In reply to your post of 7/7/10:
"Under the rules shouldn't we deal with the contradiction in your first statement before we move on to anything else?"
However, I'm not sure of what contradiction you're talking. You've accused me of at least two.
Please identify what I'm both affirming and denying. But, please, give me a specific point to avoid confusion.
"You have not agreed that 'their preferred method' is NOT allowed when you limit their choices to not include their preferred method. Until you agree with that, you are violating rule 4."
If that's what you consider a contradiction on my part, I confess it's not clear to me as a contradiction.
A contradiction occurs when the same thing is affirmed and denied.
Permit me to prescind that.
"You have not agreed that 'their preferred method' is NOT allowed..."
To repeat what I said earlier, we have to clarify what "their preferred method" is.
If that means having same-sex marriage receive community recognition/approval, I do agree, despite what you say, that "their preferred method" in that sense is not allowed/accepted. If, on the other hand, "their preferred method" means the ceremony and place for it that the couple selects, "their preferred method" is allowed and I have no personal objection to "their preferred method" in that sense.
"...when you limit their choices to not include their preferred method."
I'm lost there. Why should I not "limit their choices" if, as I believe --mistakenly or not-- that homosexuality is a sexual perversion?
I fail to see a contradiction --affirmation and denial of the same thing-- in that.
Now going to rule #6, let's divide our exchange into concurrent individual approaches: You want to discuss a) what you see as a contradiction on my part, which is fine with me, and I'd like to pursue b) what I pointed out to failures art as premise #1, which you already have in my previous (7/7/10) post:
Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.
1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?
2. What question is being begged?