And you base that on? That's only starting with homosexuality as a base and working backward. Homosexuality works nowhere. It's a disorder along the lines of gender confusion. Another disorder that takes the natural absolute of male and female and reverses them. So far you have said I was wrong but gave no real basis. What kind of debate is that?

You say that nature did not intend for people to be homosexual. However, that statement is irrational. Nature is not a thinking creature: it has no mind and thus it can have no intentions. "Nature" is just a term used to describe our environment. You might as well say that a rock did not intend for homosexuals to exist.

The word "natural" has nothing to do with "intentions." Natural things are anything which exists in nature. Everything in our world is natural. Humans exist through the natural process of birth. Heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality is also natural.

But that doesn't mean anything. Murder is natural, and kindness is natural. Whether something is natural or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

So how do we judge whether something is right or wrong? Well, things that help people are right, and things that harm people are wrong. Homosexuality helps those involved, and it doesn't harm anyone. Homosexuality is therefore right.

The problem is that you are confusing "nature" with "God." God is a thinking creature who might have intentions. Nature is not. If you mean to say "God", then say God so we can have that debate.

Evolution suggests that traits which cause creatures to be more likely to reproduce will become commonplace. Evolution does not say anything is "supposed to be" one way or another. Evolution is just a process.

An animal with camoflauged skin may be more likely to reproduce than an animal with bright red skin. However, this does not make the bright-red animal worse, nor does it devalue that animal in any fashion. The ONLY thing it means is that the camoflauged trait is more likely to be passed on.

It is not rational to judge the worth of something based on whether or not it appears through evolution.

Our marriage laws create a legal institution designed to benefit only heterosexual couples. This obviously grants privledge to heterosexuals: they have recognition and benefits for their relationships, while homosexuals are denied these things. In short, heterosexuals are treated better than homosexuals.

Now, you're saying that this isn't discrimination because it's always been that way. But stop and think about that for a moment, and I think you'll agree that this is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. Just because we've always treated a minority like dirt doesn't make it fair.

And I know of only one way to make it fair: change our laws so that they treat everyone the same. There is absolutely no reason to treat heterosexual couples any different than homosexual couples under the law, and anything less is not equal.

You are wrong. Homosexuals absolutely SHOULD do everything they can to change a custom ingrained into our culture. Why? Because this custom is unfair to homosexuals. Now, I'm not saying homosexuals should dismantle marriage. They should change it in only one fashion: remove the restriction against homosexual couples getting married.

Baseball, too, is an American custom, ingrained into our culture. And at one time, black people weren't allowed to play baseball. So by your logic, black people shouldn't force white people to change baseball. But obviously that is an absurd thing to say. Baseball didn't need to be rewritten entirely, but the one rule that banned black people from playing it needed to be removed.

And frankly, who cares about "customs" and "culture"? People talk about them like they're somehow important. But really, they just describe things that we've done for a long time. If we've done something evil for a long time, then we should stop doing it. A custom which hurts people is no custom worth preserving.

And to that we agree. But to hijack the word of marriage and it's basis on heterosexuality is wrong when they are not heterosexual and can never do the one thing that signifies the natural heterosexual couple. Create one offspring that shares their genetic makeup.

Oh, so your problem is semantics...

Damn them homosexuals anyway. First they hijack the word 'gay' and now they want 'marriage' too!!!

As far as I am concerned, I am gay and do not have to explain, justify, or rationalize it. If people have a problem with me because I am gay, it is their problem.

Marriage is civil institution and has not been a static entity for centuries. Societies change over the years and the institutions change with them. Opening marriage to same sex couples will not harm, change, or prevent and different sex couples from marrying.

Too many people are obsessing about homosexuality and same sex marriage.

I love how the word 'highjack(ed)' is used....I for one, had a CIVIL marriage. That means, rather then have our marriage ceremony in a church, we had a judge proceed over the nuptials.

Yet irregardlessly, by all intents and purposes under federal law, my hubby and I are MARRIED. It is considered a MARRIAGE, period.

And the fact that two consenting adults, of opposite sex, have also entered into a civil ceremony as I have, has not made me feel as if my marriage to my husband has been 'highjacked' one itty bitty bit.

The fact that two consenting adults can't have children, or have choosen not to have children, also hasn't in any way 'highjacked' my marriage to my husband.

So FX, lose the drama of wording please. Stop using emotional appeal towards SSM couple's useage of the word or the civil institutes that make those unions exactly what they are...MARRIAGES.

Every time you use these tatics, all you do is totally disregard the rest of us hetrosexuals who are married under CIVIL laws. And by your own actions, not only try to demean SSM couples, but their hetrosexual counterparts who equally enjoy the benefits and social recognition as MARRIED COUPLES.

I haven't 'highjacked' marriage by being civilly joined to my husband. And as such, any SSM couple that join into that institute as well doesn't 'highjack' the institute either.

Its a conspiricy i tell ya!

Well, gays will make it look better!

Does that make it a Hositle Takeover then?
LAWL

Hasn't harmed, changed, or prevented any hetrosexuals from marrying so far. Nor has it harmed, changed, or prevented anything in pre-exsisting hetrosexual marriages either.

And until some idiot anti-SSM people point out to me exactly where it's effected, harmed, or changed anything in my own marriage, I'm all for any consenting adult marrying any other consenting adult of their choice.

We just need to keep out of each other's bedrooms unless invited. And I don't see anyone here, hetrosexual or homosexual asking people to watch them while making love to their spouse. All I've seen is alot of imagining by the anti-SSM crowd, and poor imagination at that.