Man goes to psychiatrist to take a Rorschach ink blot test, Shrink shows him the first blot and asks him what it reminds him of. "Sex" replies the man. Shrink shows him the second ink blot and asks him what it reminds him of. "Sex" replies the man. And so it goes on throughout the whole test. Psychiatrist asks the man what the blot reminds him of and the man replies "Sex" every time.

Eventually, the test finishes and the man asks what the psychiatrist for his diagnosis. "Hmmm...." replies the shrink "It seems to me that you are completely obsessed with sex."

"What!? Me obsessed with sex?" exclaims the man "You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"

Does this remind anyone of any particular segment of society? ;/

is it time to draw a line under freedom of choice?

Uh. What do you mean by that?

I think that most atheists take it for granted that the vast majority of Christians believe what they say they believe. The fundamentalists really do take their bibles literally, hate homosexuals, oppose abortion, etc. The moderates really do care ab...

Will someone put a name to the following logical fallacy?

"I (and lots of other people) want to do something, therefore that something cannot be morally wrong".

Plently of people (Christian or otherwise) struggle with desires they themselves consider wrong. That they are tempted to do something against their beliefs does not make those beliefs false. Would the people here who so eagerly use the incidence of homosexuality against Christianity apply the same logic to other vices?
Suppose, for example, some pastor somewhere were to publically admit that he had once raped and killed a woman. (I think he could avoid landing in jail for making this admission, if the actions had happended in a different country, or if he had been tried but aquitted) Rape and murder are of course actions condemned by Christian morality - far more so than mere fornication or pornography. Would you use such a man's actions as an argument against that aspect of Christian teaching?

Ok, I'll put a name to it: "straw man."

First, it is worth noting that we are not "using the incidence of homosexuality against Christianity," we are using the demonstrated hypocrisy and mental compartmentization of a group of dysfunctional bigots who identify themselves as "Christian" against the credibility of their claims about homosexuality. This is not at all subtle, and the claim implicit in this statement is analogous--both in its underlying "logic" and its absurdity--to accusing a person of racism because that person publicly opposes the activities of a criminal gang whose members happen to be primarily black. Note also that we (most of us, at least) do not believe homosexuality is a "vice," but rather a less common but perfectly healthy variant of a basic element of being human, our sexuality. The inability or unwillingness of these prominent Christians to practice what they preach on this point suggests this is indeed the case.

However, our argument in favor of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals, and permitting their relationships and even sexual acts between consenting adults in private, is not that homosexuality is prevalent, but instead reads as follows: "Something harms no one and makes the person(s) participating in it happy; therefore that something cannot be morally wrong." This is why we support homosexuality, but not rape or murder; sexual interactions between among consenting adults harm no one and bring pleasure to those engaged in them, regardless of the gender of those engaging in them. Rape and murder have identifiable victims, and harm those victims very, very much. (Incidentally, comparing consensual sex between adults to rape or murder does violence to reason and taste; did you just pick the most shocking examples you could find, or do you actually believe these things are in any way comparable?)

It is also worth noting that opposition to rape and murder is not traditionally part of Christian morality. The Bible certainly contains no unqualified or unambiguous condemnation of either--the Ten Commandments contain the line "thou shalt not kill," but are preceded and followed by page after page glorifying the Israelite's slaughter of "idolators," "sinners," and their neighbors, with God's often explicit approval, as well as acts of cold-blooded murder (Jephthah's Daughter, for instance), and contains approving descriptions of genocide and mass child rape (unless you have an alternative explanation of Numbers 31:1-54, for instance), while dealing with peacetime rape as follows: if the rape occurs in the city, the woman is assumed to have not cried for help and both she and the man are to be stoned; if it occured in the countryside, she is made to marry her rapist. Christians and Christianity have historically endorsed the cold-blooded murder of millions of "heretics" and "infidels," and even today many (including most of those upset about homosexuality) endorse capital punishment, wars of aggression, and in some cases even acts of terrorism against family planning clinics and other organizations. Meanwhile, rape has been largely regarded as unimportant, except with regards to the effects of non-virginity on a woman's perceived "virtue" and her value as a bride, by the churches and Western society for most of history. The fact that modern Christians, for the most part, revile and repudiate rape and murder (and genocide, and torture, and slavery, and subjugation of women, and...) merely shows that the modern Christian's morality is, on the whole, "better than the Bible."

Will someone put a name to the following logical fallacy?

"I (and lots of other people) want to do something, therefore that something cannot be morally wrong".

"Appeal to popularity" sounds right to me. Though homosexuality isn't really that popular, and I'd wager most people here are heterosexual.

Would the people here who so eagerly use the incidence of homosexuality against Christianity apply the same logic to other vices?

We don't do that, but you have to bear in mind that Ted Haggard was a man who said that homosexuality was 'curable' and that he had been 'cured'. Then it turns out he was having secret homosexual relations all this time. The fact that he really seemed to hate what he was doing just speaks to an obvious conclusion even more.

Homosexuality is not a condition to be cured, it's a part of who people are that can't be changed.

Suppose, for example, some pastor somewhere were to publically admit that he had once raped and killed a woman. Rape and murder are of course actions condemned by Christian morality - far more so than mere fornication or pornography. Would you use such a man's actions as an argument against that aspect of Christian teaching?

If the person was one of those who blasted on about how there are no morals with Christianity and how a conversion to Christianity purifies and fills ones heart with love, it would be something of a blow to find the person had kept saying that after they'd raped and killed someone. Or rather it would be, if more people could see the obvious truth of the matter.

Will someone put a name to the following logical fallacy?

"I (and lots of other people) want to do something, therefore that something cannot be morally wrong".

Plently of people (Christian or otherwise) struggle with desires they themselves consider wrong. That they are tempted to do something against their beliefs does not make those beliefs false. Would the people here who so eagerly use the incidence of homosexuality against Christianity apply the same logic to other vices?
Suppose, for example, some pastor somewhere were to publically admit that he had once raped and killed a woman. (I think he could avoid landing in jail for making this admission, if the actions had happended in a different country, or if he had been tried but aquitted) Rape and murder are of course actions condemned by Christian morality - far more so than mere fornication or pornography. Would you use such a man's actions as an argument against that aspect of Christian teaching?

Ok, I'll put a name to it: "straw man."

First, we are not using the incidence of homosexuality as an argument against "Christianity," we are using it as an argument against the credibility of hateful, bigoted hypocrites whose behavior puts the lie to their claims that "accepting Jesus as your personal savior," etc will "cure" these "sinful" urges. The opposite claim above is analogous to calling a person "racist" because that person voices public opposition to the activities of a gang whose members are predominantly black. Our position is that homosexuality is not a "vice," but merely a variant of an essential aspect of being human, our sexuality.

Now then, while the prevalence of homosexuality among prominent Christians certainly undermines what credibility their stance on it had, as Adam explained above, our actual argument in favor of permitting and accepting homosexuality is as follows:

"Activity X harms no one and makes the person or people taking part in it happy; therefore it is not morally wrong."

This is why we endorse homosexuality, but do not endorse rape and murder (and the comparison, frankly, is absurd and appalling. Are you just going for shock value, or do you actually believe that these acts are in any sense analogous?). Homosexuality is a state of being; homosexual acts between consenting adults harm no one. Rape and murder harm a nonconsenting victim very, very much.

Incidentally, opposition to rape and murder isn't an aspect of Christian teaching, and both are, in fact, extensively endorsed (along with genocide, torture, and slavery) in the Bible, particularly in the first few books of the Old Testament. Or am I to understand that you have an alternate interpretation of Numbers 31:1-54 (as only the most blatant and perhaps most poignant example). Rape, especially, has been mostly ignored by the church for much of history as unimportant except for its effects on the woman's value as a bride (assuming she was unmarried). The fact that rape, murder, slavery, and (for the most part) torture and genocide are reviled and vehemently rejected today is a strong indication that modern Christians' morality has become, as Adam put it, better than the Bible.

"I (and lots of other people) want to do something, therefore that something cannot be morally wrong".

Plently of people (Christian or otherwise) struggle with desires they themselves consider wrong. That they are tempted to do something against their beliefs does not make those beliefs false. Would the people here who so eagerly use the incidence of homosexuality against Christianity apply the same logic to other vices?
Suppose, for example, some pastor somewhere were to publically admit that he had once raped and killed a woman. (I think he could avoid landing in jail for making this admission, if the actions had happended in a different country, or if he had been tried but aquitted) Rape and murder are of course actions condemned by Christian morality - far more so than mere fornication or pornography. Would you use such a man's actions as an argument against that aspect of Christian teaching?

It seems these men think that by being really really pious they'll finally get God's attention and He'll remove the "gay". Funny how that never works.