I need help with a debate I'm having about sexuality...

[election_2004]

The following (designated in bold) are some arguments, excerpted from an email, that an acquaintance of mine has posed to me about the topic of homosexuality and its role in our society. I'm trying to piece together a comprehensive response, and I need some feedback on some of the best ways I could counter his points:

So, I want to pose something to you and get some feedback, if I
could.

The whole 'homosexuality is not a choice' and/or 'it is natural' concept. Let me state, I am liberal. Note, I am not "A" liberal as you and others have hijacked the term. I am liberal. Very much so. WAY more than you from what I can glean from your writing. That being said and leaving a bit of mystery around my own opinions, I want to throw some arguments your way.

First, the 'it is not a choice' argument. You and others like you seem to be arguing that since it is not a conscious active decision you have made in your life, that is somehow meaningful. Now, I think you are gonna bash me on this as some kind of "sacrilegiously compar(ison)" (btw - that was a bit much) but here goes. Does a sociopath make a conscious and active choice regarding the activities he undertakes that the rest of us define as anti-social? I contend that he does not. So, what does that mean? That is not rhetorical, I don't get the point. What does "this is not some choice I have made, it is how I am" mean? What point are you making? I know that you are countering the idiots who equate sexual orientation to...well whatever they compare it to in order to make the argument that you are choosing to sin or whatever. My question is, what does that say about you? If I can just say, "I was made this way so that means it is inherently acceptable for me to (insert whatever action I like that you do not)..." and that means...what does that mean? What does that make you?

You seem to argue that because you are hardwired this way (which I disagree with, but there is no proof for either of us, so I will operate under your assumption) that therefore, by default, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong with you, but I want to point out the asininity of the argument...so, because Dahmer's brain was programmed in a way that he got enjoyment from eating people, because his hardwiring was such, by default, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with it?

As far as I can tell, this is exactly what you suggest. Most likely, you will say it is sacrilegious to make such a comparison, and call me a bigot. But I ask that you put away your own bias and look at the fundamental argument: it is behavior that, whether rightly or wrongly, is anti-social (against social norms) but because it is supposedly biological or physiological in nature or origin, it is inherently and fundamentally acceptable.

There are holes you can drive a truck through in the argument if you want to take an approach like the harm the activity brings to the society, or whatever. I acknowledge this. But I am not making the argument against those things. I am asking, can you counter argue the above and support the concept that if an action, feeling or emotion is biologically driven that it is inherently “ok”.

Secondly, the "natural" argument. That 'homosexuality is natural' or that it is not 'unnatural.' Now, I take the term "natural" to mean something like, "according to natural design." Now, if you have a problem with that assumption, there isn't much more to say, but let's go with it. Now according to that definition, we can say that the natural design of sex is procreation. Yes, before you get all proud of yourself, what I am leading to would support the argument that oral sex is unnatural. Or that sex for pleasure is unnatural.

Yep, it is. It is contrary to the natural design of sex. I put forth that homosexuality is no more 'natural' than a sexual compulsion (go ahead and hit me for that one, but it fits into my argument, if you are going against natural design, I suggest that it is only compulsion that could fight a bazillion years of biology) to get it on with furniture. If we break it down into the basics, you are having sex for some other reason than reproduction. I don't give a rip what you are screwing, but you are screwing, not reproducing...

So, what the F-! is my point, you are asking...it is this:

For someone to say that they deserve preferential treatment (no matter what you say, this is what it is...unless you are willing to grant marital rights to me and my Lazyboy that I have sex with…not sure why I keep going back to sex with furniture, perhaps I have some issues there…) based on any personal preference or orientation. See, I took "choice" out of it. If you prefer to eat cheese doodles, should you have a law ensuring...anything? If I prefer sex with my chair, should I have a law guaranteeing...anything? Because you prefer sex with X, should you be granted...whatever?

Please note, I am no homo-phobe. One of my best friends in the world is a ‘flaming fag’ (his words, not mine) whom I respect, adore and love. I just enjoy arguing and like simply 'to think' above all else. I have these debates with him and his buds quite often. I am not making any claims against you as a person. I make no attack against you as a human. As long as you aren’t messing up my lawn, I don’t care what you do. I am, however, vehemently attacking your arguments, as I think they are just silly and without support or reason. Wouldn’t matter if we talking about gays or whether light is a wave or matter or whatever, this has nothing to do with you or gays. I would really be interested in your thoughts.

[xultar]

1. I'm goin through a dry spell so I can't help ya...maybe I'll get lucky

one day and I can help ya out.

[Red_Viking]

2. Don't let the argument be about sex.

It's about freedom from discrimination. That's all. Treating everyone the same. Period.

And, incidentally, if your friend wants to marry their Laz-E-Boy, more power to them. Why should I make that decision for anyone?

Too much hate in the world, dontcha know. Why can't we be more open-minded about people who love each other?

:dem:

RV

[PissedOffPollyana]

12. What really gets to me...

is the "preferential treatment" argument.

Perhaps the question is, why do monogomous, het couples expect preferential treatment? We do not allow same-sex, polyamorous or polygamous marriages; why? Granted, I'm a part of the "protected group", but don't understand what is so very special about this sort of relationship that it requires a "defense" from other less socially-mandated forms.

One must wonder, though, whether the concept of consent applies to the inanimate objects your friend is wont to hump...

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. I think he should see a therapist

Both about his homophobia and his sexual fantasies about furniture. It wouldn't hurt for him to look into why he equates human beings with furniture while he's at it.

A partner of the same sex is not furniture, and his attempts at dehumanizing that person reveals a transparent attempt at rationalizing his hatred for them.

Man + Man = people loving each other
Woman + Woman = people loving each other
Man + Woman = people loving each other

Man + Woman can get married. Why not the other two since they are no different in substance?

And if you really want to have a great argument, you could argue that two men or two women together, since they have identical genitalia and genetic structure, are more matched than the their heterosexual counterparts. One might wonder why heterosexuals are attracted to alien objects of affection. Sounds like they might have a problem there.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. For someone who "adores" his gay friend

he's sure spending a lot of time slandering him by comparing him to sociopaths and Jeffrey Dahmer.

The answer, I think, is to ask him what harm to society is done when two people of the same sex are in a loving, committed relationship, hold down responsible jobs, pay their taxes, keep their lawn mowed, volunteer for charitable organizaitons, and are in every respect model citizens.

(During the campaign for one of Oregon's anti-gay initiatives, I was subletting the upstairs of a house from a lesbian couple. Whenever the leader of the initiative movement went on TV to talk about the "harmful, unhealthy gay lifestyle," I had to laugh, thinking of my landladies, who had been together for six years, and whose lifestyle, as far as I could see, consisted entirely of going to their social service jobs, gardening, watching TV, and taking an occasional camping trip.)

[belle]

23. I'm always boggled when people drag that one out, too.

"Hey, some of my best friends are smug, judgmental, patronizing gits! What a coincidence!"

Seriously; I've had "friends" that were obviously homophobic but still "liked" me in spite of their dislike for my "lifestyle." Y'know what? It didn't take me very long to figure out that actually, I wasn't all that fond of *them.* Wasn't fond of the constant over-politeness, their weirdness over basic physical contact, the "jokes" that really weren't, the constantly repeated mantras of their hetero heteroliness and how happy they were in it, not to mention the completely unjustified paranoia that I might be attracted to them. Who needs this?

P.S.--you should tell this guy (if it is a guy) that using the word "adore" makes him sound a little...well, *you* know.

[TrogL]

5. It's full of logical fallacies

False analogies
Begging the question
Circular arguments
Bizarre absolutes

Sociopaths are in fact "naturally" like that in some cases and hence have to be locked up. Canada locks up some habitual sex offenders if there is no chance for rehabilitation.

If he wants to have sex with his furniture, by all means let him go ahead. It's his cleaning bill.

There are countless documented cases of homosexuality in nature. See http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/orient.html

[Nikia]

6. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone

For that reason, it is not the same as being hardwired for being violent or a pedophile. No one gets hurt when two people of the same sex have consenual sex. Gay marriage is not preferential treatment, It is about extending equal treatment.
I'd also say that the only purpose of sex isn't procreation. It can also be a way of forming bonds. Strangely, I got this idea while at the zoo and reading the display at the bonobo chimpanzee, are closest genetic animal realtives. They are generally bisexual and have sex to form all sorts of bonds and alliances.

[rucky]

7. This friend of yours is a real master debater

equating marriage with steady sex for procreation is absurd and downright adolescent. There is no social norm for why people get married - there are as many reasons for it as there are couples.

I hope he and his Lazy Boy have a wonderful life together.

[yella_dawg]

8. The problem with this is...

The arguments make little sense.

"I'm waaaay more liberal than you." - Prove it, you sound like a dittohead.

"Homosexuality = Sociopathy" - If you look at the impact on society, it's more like Homosexuality = Red Hair. It's a preloaded argument. And therefor meaningless.

"It ain't natural." - Bullshit. This arises from the Christian "don't spill your seed" crap. Who cares. The urge is the urge. What ain't natural is celibate priests.

The so-called preferential treatment is to have a life partnership recognized under law. i.e., to be treated the same way as hetrosexuals. I was not aware that that was preferential.

Most of the text you printed is gibberish. Respond asking for a more coherent argument.

Good luck, but you're just wasting your time on this moron.

[belle]

24. You could also try,

"So, basically what you're saying is that you suck in bed. Or, to be more precise, you *don't* suck in bed. Yes?"

[info being]

9. "It's not for you to understand" is the only reasonable position

Individuals do the best job deciding what's best for themselves. Individuals ought to have the freedom to make their own decisions as long as they do not directly harm others.

Neither of you have any business trying to come to a conclusion on this matter. Sorry.

[Deja Q]

10. Play "mirror mirror" and also ask how it feels when...

Use the same questions against him, replacing "homo" with "hetero".

Ask this guy (if it's a guy) if it's a choice every time he boings a woman. Ask him if it feels the same when he thinks about boinging men. I'll guarantee, it's mostly the the exact opposite for homosexuals in terms of choice, how we feel, what we do. I feel different if I thought about doing it with women.

[NicoleM]

11. Since he seems to think

that sex for pleasure is unnatural, I'd ask him if he ever has sex for pleasure. If he does, why? Why is it okay for him to do something "unnatural" just because he has the urge to do it? Why is it not okay for you to do the same thing?

This assumes, of course, that this guy has ever had sex. If you don't think he has, it wouldn't advance your argument much.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. If you haven't already replied

here's some more thoughts. Some may or may not be relevant to the argument - I'm not sure if it's about acceptance of homosexuality in general, or marriage rights in particular.

'It is not a choice' is not always relevant; it is, when the argument is about letting homosexuals being teachers, scout masters or whatever - if it's not a choice, there can never be an influence on the children, so all those arguments are shot down completely. Even if someone did think there was an element of choice, they'd then have to show that there's something actually wrong with homosexuality either for individuals or society (and just saying 'homosexuals are less happy' wouldn't be good enough, if it's just people's attitudes that cause that). The nearest they might get to that is "there's pleasure in having your own children with your partner", but a counter to that could be "there's pleasure in having oodles of money at your disposal, but that doesn't mean you have to encourage everyone to make as much as they humanly can".

His definition of 'anti-social' as 'against social norms' is wrong: my dictionary has 'opposed to the good of society, or the principles of society; disinclined to mix with society; without social instincts'. The nearest to his is 'opposed to the principles of society', but I think there's a difference - the principles of society are what gives society its structure (the kind of things in the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights), not 'social norms', which is more like 'wearing clothes in public'. In fact, the desire to regulate private consensual behaviour is more in line with the definition of 'anti-social', in democracies at least.

He can't usefully define 'natural' as 'according to natural design', because the word 'natural' is still in there. And if you go down the road of 'design', he's probably hinting at design by god(s). If he does insist that we're all here by supernatural means, then I'd suggest to him that masturbation is a 'natural' urge that we all get (and not just humans), and has no reproductive function, but is not something that the government concerns itself with. If he means that homosexuality contributes nothing to the survival of the species, and so is not part of the 'design of evolution', that's true, but that's also true of a wish to only have 2 children, rather than more, which many (most?) people now make. Homosexuality may be just something that happens, like the menopause; it may not contribute directly to more babies, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

I presume if he's talking about 'preferential treatment', he's comparing with single people (I've never heard of anyone advocating extra rights for homosexual couples over heterosexual ones, and would oppose them if I did). I'm single, and there are some government benefits (in Britain, certainly) that couples get that I don't see as particularly justified, but I'd rather go in the direction of removing them from married couples (eg rights to married pensions). Personally, I think they belong to people who bring up children together - which can be a homosexual couple too.

[Isome]

14. He would've had me, but he went over the top early on.

I don't know if people are born homosexual/gay (is one offensive... I don't want to offend) or become that way.

I think male/female sexual organs are designed to fit... can't think of a better way to put it.

But, ultimately it has no negative effects on my life or anyone else's.

Wanting to marry a consenting adult is not the same thing as some nut wanting to marry his favorite chair. That argument is pitiful.

He never once provided any proof that gay people are asking for preferential treatment. If you ask me, I say they should start demanding it and getting married at the same time. Fuck these people with their delicate sensibilities.

[belle]

26. I also like asking people like this what function they think...

the male prostate gland serves. As in, "if men weren't meant to have anal sex, why does stimulating the prostate gland (via anal penetration) trigger an erection in the penetratee?" Ideally it'd be best to ask this in person, though; the fun is in watching the face change colors and the spluttering.

[DemLikr]

15. Did Andrew Bareback Sullivan write this?

What a load of crap. This sounds like the typical winger who fancies himself a Harvard debate team member. My guess is this was written from a cubicle in a corporate accounting department.

Comparing people to chairs...comparing the same-sex erotic impulse to murder and cannibalism...that pisses me off.

Tell Andrew to shut up and go back to his Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee videos.

[WeirdSceneGoldmine]

16. Sex is overrated

How ever one choses to get off is fine by me and most everyone I know. I suggest we just do whatever the hell we want as far as sex goes and ignore the narrow minded bores.

[Sting]

17. your acquaintance...

sounds like Pat Robertson. Yep. I watched the "700 Club" today(yikes), and they were discussing about starting up a movement to stop gay marriage! Pat Robertson's son (don't know his name) was offering viewers free bumper stickers that said "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman." AND THEY WERE PROUD OF THAT! :mad: Some people are so closed-minded that their brains have spilled out of their ears. I'm done venting. I apologize.
Sting

On edit: Sex is as natural as anything else. Ask your friend if he/she ever masturbated for pleasure. Then we'll see who's a hypocrite.

[robsul82]

18. Well, geez.

I didn't wake up and say, "I think I'll dig the chicks forever," it just IS that way. I think it's the same with gay people, I don't know.

Later.

RJS

[sandnsea]

19. Chairs have no constitutional rights

Therefore a chair can't go to court and exercise its rights and certainly can't marry. Gays are humans and have a Constitutional right to live their life with the same kind of equality any straight person has. That means the right to not be descriminated against in employment, housing, whatever. The right to not be beaten or killed based on their sexual identity, like women have a right not to be raped just because they're a woman and not in the company of a man, the way it is in Afghanistan. They also have the right to have their relationships legalized with the same benefits of any other two adult humans. Equal rights for every human.

A chair? :eyes:

[tedoll78]

20. The writing of the US Constitution on this topic is very simple.

The 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized.."

Seems pretty simple. ALL persons are guaranteed the Constutution's protections. Not "all straight persons", and not "all persons - except for the homos."

Going on in the 14th Amendment: a person shall not be denied "equal protection of the law."

Does marriage law fit into the term "the law?" Yes.
What laws don't fit into the category "the law?" None. Otherwise, the authors of the 14th Amendment would have included such exceptions.

Discrimination against homosexuals is just another form of gender discrimination. By our own Constitution, and by Supreme Court precedent:
Men have all of the rights that women have.
Women have all of the rights that men have.
Treating all men equally to each other, and all women equally to each other, but treating men & women differently from each other is tantamount to "separate-but-equal" treatment.

For example:
A man has the right to marry a woman.
Therefore, a woman should have that same right.
Pretty simple.

From there, it's all just details. Nature or nurture, natural or unnatural.. these are distractions introduced by right-wingers to muddle-up the debate - distractions not even mentioned in the Constitution. ALL persons are guaranteed equal protection of the laws; no exceptions are allowed for in the Constitution. If certain people or groups of people don't like the guarantees afforded to ALL in the Constitution, they're more than welcome to attempt utilizing our lovely amendment process. It is not within a judge's powers to write exceptions to constitutional guarantees from the bench.

[noiretextatique]

21. it's all tripe, but this passage in particular

begs addressing.
"it is behavior that, whether rightly or wrongly, is anti-social (against social norms) but because it is supposedly biological or physiological in nature or origin, it is inherently and fundamentally acceptable."

the problem is "social norms" (thankfully) evolve. you may remind this "liberal" that social norms regarding former slaves and other colored folks first evolved into 100 years of jim crow before the ever-evolving englightenment. it was anti-social for a black man to look a white man in the eye...the punishment very likely could have been lynching.
not to mention all the lunacy regarding women that was at one time considered the social norm...and still consicousness is evolving about what is and is not acceptable gender behavior.

so...your friend makes the mistake (because of his own bigotry) of considering "social norms" as inherent and accpetable, vs. manufactured by a specific group (the group in power) to maintain power and control for themselves. and he confuses deviancy (ala dahmer) with behavior (and people) that a bunch of self-righetous bigots don't like, because it's not what they consider "normal."

enough of this...time to engage in some socially unacceptable behavior :smoke:

[moz4prez]

22. TELL HIM

to put THIS in his pipe, and to smoke it, too.

also i don't see the merit in extending civil liberties to EVERYBODY on the sole condition that you have a homogenous populace

hate to break it to ya, but your buddy sounds like a pompous ass

[WeirdSceneGoldmine]

25. I hope this is not too blunt

This guy need to get blown by his 'best friend' that is a 'flaming ...' and get a feel for the simplicity and pleasure of it all. It's way past time to get hung up on how people enjoy themselves. I'm convinced that most homophobes are just jealous that they are not getting or giving the best pleasure that they can.

There is no such thing as bad sex - just too little or too much.

[Zero Division]

27. There are definitely some huge holes in this person's logic

Muriel_volestrangler did a pretty good job with some of them, and I'll add my own points as well here:

Whether homosexuality, bisexuality, etc., is a choice is irrelevant to the question about preferential treatment. It is incorrect to argue that laws such as allowing civil unions or making it illegal to discriminate against GLBT people are preferential treatement. Some ways I can imagine someone trying to rationalize such laws as being preferential treatment (and someone correct me here if I'm wrong)are for someone to believe that such laws don't protect heterosexuals from discrimination against them (sexual preference anti-discrimination laws can and often, if not always, are applied to heterosexuals and GLBT people) or that laws like civil unions create an exclusive right for GLBT people (allowing civil unions is just saying that the rights and privileges conferred to heterosexuals through government recognition of marriage may also be conferred to GLBT people through recognition of their marriages).

I think that what this person might be saying is that making laws protecting the rights of people who prefer one type of behavior over another is unfair. But I can't see why in this case, since preferential treatment already exists for those who "prefer" to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Nor is there any good logical, secular argument that homosexual behavior is inherently damaging to individuals or society (both heterosexuals and homosexuals can engage in dangerous or non-dangerous kinds of sexual behavior). I used the word "secular" because any religious-like arguments (ex. our society will be hurt because the Christian Bible says God doesn't like it) are too arbitrary and could be used to discriminate against practically any kind of behavior disapproved of by any particular religious belief.

I'm sorry if what I wrote is difficult to read, as I am extremely tired at the moment. It is also likely that I have not seen any other posts that may have covered the same points I just made (probably much more comprehensibly, too :) ), since I've had my message window open for quite a long time.

By the way, would I be correct in guessing that this person is an arrogant libertarian? Statements like: "Let me state, I am liberal. Note, I am not "A" liberal as you and others have hijacked the term. I am liberal. Very much so. WAY more than you from what I can glean from your writing." and "As long as you aren’t messing up my lawn, I don’t care what you do." just scream "I am a condescending libertarian". :evilgrin:

[KaraokeKarlton]

28. This isn't that hard to field, really

You simply tell the guy that although sociopaths and homosexuals both can't control the way they are, that homosexuals aren't hurting anyone by being different than he and most people are. Pose to him the question whether or not he deems it appropriate to belittle, deny rights to and hate someone born with Cerebral Palsy or a Congenital Heart Defect simply because they were born different than him. If he should try to bring pedophiles into the mix, kindly point out to him that homosexuals prefer consenting adults of their own sex whereas pedophiles are attracted to children, and that there is a huge difference...if not, then the average heterosexual man would be molesting a lot of young girls. By the writing, this guy deals in black and white facts and rationalizes them very strictly. To get him to examine his way of thinking you're going to have to counter his arguments in the same style he uses. Turn every example he gives you around in a way that would make him feel the same way his comments and views would make gay people feel. It's a very effective tactic.

[Zero Division]

29. By the way...

when someone does make an argument about homosexual behavior being non-procreative, one thing I love to ask them is whether they approve of old people sex. }(

It's pretty damn funny and it can give those with religious hang-ups something to chew on when they trot out the tiresome procreation argument.

[Zorra]

30. This persons arguments are totally based

on subjective premises. For instance, that the sole purpose of sex is for reproduction. This person assumes that this is an absolute truth. In reality, there is no way for him to know that this is true, he just believes it is. The whole argument is based on subjective assumption.

Drawing an analogy between a cannibalistic individual and a group of people that represents a substantial proportion of the world population is ludicrous. The comparison is illogical in itself.

I mean no offense, but, don't you think his arguments are childish in their lack of substance? They demonstrate typical patterns of conservative thinking - thinking in non-factual absolutes and using rhetorical and illogical premises to reach illogical conclusions.

The real subject of this persons "argument" seems to be same sex marriage.

Since such a substantial proportion of the world population experiences same sex attraction, there is reason to believe that this is a possible natural biological occurence. Even if this is not so, many people that experience same sex attraction, whatever the reason for this attraction, desire to enter into a legal contract - marriage. Since same sex attraction is not a physically or socially destructive activity, (like murder and cannibalism are), and does not deprive other people of any rights or property, denying persons who experience same sex attraction and who wish to enter into a legal contract with another person of the same sex is a violation of their civil rights, and could even arguably be considered discrimination based on gender. In other words, say I am a woman that wants to marry another woman. But I am not allowed to marry her because I am female, and not male. I am actually being discriminated against because of my biological sex. I am being denied a right that men have and I don't - the right to marry a woman. Obviously, the same holds true in "reverse" for male same sex couples.

Same sex couples are not entering into a contract with a piece of furniture, or an animal, or a child, etc. They are one adult human being making a legal agreement with another adult human being. What logical reason is there to deny them the right to enter into this contract?

There is none.

It seems obvious that he believes that his knowledge base is the absolute truth, and that this subjective truth is true for everyone. The arguments presented by your "acquaintance" are so full of holes that tearing all of them apart with logic would be senseless because this person demonstrates a lack of the fundamental capacity to fully grasp logic. Maybe he is very young?

It is maybe better to shake your head and say "Yes, dear", and go have a beer.

[booley]

31. hmm, saw a few things...

firstly..."First, the 'it is not a choice' argument. You and others like you seem to be arguing that since it is not a conscious active decision you have made in your life, that is somehow meaningful. .......... Does a sociopath make a conscious and active choice regarding the activities he undertakes that the rest of us define as anti-social?"

This is a silly arguement. For one thing, this person's example. being gay and being a sociopath are not the same thing. One might as well bring up cannibalizing unbaptised infants when discussing the merits of yogurt.
This person is doing nothing more then trying to link to gay people to sociopaths without bothering to prove such a link exists.

Secondly, there are numerouse studies that point out that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are genetic or at least biologicly driven. And if it was a choice, why would anyone choose it? Unlike opressed religions, gays have no inherent beliefs that they are morally superior or given to special wisdom. Unlike ethnic groups, gays have no identity that is formed around being gay from the beginning (any such identity forms much later and often after being outcast from thier original family). Many gay people through out history have tried to undo this 'Choice" with consistently spectacular failures as the result.
not to mention, what straight person chose to be heterosexual?

But finally, the most important...it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. One's human rights are not at the sufference of the majority.
Though the origens of homosexuality are a great intellectual mystery, they are irrelvant to gay rights as a whole. to insist otherwise is like saying that anti-semitism is the fault fof the jews becuase they didn't convert to another religion. Or that to cure racism, all we would have to do is make everybody caucasion.

Ok, for the second point made by your friend..."Secondly, the "natural" argument. That 'homosexuality is natural' or that it is not 'unnatural.' Now, I take the term "natural" to mean something like, "according to natural design."

right off your friend makes an assumption that I don't htink he has properly proved..that he can make a judgment on what is natural or not.
let me put it this way...if you want to look at biology and how homosexuality plays into it you have two facts on your side...
1. Humans are far from the only animal that angages in same sex intercourse or even long term same sex courtships. with documented observations to this effect seen in animals both in captivity and in the wild, apparently this "unnaturalness" is quite natural after all.

Secondly, human women do not go through estrus. In other words there is no reliable way to know when a human woman is fertile (as in many other species). Procreation takes a lot of energy (if done right) and so if you have a species that engages in intercourse even when the chances of concieving is slim, it stands to reason that sex has a "design" beyond mere procreation.
Nature is quite clever. There is no reason a biological function like sex has to have only one function. In Humans, sex is part of the social bond that defines our communities. Just becuase we don't know exactly how gay sex plays into this doesn't mean it doesn't play into it. Since gays are present in every culture since humans had cultures, it obviously has some role.

And finally "For someone to say that they deserve preferential treatment (no matter what you say, this is what it is...unless you are willing to grant marital rights to me and my Lazyboy that I have sex with…not sure why I keep going back to sex with furniture, perhaps I have some issues there…) based on any personal preference or orientation. "

Your friend talks about "preferential treatment" but his flaw is in failing to actually define what such treatment is. Not to mention, that one's attachment to one's furniture is the same as the attachment to another human being. (as crude and offensive an arguement as it is stupid. Ask your friend who they would be more disturbed over losing...thier lazyboy or a member of thier family...)

Get this person to state what preferential treatment that gays get over him. In other words, what rights that gays posses that straight people do not.
Indeed the closest thing to a special right is maybe hate crimes legislation and one has to be violently murdered to claim such a "privledge".
meanwhile, there are literally thousands of rights and benefits that gays are denied becuase they can't marry one another for no other reason then becuase they are gay.

Just a thought or two And sorry, guess this wasn't so short after all;-)