Where is there either of those fallacies? If you really saw them in my post, perhaps you'd like to point them out? Is it ad hominem to point out the absurdity of your argument?
I'll gladly point them out. It's not ad hominem to point out supposed absurdity, but rather attacking the person instead of the actual argument is what is considered ad hom.
Murder: violently taking the life of another and destroying the lives of that person's family and friends forever
Homosexuality: consenting adults doing what they want in the bedroom
How are these equal? Your God also calls eating lobster and all shellfish an abomination, just as much as homosexuality. Wearing clothes of different fibres, sowing different seeds in the same field, all an abomination. Do you follow those rules, or just the rules that allow you hate others with ease?
"Sodomy" also refers to oral sex as well as anal sex. How many straight Christians have engaged in oral sex? Probably all of them.
Totally irrelevant, there are your red herrings, statements which distract from an actual flow of an argument.
Whether or not it's a sin to eat lobster has nothing to do with whether it's a sin to commit acts of homosexuality. Fallacy of relevance.
Secondly, when you say "
Your God also calls eating lobster and all shellfish an abomination, just as much as homosexuality", are you suggesting that there is a god who actually has said these things, or that the belief I have about said god says such and such? If the former, then we ought to obey said god, being real. If the later, why should you care, it's not your religion. Additionally, are we supposed to believe we should stay away from shellfish because it's as bad as homosexuality, or are you telling us since it's no big deal to eat shellfish, we should also think homosexuality is no big deal? You haven't made a theological case either way, and I'm convinced that the "kosher" laws were meant for a specific time period for a specific people (Ancient Israel). You're free to debate that issue, but such is a side issue and is not relevant to the question at hand. I'll justifiably maintain my position which I've already explained.
Your description of homosexuality fails to mention that homosexual acts are always outside of marriage. Since it's a sin for two unmarried straight people to have sex, it's also a sin for gays to do the exact same thing. Are you trying to say it's not a sin to fornicate? It clearly is according to my own religion. Furthermore, do you at least think that gays should only have one partner, or do you think that gays can have multiple partners at the same time?
Also homosexuality is not a disorder, has not been considered one since the 1970s. People who are gay and "deny themselves" are actually more likely to suffer real disorders, such as anxiety and depression, substance abuse, and have a higher risk of suicide. You're okay with that? How Christian of you.
The last statement seems to be at least implicitly an ad hom. It looks like a form of character assassination. Attempting to portray me as an uncaring person who doesn't mind if gays commit suicide through an attempt at denying themselves.
Also notice that you stated that homosexuality hasn't been considered a disorder since the 1970's. You need to qualify that statement, as you're not mentioned who exactly has stopped considering it a disorder. People, and organizations whose views you personally favor, do not consider homosexuality a disorder. That doesn't say anything about the views of people and organizations I deem as reliable.
There's no such thing as "same sex attraction disorder". I can make up disorders too, "Christian belief disorder". "Bible Thumper Disorder". There's not a single credible psychiatric association that would consider homosexuality to be any sort of disorder.
What do you consider "credible"? Additionally, both the APA, and World Health Organization, at least in the past had backed my view of this. As far as I'm considered both organizations are biased, having been subjected to the sways of popular opinion. As such, I'm convinced that appealing to such organizations is unreliable.
Pedophilia isn't considered a mental disorder by the same organizations we commonly know of.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/dsm-pedophilia-mental-disorder-paraphilia_n_4184878.html
According to the same website, the APA has had multiple changing views on the matters discussed.
If you're not a temporal chauvinist then why not look at DSM 1, in which homosexuality is categorized as a disorder.
However, this is just a side issue. I don't hold to high esteem the determinations of the APA in all that they do, nor do I regard their decisions are bearing any weight as to whether something is immoral. Modern psychology isn't considered with morality.
I don't know what type of sad world you live in, but celibacy is definitely not practical. It's fine if you want to miss out on some of the best parts of life, but not practical.
Celibacy is practical. Not everyone is a sex obsessed hippy. People can, and do live happy, content lives, without sex. The best parts of life can be found in platonic friendship, and brotherhood, as well as helping others through good deeds. People don't need sex to be happy. To think otherwise, is quite sad.
I believe that God put him in my life for a reason but now I don't know what to do
