natural acts and thus left my point to stand that the naturalness of homosexual acts does not make them good. In addition being black is not comparable to ‘being a homosexual’. Being a homosexual is more comparable to ‘being an artiest’ for example. As a noun it describes a person who participates in a particular action, a verb. In the case of saying you are an artiest that would be saying you paint or something like that. In the case of saying you are a homosexual that would be saying you have or hope to one day have gay sex. Being black does not go hand in hand with a verb of any kind. So this point is fallacious. Sins have a negative impact and I cant see any here…: Your proposing an objectivism philosophy for morality. It might interest you to know that Objectivism’s founder Ayn Rand also opposed homosexuality, She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]). http://en.wikipedia.org... She believed concerning sexuality that an woman of self-esteem wants to be ruled by a man worthy of ruling her, and a man of self-esteem wants to rule a woman worthy of ruling, and that a mix-up between these desires is signs of a corrupted lack of self esteem. In essence objectivism’s founder said homosexuality is a harm to ones self. Perhaps you don’t consider Ayn Rand not as good an authority on objectivism as you claim to be yourself, there are other secular cases against homosexuality I have links for here http://winteryknight.wordpress.com... http://www.robgagnon.net... and these links are full of statistics that show why…. Same-sex marriage is bad for children Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business Same-sex marriage is bad for public health So no matter the angle your trying to approach this, its still an issue that we should oppose at the most, not respect at the least. Is the bible a reliable source…: From the angle I must personally come from, as a Christian, the bible is a very relevant source. And what it says on homosexuality there is no question as far as its concerned, new testament or old, they both speak of it as a sin and an abomination. http://www.witnessfortheworld.org... http://www.witnessfortheworld.org... Perhaps Ayn Rand, not a Christian, was on to something, seeing as she from a completely opposing paradigm to Christianity came up with the same conclusion on homosexuality. I could if given the time and space lay out for you thorough case for why the bible is the word of God using everything I ever read Lee Stroble, C.S. Lewis, and dozens of other apologetics giants I ever read. Alas I do not have such space or time though. But rest assured, there is a large foundation all ready established before this debate began that others are familiar with to give them reason to take the bible seriously as a source. I have not rested my case on that foundation obviously, for the sake of those who do not want to believe in the bible or in God. But I will not exclude the bibles stance on it either for the sake of those reading this debate that do treat it seriously. Some of my Christian brothers and sisters would like to think like you and believe that homosexual acts are okay and moral. Handicaps used to be called sin….: Your confused, being handicap was not considered a sin in biblical times, but rather an affliction related to sin. And both the new testament and the old testament tried to teach the people that this believe was not true. In the book of Job it showed how his tragedy’s were not the result of sinful actions and in the gospels it showed Jesus stating a man was handicapped to bring glory to god. But ultimately why this argument fails to make your case is all said in your final statement about the handicaps. “Jesus would heal them” And he would heal them because he did not want them to be handicap. If Jesus though it was respectable and good to be handicap he would have left them as they were. As it was he saw them for what they were, in need of healing, and that’s the way he would see the homosexuals, in need of healing, granted a different kind of healing. A healing that would set them free from a life of sin. And he provided the opportunity for that healing when shed his blood for not just the homosexuals, but for sinners of other kinds of horrible sins like me as well. Lets not make that sacrifice for us be done in vain by continuing to flat out embrace sin in our lives, but let us try to repent.