But when else have I done something like this to warrant a 'this is the type of thing that makes us question whether you pay attention when posting'?
"Your idea is no more plausible to me than saying the color blue created being, for they both represent the properties of material objects so to say that they are immaterial is nonsensical to me."
"But the colour blue does not encompass any other colour. All the colour blue can do is attribute blueness. It cannot actuate time, space, materiality, even other colours. Blueness has a limited capacity, a capacity that could not have actuated the current state of affairs in the world."
This to me, is a complete non-sequitor. Blueness cannot actuate time, space, or materiality, in which I say that in the same sense a mind can't actuate them either. To say that blueness can't be ultimate reality is to miss the point entirely and I can't imagine how stating that could represent a coherent response other than to think that you thought that I implied that blueness is plausibly ultimate reality, which is silly in of itself. And I remember other people saying how they questioned your responses as being off-base, but I don't feel like searching for their comments, perhaps they could shed some light on that.
By saying the only good argument is to show peer-reviewed literature that shows homosexuality is a choice, which is impossible, because it isn't, he's saying that we shouldn't bother with the debate, because anyone who takes the anti-gay side automatically loses.
Who said the only good argument? Just one that he would consider good. Also, it could be that fact that there are no good arguments against homosexuality because it is not immoral. If you consider a good argument something that is sound, then they would be good arguments, but they aren't valid because the premises won't reflect reality. In this sense, I can think of many sound arguments against homosexuality, but I can't think of a single sound and valid argument against it. If you consider a good argument to one that is valid and sound, then we wouldn't be having the debate since we all would be on your side, so such a question seems pointless. Also, notice how he added that your argument was in fact sound, just that it wasn't valid. I don't necessarily agree with this notion of morality, but to hold it against him that his notion of a good argument was wildly different than yours is mere puffery.
You're also assuming that the burden of proof is on me, in that if my argument is flawed, that somehow makes homosexuality ok without requiring any justification.
We could go back to the discussion to argue if homosexuality is morally neutral or good under other forms of moral theories. There was some reference to other moral theories, but I don't think you challenged them much so they fell by the wayside as your moral theory became the center of discussion. I don't think such an assumption was ever in place, only that we were dealing with one point, one moral theory, before continuing with another. I wouldn't mind arguing that homosexuality is morally neutral, I don't think such a task would be too hard to accomplish.
*makes hand sign*
