Gay marriages should be federally legalized in the United States.

Please explain how the fourteenth amendment protects homosexual behavior. No homosexual's rights are being infringed. They have the right to get married (to someone of the opposite sex) and have kids just like anyone else. Heterosexual men don't have the right to marry each other any more than homosexual men. "You used the argument that violence is justified for its naturality. However, violence hurts people. Love does not hurt anybody. This is a common sense argument." Clearly you did not read my argument thoroughly. I did not say that violence is justified because it is natural. I said that you cannot defend homosexual behavior by calling it natural. Quite a significant difference. Since you didn't really respond to my argument, I will repeat it. "I would like to begin by saying that I am an angry and violent person. I was born that way, it wasn't a choice. Therefore, it's okay. Don't you dare judge me for it, it's just natural. The above paragraph is an illustration of the fact that something cannot be justified as acceptable simply by virtue of being "natural." In addition to "homosexuality," the animal kingdom displays a number of other behaviors, including polygamy, homicide, patricide, fratricide, incest, and rape. By your reasoning, all of the above should be considered acceptable because they are "natural." This is, of course, absurd." Who are you or anyone else to say what parts of the Bible were or were not inspired by God? If this verse was not inspired by God then how do we know that any of the Bible was inspired by God? It is in the Bible, therefore it was inspired by God. Clearly we are not the children of Israel, but this is a poor argument since the same attitude is exemplified in the New Testament, which is expressly meant for us. "These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies." Nowhere does it refer to any priest or priestesses, or "odd sexual behaviors." Even if it was referring to odd sexual behaviors, homosexuality IS an odd sexual behavior. "This is the sin the Bible is referring to." No, the Bible is referring to "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." That is clearly referring to homosexuality. I don't think I need to explain this any further, as this verse speaks for itself. "These people refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God." And were given up to vile affections, and became homosexuals. "how is it referring to homosexuality, which is proven to be from birth?" Once again, you obviously not read my argument. Nor did you read two of YOUR OWN sources, which say otherwise. "It is not referring to homosexuality." Then what do you call it when men burn in their lusts one toward another and work that which is unseemly? "That is what Romans 1 is about: judging others, not homosexuality." Where does it talk about judging. Obviously you're a little confused about what "judging" means. If I say, "you're a bad person and you're going to hell!" then I would be judging. If I say "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so," I'm only saying what God said. If it applies to you then it behooves you to repent. Your comments about me being a jerk are clearly the symptoms of blind fury and accompanying irrationality at being unable to support your point. I don't think that point is worth my time discussing. Suffice it to say that I'm not trying to convert you to my religion, I'm trying to convert you to YOUR religion. "My related sources all stated that homosexuality is natural and at least partially biological." Really? Allow me to quote from your second source: "homosexuality is a condition that, in a fundamental way, is contrary to nature. Biologically, it is simply not natural or normal." The third source (which I quoted in my initial argument) explicitly states that there is no scientific consensus about what causes homosexuality. Your above statement is simply false. "You have the nerve to only copy and paste the part of my source that states that there is no scientific consensus on the BIOLOGY of homosexuality." So you're mad because I quoted your source? "However, among respectable scientific sources that are not biased the consensus is that homosexuality is in part genetic or set in very early in life." Upon what are you basing the assessment that the only respectable scientific sources are those that agree with your position? "A. OK..." That is not a point. This is me being a jerk. As to your second point about natural selection, once again you have demonstrated that you did not even read my argument. Why are you debating me if you're not going to read anything I write? If you just want to shove your gay agenda down my throat, there are some lovely parades in Los Angeles this time of year. Since you did not answer my argument, I will simply repeat it. "Some have proposed that a homosexual gene could survive in recessive form in heterozygous individuals. Unfortunately, this will still result in the elimination of the gay allele over time, as every instance of a homozygous dominant individual will be selected against, resulting in a drop of the total frequency of the allele until only one individual possesses the recessive trait." "Homosexuals often reproduce through modern scientific methods like serrogacy and invetro." How, exactly, does the fact that it requires a laboratory, along with a male and female reproductive cell, support the conclusion that homosexuality is natural? "Natural selection proves homosexuality to be immoral This argument makes no sense! Many genese will be naturally selected." When did I ever say natural selection proves that homosexuality is immoral? Once again, why are you arguing with me if you're not going to respond to any my points, AND make up your own straw man arguments to refute? I said that natural selection makes it impossible that homosexuality could be genetic (natural,) contrary to your central premise. "This also makes no sense! AIDS is a disease. There is no scientific support or debate that it is a disease." Exactly. And it is a direct consequence of homosexual behavior. Not that it can't be contracted in other ways, but there is a significantly higher risk factor involved in homosexual behavior as opposed to heterosexual behavior. The risk is virtually eliminated when your partner isn't someone you just met at a public restroom. If homosexuality is natural, why is it directly responsible for one of most deadly diseases know to man? When a man and a woman do the dead, it produces life, when a man and a man engage in sodomy, it often results in death. For most people, that's all the argument that is needed. "DO YOU KNOW GOD'S PLAN!?" No, but if he wanted gay people to have kids, he would have made it so they can reproduce just like any heterosexual couple. If you don't come up with some better arguments, I'm not going to have anything to say in the third round. "God perhaps made it so difficult for gays to have kids because of the many kids in need of adoption." He didn't make it DIFFICULT for gays to have kids, he made it IMPOSSIBLE. Whatever you may have been told, no matter how hard you try, neither you nor your boyfriend will EVER get pregnant. "no source will claim that homosexuality is pathological." I know of at least one source which makes exactly that claim. Its http://www.pureintimacy.org... which happens to be one of the sources you provided.