Okay, this is partly tongue in cheek, but I think you'll get the sentiment.
- Intelligent Design teaches that a Creator created everything, and that everything has a reason for existing, right?
- Many animal species exhibit homosexual patterns of behavior. Some short term, some lifelong. This must be part of the Creator's design.
- Many humans exhibit homosexual patterns of behavior. Some short term, some lifelong. This also must be part of the Creator's design.
Since fundamentalists believe that their God deems homosexual behavior an abomination, or sinful, or whatever, then their God is not the Creator of ID fame, right? So which God do they really believe in?
Of course they'll want to argue, and perhaps tell you that if homosexuals are born that way, it's to be tested. At which point you ask if that means some select humans exist as beta tests instead of real people, and if not, why don't we all face the same tests? Does it mean homosexuals are actually better, and only they can face extra testing? If everyone faces testing, what does the fundamentalist face? Would he mind talking about it? If God made the test, it must be good, so why hide it? Oh, and why does God need to test anyone, once they already exist? Wasn't faith by works thrown out by Jesus?
1
I could go on, but you get the idea.
P.S., I'm a Christian. But I don't believe in ID. ID is not the same as a Creation, which I do believe in, along with evolution. I also don't believe women should have to walk behind me2, that I have to cover my head in church, that I should take an eye for an eye, or that I should marry my brother's widow, even if she is hot3. And pigs are yummy, though I am trying to go vegetarian. And Sodom and Gomorrah, as a religious story, was about people trying to rape guests under household protection.
Fundamentalists should consider that maybe one purpose for the existence of homosexuals is to make people pay more attention to the Bible, and learn to think for themselves and try to be more understanding of their fellow humans' differences. If their current interpretation doesn't cover why it was okay for Lot to offer his own daughters to be used by the men-who-were-angels, I don't think they can presume to know the point of the story. And I really, really don't think they know what they're getting into, trying to introduce a vague, nameless, homogenized Creator entity into schools. Because it almost certainly won't end up being a God they recognize and are comfortable with, if they really stop to think.
- This is a point non-Christians may not understand, but Christians should.
- Unless we're about to go through a doorway, so I can hold it open for them. Funny how some feminists will consider you a chauvinist or misogynist if you stop treating them like ladies, by the way.
- I don't have a brother, but I'm sure he'd have a hot widow. To test me, of course.