BeyondDriven

Originally posted by boogienights I'm talking about people that put on uniforms to defend YOU! It seems you just comprehend what you want I can see why you wouldnt want to see a US flag burned. But dont forget that you fight for the freedom of all Americans. Not just the ones you like or the ones you agree with. It also saddens me that you currently agree on the gay issue with the very people we are fighting against in the middle east. And dont forget that a good number of men and women who are in the armed forces, who fight along side you, are gay and serve their country.

Originally posted by Lgehrig4 I am not religious nor do I have anything against homosexuality. when a man lusts after another man or woman lusts after another woman there is a problem. Genetic? Learned? Who knows, but it goes against the nature of all living creatures - to procreate and continue the gene pool. I would never avoid or disrespect a person for being gay because they feel, care and have the same needs as heteros and outside of our sexual preferences we are the same. I will not, however, pretend that everything is normal because it is not! Lusting after the same sex is not what nature intended. An albino lacking pigment is not what nature intended. A mentally retarded person is not result of the perfectly developed fetus. That said, IMO the benefits of marriage should be only be for couples made of one man and one woman. Why? Not because God said so. Not because it is disgusting. Because only man and woman and create a child and raise the child to do the same therefore continuing the race(many do a poor job these days). Marriage evolved because humans have a reproductive instinct and ability to rationalize. Everything that is claimed to be "unnatural' is either arguably very natural, arguably irrelevant to what the laws should be, or without any relevancy to what should be treated as moral and immoral. Just because some trait or activity isn't the "norm" among humans doesn't mean that it is "unnatural" and therefore "wrong." I can't believe you even argued that marriage would be "unnatural" because it cannot produce children, the supposed ostensibly natural end of marriage. To begin with, is it valid to assume that the "natural" end of marriage (or sex in general) is procreation, and that therefore non-procreative couples cannot reasonably be allowed to marry? I think not. There are two ways this premise can be refuted: by showing what its logical conclusions would be if actively employed, and by taking apart its philosophical basis. If we were to take this premise seriously, there would have to be a radical change in the laws surrounding marriages. For one thing, no infertile couples would be allowed to marry. This would include both younger people who are infertile due to health issues as well as older people who are infertile due to the progress of old age. But who would agree to that?

Originally posted by favata5 Today its just getting twisted it used to be Adam and Eve in the Bible,,whats next Adam and Steve???? *Gays/Lesbians existed long before the bible.