People must conform to what the masses define as standards of decency and moral values. What is natural is what most people think it is. You do not have the right to sway from these predefined standards.

I'm not swaying from any standard. You don't have the right to make second rate citizens out of free adult constituients.

We already saw this with one minority group... it looks like we will have to go through the same thing again.

Uh, no. That is why we have the court system, to keep us away from the 'mob' mentality.

Unless you conform to what the white protestant view of normalcy and decency is, you should be treated as a second class citizen. I suggest you visit your local Baptist church to learn what these values are. People do not have the right to act in any other way.

The court system is designed to force people into conforming to good, decent, Christian values.

zeig heil pensacola!!!!
You would have fit right in during the 40's in germany.

And you call yourself an American??? Really?
I suggest you put your bible where the sun don't shine. Just move the pole to the side.

Your sense of humor, what there is of it, is lost on most people.

Instead you come off as being an ignorant bigot.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

I agree. If humor is the intent it is really vague.... but also pretty damn funny

Nature is just a broad term used to describe many different objects. Nature is not a thinking entity and therefore cannot have intentions. You say you disagree with this, but if so, can you explain how a non-thinking collection of objects could possibly have intentions?

I realize that you tried to define "natural" in your first post. I felt the need to correct that definition. Here is why: In your first post, you did not really provide a definition of natural: you merely provided an example. You said that a birth is the "normal" outcome of pregnancy, while a miscarriage is not the natural outcome of pregnancy. But why is one natural, while the other is not? The only clue you provided is that miscarriage is "not the natural result one would like." So does natural mean, "the outcome that one would like?" If so, that definition is completely subjective to the individual, and it isn't really related to the standard meaning of the word.

People have many different genetic variations. Most people have brown or blonde hair. Only a small number of people have red hair. Is red hair a defect? Of course not. In order for something to be a defect, it must have some negative effect on a person's life. Homosexuality has no negative effect on anyone's life, and it therefore is not a defect.

Science makes no indication of what is right or wrong. There is no scientific reason that murder or suicide are wrong. Only by applying a moral code can we determine what is right or wrong.

In a free society, that moral code is, "Anything that harms other people is bad. Anything which doesn't is good. Live and let live." But even if you do not agree with that moral code, certainly you would agree that anything which helps people without harming anyone else is good. Homosexuality helps people without harming anyone, therefore homosexuality is good.

I feel that the debate is very simple. But regardless, when you say that nature has "intentions", aren't you really talking about God's intentions?

Hmm. I don't fully understand, but I will try to respond.

Not all parts of the body decay due to lack of use, and the reproductive system is one of those. Further, homosexuals obviously do use their reproductive organs. And even further, I'm not sure how you managed to conclude that homosexuality is a defect out of any of this. If I am reading this paragraph correctly, it says, "Homosexuals don't experience atrophy, therefore homosexuality is a defect."

That's true. In this case, the polar bear's bright red color puts him at a disadvantage to accompish tasks, like hunting or avoiding predators. If the polar bear wants to be able to do these things, then red fur could be considered a defect.

But what if the polar bears were in a forest? What if it didn't matter whether you are white or bright red? What if there were no distinct advantage to either? Would it really matter that one polar bear is red?

That's the way homosexuality is: there is no advantage to being heterosexual, and there is no advantage to being homosexual. It's just two different preferences, and neither is better than the other.

This does not make your points any more or less logical. Instead of limiting yourself to a few select words, I would prefer that you use the words which make your viewpoint easiest to understand.

Indeed, Albinism is associated with many negative effects, as described in the link you provided.

You justify denying marriage to homosexual couples by calling them different, but that's just an excuse. There are distinct differences between any two couples, regardless of gender combination. Two heterosexual couples might be incredibly different. But this in no way justifies giving them different rights under the law.

I admit that heterosexuals can have children by having sex with one another. But homosexuals can still have children by having sex, or by several other methods. So why is it so important that heterosexual couples are the only ones allowed marriage? This may be the most important question I will ask you: What positive effect will there be for anyone if we continue to grant marriage exclusively to heterosexual couples? I submit that there is none.

The only real effect of giving different rights to heterosexuals and homosexuals is that homosexuals will be viewed as legally inferior. Our laws will be making the statement that homosexuality is less preferred than heterosexuality. And that is wrong.

In a free society, laws should not tell you who to love any more than they should tell you what religion to believe. People should be equal: free to love and worship as they see fit. But we never have that freedom or that equality so long as heterosexuals are marked as superior to homosexuals by our laws.

What? I'm sure you know the answer to that as well as I do, and frankly, who cares? I don't care if homosexuality is completely genetic or completely a choice: homosexuals should receive the same treatment, the same rights, and the same "titles" as heterosexuals under our laws.

I put these two quotes together to show that you are judging worth. You are saying that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals because of nature. And that's what I was trying to explain at the start of my post: nature could care less whether you're gay or straight. Nature is unthinking.

I say that people should work to end discrimination, even if that means changing a custom. You call that scary. I wonder whether it is my statement or your response which is truly scary.

If our sports leagues claimed that they were treating men and women equally, it would be a lie, and they are allowed to do this only because they are private businesses instead of the government.

However, if women began asking these sports leagues to merge the leagues into one, and the only response someone had against it was, "Sorry, it's tradition that the leagues are separate," then I'd call that response absurd.

But sports leagues at least have some reason to segregate the genders. The physical differences between the genders are likely to result in women rarely being able to participate in pro sports, which wouldn't be very positive for the women. No such rationale exists when denying marriage to homosexuals. The only reason for that is to discriminate.

I did say that everything is natural, and I included murder in that list. Natural is not the same thing as good.

Marriage is a set of legal benefits designed to benefit two people. You can file your taxes jointly. You can count your spouse and your spouse's children as dependants on your tax forms. You can give your spouse citizenship if your spouse is an immigrant. And there are thousands of other benefits along those lines.

My point is: none of those benefits make sense for a dog, because a dog is not a person. If you are concerned that your dog doesn't have equal rights, then you're probably better off starting by giving your dog the right to vote, before giving your dog the right to marry.

As for beastiality, well I charge that it is unreasonably inhumane to animals. You are right that they cannot give their consent to be held in a zoo, and that is inhumane. But that's more of an argument to get rid of zoos than to legalize beastiality.

In the end, though, I really don't see what any of this has to do with homosexuality or same-sex marriage. Beastiality is as similar to heterosexual sex as it is to homosexual sex.

I'm surprised I was able to keep that shit going for that many posts.