So is heterosexuality "natural" or not?
Is it found in nature or not?

Because despite what you "didn't say", it's your stupid response that I'm dealing with now.
Just because I say homosexuality is natural doesn't mean what you said.
Just because I say homosexuality is found in animal species doesn't mean what you said.

Now answer the questions fool.

Is heterosexuality "natural" or not?
Is it found in nature or not?
Does that mean heterosexuals are no better than animals?

The flaw in your thinking (or lack thereof) is obvious. Others already see it as well.
The only question is whether or not you have the brains or the honesty to admit it...

Wow. Are you going to inflate like the toads in Germany and explode?

Regulation of Marriage is a infringement of Religious rights. As well as a infringement on the Seperation Of Church and State.

Marriage is a religious institution and therefore is at the discretion of a priest or other Clergy.

Ahhh. Changing the subject.
I'll take that as a sign that you finally understand what you said was utterly stupid, but you lack the honesty to admit it.

Yes, I understand this. I want to change the qualifications for marriage because they are currently unfair and harmful. A gay couple cannot qualify for marriage, while straight couples do qualify for marriage. This treats gay people unfairly.

In the same fashion, if I introduced other arbitrary restrictions, it would treat other groups of people unfairly. If I introduced a restriction saying that only people of different religions can get married, that would be unfair to people who want to marry someone of the same religion. If I say that only people of different races can get married, that would be unfair to people who want to marry someone of the same race. In the same fashion, our current resetriction saying that only people of different sexes can get married is unfair to people who want to marry someone of the same sex.

It may be tradition to deny marriage to same-sex couples. But that's an awful tradition. It's a tradition of making people's lives worse, of hurting them, and treating them unfairly. Why should we preserve that tradition? Let's crush that awful tradition, in favor of freedom, equality, and morality.

It's just terrible. Life isn't fair. I can't kick for the Seattle Seahawks and you can't marry someone of your own sex. I feel your pain.

Homosexuality in nature is not the norm. That makes it abnormal.

Abnormal is irrelevant.
Being red-headed is not the norm. That makes it abnormal.
Being left-handed is not the norm. That makes it abnormal.
Being Jewish is not the norm. That makes it abnormal.
Having an IQ over 130 is not the norm. That makes it abnormal.

Voting Democrat in the last election was not the norm. That makes it abnormal.

Now before you do your typical stupid complaint of whining and crying over the fact that I said something was irrelevant, realize I gave a reason WHY it was irrelevant and discuss that, if you can.

Your logic suggests that it is okay to deny whatever freedoms you want, simply because you can't play for the Seahawks. You might say:

I can't kick for the Seahawks, so it's okay to ban dancing. Life isn't fair.

I can't kick for the Seahawks, so it's okay to ban interracial marriage. Life isn't fair.

I can't kick for the Seahawks, so it's okay to ban guns. Life isn't fair.

You don't believe in freedom, you believe in banning whatever you want, and you'll use whatever excuse pops into your head to do it. Oh no, the coach of the Seahawks won't let you play for his team! Life must not be fair! Institute tyranny! The government needs to ban freedoms!

Give me a break, we both know that you playing for the Seahawks has nothing to do with instituting a law banning a freedom. It's the team's owner who decides that you can't kick for the Seahawks, not the government. He's using his freedom to choose who he lets play for his team. The government gives him the freedom to do that.

Besides, the coach actually has a good reason to tell you that you can't kick for the Seahawks: the team would stink, they'd lose games, and no one would want to see the Seahawks play.

On the other hand, there's absolutely no good reason to ban same-sex marriage. No one is better off, and many people are worse off.

I can't say it better than you did, Alias:

You can't force people to do what you want. It's called freedom. A person should have the right to marry who they want to, not who the government tells them to. It's called freedom. I'm against the government interferring in people's lives, and rightly so.

I've read his posts on various boards. My bet would be an equal combination of all of the above.

I've noticed how disingenuous his debate 'technique' is. Once he's prove wrong, he twists and alters the thread so that he can dodge having to say that ever unpopular statement: Sorry. You were correct and I was wrong.

I tried debating with him - but it's impossible. First he dodges responses he doesn't like - and when it becomes impossible to dodge any longer, he starts with 'homo' this and 'homo' that and insults and outrageous claims and statements.

He has actually stated (either on this site or another) that I can't be gay because I don't know anybody with AIDS. LOL LOL LOL

Now, hmmmm, who does that remind you of? LOL Somebody whose name begins with a "gar" LOL LOL LOL