your one to talk, concerning any form of mental disorder.

guessing your against abortion as well?

You should have been born in medieval times, your backward ideas would fit right in

I don't have to point out how idiotic and wrong your guesses consistantly are. Good job. Homosexuality is still a mental disorder.

postmodern western civ is a mental disorder

i look at it like this, just because you don't want to do it, doesn't mean someone else can't express they're GOD given right to do as they please with they're bodies.... and you shouldn't judge.
personally i am straight... but it is still kind of sickening to see a man take the worst attributes of a woman into a persona, and another man would like that.
i mean i like a woman being a woman, plain and simple, what ever faults may come with it..... but just anyone taking the worst attributes of something or someone else and another person liking it..... OH I think i get it... thats why they ware leather and dress like bikers..... it's a form of self degradation, of sorts.
in truth, the people that i have known they are truly gay..... you wouldn't know they were unless they told you.

>>i look at it like this, just because you don't want to do it, doesn't mean someone else can't express they're GOD given right to do as they please with they're bodies.... and you shouldn't judge.<<

I make no claim that homosexuality is immoral. If it hurts anyone it's no one but the consenting adults involved. I believe the right to have all the homosexual sex you want is worth dying for--and whatever type of lasting homosexual relationship anyone wants as well. But this doesn't mean that I support my society giving the same privleges to homosexual couples that it gives to married couples. Homosexual couples do not nor will ever serve the same vital function that heterosexual spouses [naturally] do. This is a simple matter of functionality, as families are the most basic building block upon which societies are built. This is nothing new. Regardless that some couples do not or cannot bear children, that is a result of coincidence, not design. Marriage still contributes to happiness, health, and longer lives for spouses regardless. Homosexual couples can still enjoy these benefits of marriage, but they do not nor will ever serve the same function of marriage in society which benefits us all that heterosexual spouses do.

You can't even play the devil's advocate. Are you offended that neither religion nor morality is the source of my objection to the institutionalization of homosexual "marriage"? You fail to mock me OR make any point. Good job.

My argument is that homosexual relationships do not serve the function that heterosexual relationships do and therefore should not be treated identically. Yeah you really pointed out how flawed that statement is. /sarcasm. My argument is that homosexual couples are not as ideal to raise children as heterosexual couples, based in part on inherent differences between men and women which are necessary for ideal development. A man and a woman are required to produce a child, and coincidentally a man and a woman together are best equipped to raise a child [best]. And that's not even taking into account that homosexuality is a mental disorder and nobody is done well by being raised by mentally disturbed people and not knowing healthy functionality from an early age. We can all see what a angry, stupid, ignorant, cocky 15 year old you are. I'm sure both your daddies are good people who mean well, but everyone's embarassed to read your posts.

Obviously any functional human being or pair of human beings is capable of "raising" a child. Homosexual couples are incapable of producing children, however. I thought everyone knew this. Hell, I thought it was obvious. While perhaps two loving homosexual parents may be able to provide a better upbringing for a child than an orphanage, such is still not the ideal natural setting of a mother and a father raising a child. You know, the only way children are naturally produced. Men and women are different. It's a fact. DNA determines significant chemical (in addition to the obvious differences which I now realize you may need to be educated on. Look up "penis" and "vagina" sometime) differences. Male and female behavior, psychology, and physiology differ significantly. If you want to make the argument that homosexual couples should be allowed and encouraged to adopt, try making it instead of crying like a [ ] and thinking you're funny. Nobody is impressed by you being impressed by you.

Two females cannot produce a child, by the way.  I'm sorry I didn't specify this in my last post. I mistakenly presumed that you knew this. My apologies. Were you counting technology used to fuse DNA from 2 eggs to produce an embryo? That wouldn't require a male. Can they do that? I'm a little old fashioned myself I guess. I do not believe it is ethical to produce children in laboratories, regardless of whatever new techniques that exist today that you obviously embrace.

> Two females cannot produce a child, by the way.  I'm sorry I didn't
> specify this in my last post.

Huh? Sure they can...

> Nobody is impressed by you being impressed by you.

Another failed insult!

You really are on fire...

EDIT:

Ooh Ooh

> We can all see what a angry, stupid, ignorant, cocky 15 year
> old you are. I'm sure both your daddies are good people who
> mean well, but everyone's embarassed to read your posts.

Another fail!

Almost missed that one .

Pwnd? Keep dreaming .

Yeah, true...

Bet you didn't know that Ilu watches us from the closet every night. Return PWNAGE.

Issues with gay marriage.

1) Despite what Euro's think, and Socialists, religion is still a power in this world. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all branches from the belief in the same God, just different viewpoints on this thing about a Messiah. However as noted from the WTC terrorist attack religion still has the power to compel people to do things, including kill. Islam in particular is enraged about the idea of gay marriage.

A good way to increase the terrorism in the world is to not listen to them, and make gay marriage a legal and binding name.

2) 10,000 years?? of biology has created the idea that man and woman is normal. Even in many atheists this argument holds weight. This is beyond just tradition, just as kissing has grown beyond tradition, despite actually not engaging to many of the pleasure senses, it is one of the first steps leading from love and such. Some call this biological imperative.

3) For at least 4000 years the term marriage has stood for a man and a woman. No society prior has even challenged the motion, even the gayest of roman times never challenged this notion.

4) There are other terms which have been used, without prejudice, to stand for a gay couple, included consorts.

5) The total gay population in the United States is about 3% of the population, with about 1% of the population cohabitating. That they should be able to upstage the 50%+ of the population which does not want them to have the title 'married' is rather petty and rude. In fact it's a title.

So the argument I lay out is that there is history, biological issues, religious issues, and statistical issues which means that alternatives should be sought out and found. They should not seek to upstage marriage, but instead create a unique and meaningful title which they can proudly say on a census tabulation, such as 'Consorted'. Instead of angering a majority of the population they can then find adulation, applause, and more from taking the higher road for something so minor as a title which has so huge a meaning.

I have no problems with them having the same rights taxation, visitation, financial, etc as married couples, aka man and wife couples.

> i asked him to tape it.... it makes good money on teh interwebs

You knew?!? Im so hurt .

> Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all branches from the belief in the same God

Some believe Jesus was (is?) a god, and the rest believe he was just a prophet (so to speak).

> That they should be able to upstage the 50%+ of the population which does not
> want them to have the title 'married' is rather petty and rude. In fact it's a title.

Really? Because i have always thought of marriage as a legal union between two people. It is accompanied by a ceremony to celebrate such a union.
Now you refer to marriage simply only as title. Why should only certain people attain the 'marriage' title?

IMHO "marriage" should be seperated from "union". Everyone (man/man, man/woman, woman/woman) should be able to get a union. Unions with multiple people (E.g. a man and two women) could also be allowed, but on a state-by-state basis. Rights, responsibilities and such forth should be attributed to a union.

The marriage should be a legally unofficial extension to the union, and should be a religious ceremony/event. If a religion doesn't support two people getting married, fine. Its upto them.