Gay marriages should be federally legalized in the United States.

"In the Supreme Court Case, Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that two people could marry each other even if they were different races." This case sets a precedent which allows people of different races to marry one another. Homosexuality is not a race, therefore this court case does not apply. If this case, as you say, "proves that you cannot stop two individuals from marrying based on one aspect of each of them" then I could marry a three-year-old. Obviously you have misinterpreted this case. "You obviously did not read my arguments well enough because I did not defend gays by saying that it is natural." That's exactly what you did. Allow me to quote your second point from your initial argument: "II. Homosexuality is natural." "This is a very flawed statement. Leviticus 20:2 starts off by saying "And say unto the children of Israel..." Not to the children of God or people of the world. The passage in Leviticus only involves Israeli priests." If that is the case, then the Ten Commandments don't apply to us either. Let's go kill people. There are certainly ceremonial laws in the Old Testament that were specifically intended for the Jews. However, this is clearly not one of those cases, since the New Testament also includes a condemnation of homosexuality. "The government and Congressmen have no right to judge." Well, then, if the government doesn't have a right to judge, then who are they to say that child molestation is wrong? How dare they! Your argument is totally irrational, based on a misunderstanding of what "judging" means. If the Bible says something is wrong, it's wrong. Just because you resemble that passage doesn't mean I'm judging you. "It says they had unseemly affections including castrating themselves and sex orgies, not the God-given gift of homosexuality." No it doesn't. It says "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Just a tip. Distorting the obvious meaning of a scripture just makes you look terribly silly. You keep harping on this judging business. By your own definition of "judging" anyone who says that murder is wrong is judging. If you walked up and killed someone and I told you "killing is wrong!" would you stand there telling me I'm being judgmental? You really need to do a study on the word "judge," "judging," and "judgment." Fortunately I don't have to convince you, I just have to convince those reading this debate. Otherwise we'd be here a while. "Maybe one of my sources was differing, but after re-reading it, I realize it is a biased source (pureintimacy.com). I tried to use unbiased sources, but I guess I slipped on one." libertarian, I have to thank you for providing some of the best entertainment I've had in a long time. What you're saying here is that anything and anyone that doesn't validate your lifestyle is unreliable. Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? I ask again, upon what are you basing the assessment that the only respectable scientific sources are those that agree with your position? "AND YOU LIED ABOUT MY OTHER SOURCE!!! It says "There is no consensus among scientists about the EXACT reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." This is true. However, the same sight says that nature plays a complex role in it."" I should know, since I'm the one who quoted it first. How could I lie about your source when I quoted it verbatim? Furthermore, nowhere does it say that nature plays a complex role. It says "Many THANK that NATURE AND NURTURE both play complex roles." By the way, why did you cite a source that you never even read until I quoted it? Did you just pull this list off of some gay propaganda website without reviewing it yourself? "I'm upset that you would lie about the source and only include the first part of the statement "There is no scientific consensus on the exact reasons..." when after that it says that nature plays a complex role along with nurture." I'm upset that you're upset that I quoted your own source. I'm also upset that you're upset that I'm upset that you MISQUOTED your own source. "I only recognize sources that are scientific. My sources are not biased. They are scientific, mostly psychological." Upon what do you base the claim that your sources are not biased. I have yet to meet an intelligent person that doesn't have opinions, and I challenge you or anyone else to show me the man who is completely unbiased. Everyone has preconceptions, and nobody can prevent those preconceptions from coloring their research. That doesn't mean that their research should simply be discarded, only that we should think critically about it, and not accept it as fact simply because "well, he's a scientist!!" That's the fastest way to short circuit the search for scientific truth. "Maybe the gay gene will die out overtime. Scientists say that we will all be mixed and all the races will die out overtime as well. So what!?!?" What do you mean so what? Even if a gay gene ever existed (and if it did exist, it must have existed for some time now since people throughout history have exhibited homosexual behavior, and they have always been heathen cultures) it couldn't possibly survive more than a few generations. Therefore, homosexuality couldn't possibly be genetic, and therefore couldn't possibly be "natural" in that sense. "Serrogacy proves that the gene will likely not die out. ...you're obviously not reading my argument..." Once again, if a homosexual gene ever did exist, it would have disappeared long before the advent of artificial methods of reproduction. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant. However a theoretical homosexual gene managed to survive for a period of time, differential reproductive success WOULD eventually lead to the disappearance of this gene. Either enough homosexual individuals would choose not to reproduce that the allele would eventually die off, or a sampling error would cause the few remaining alleles do disappear. Remember, too, that the argument over whether or not homosexuality is natural has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong. I just happen to believe that it's neither moral nor natural. "There are mutations, recessive genes, closet homosexuals who reproduce. All of these will create a gay gene." Correction, recessive genes and closet homosexuals will delay the eventual demise of a gay gene. Mutations only provide the original genetic information (and even that is theoretical, not an observed fact.) The closet homosexual argument only works with regard to humans. Since you claim that the homosexual gene is present in animals, who are supposedly older divergences from our phyletic line, and since animals don't have the sense to realize that unless they find a female and mate they won't have children, the homosexual gene would have disappeared long before humans arrive on earth. All of that assumes that you believe in evolution, which I don't. "Sodomy is no more likely to kill you than vaginal sex. This argument is just dumb. I'm getting really annoyed." Yeah, I would be annoyed too in your position. I'm surprise I even have to provide you with statistics to convince you that, excuse me, a rectum is a less healthy environment then *ahem* a vagina. Nevertheless, here's a link to HIV/AID section of the CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov... "Maybe God wanted gays to adopt. Perhaps this is his plan." I'm guessing that God doesn't want children to be raised by the kind of people described in Romans 1. Just a guess. I have already refuted the rest of your points. This concludes the debate.