Response - Homosexuality is an Abomination

Yah, I saw that. I was trying to determine if Dr. Laura has been getting spray tans or was it because her head was up her ass? I couldn't decide. With spray tans there are generally white circles around the eyes which I didn't see. I'm just sayin

There has been a fair amount of evidence as of late of entrapment of the youngsters within this type of facility and many of the older females as well. If they are free to choose without repercussions then you are probably right.

It is the "Land of the Free"

The sin is not to love but rather to find happiness in any other way than what the haters feel is the right way.

no it's not. Love is a beautiful thing. The world need more of it.

Sin is the harm you do to others that makes them less than they were before you did it. Plain and simple. Religion is a whip used by those with agendas or those that know no better. Be happy, you are most likely not on your way to hell and most certainly not for loving someone of the opposite sex. If you are gay it is because you came that way and God wouldn't make you that way and then condemn you for it. That would be ludicrous and ungodly. Most hatred is taught and perpetuated by religion. History has proven that over and over again.

Sin is fucking bullshit. Men created it to hold you hostage.

Why would we do that, you may cost more than someone from say south america, but statistics show you will work smarter, capable of a wider range of duties due to your liberal education and you already speak english so we dont have to beat it into you.

i totally agree

There are some interesting and well thought out points here. Until the end. This may be futile but here we go:

Homosexuality actually is normal behavior. It's as normal for someone as breathing. And I'm more then certain that it's not part of the "gay agenda" to encourage children to "try it." That's insane.

You say "Absolutely no one has the right to try to lure a child who would be heterosexual if left alone into that lifestyle."

Absolutely no one has a right to lure a child into anything. Period. Like say, into a certain way of thinking, that one persons sexuality and or lifestyle is right and another is wrong. One of my roommates is messy as hell and doesn't clean up. While that bugs that heck out of me and I can talk to him about it it's his way of existing in the world. And it's valid.

You also state that "That's not speculation, that's a fact, and I experienced it as a youth and was fortunate enough thanks to my upbringing to not be tempted. It is THAT that I abhore and will fight against."

What experiences? Do you have any examples or can you share with us what happened? Because, in all honesty, I have no idea what you could be talking about. What experiences? And how were you "tempted."

You have a few interesting points but really, you think that some of this nonsense about putting people to death for hair violations or working on Sunday EVER were reasonable even 2 or 3 thousand years ago?

This is the fallacy with all religions. When this nonsense was written by superstitious old men they and they alone felt it was reasonable. Everyone else went along or they were killed.

Control of the populace by those with power, simple as that.

Luring a child, like say, taking them to church every Sunday to learn how to live "right?"

Yep, brain washing is brain washing.

Please have an open mind people and let your children make up their own minds about all matters in sexuality and religion when they become adults.

I know that's asking too much because religion is like a virus that must be fed and will not allow rational thought to enter in.

Good points sir.

I’m so sick of this "the gay agenda" crap, someone needs to shoot that phrase and bury it. Nobody wants your damn kids, I can’t stand to listen to the bastards at dinner, they ruin anything in public. Furthermore There are more pedo hetro men looking for little girls than men looking for boys. Also as Sage said, yes it is VERY normal to be gay. Would you call nature normal? Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species of animals. Your post was made a lot of intelligent sense until the last part, nice try though. P.S. – Please don’t use that phrase again, it makes you sound moronic and all your credibility goes out the window.

curtis doesn't have credibility here... he just talks out his ass... you're wasting your time... but good try!

Do you think it is possible that the human beings who wrote down all these 'guidelines' saw a problem with homosexuality as making them uncomfortable? Prejudice is not an invention of 20th century America its a human foible i.e. the genocide in exodus perpetrated by the new arrivals in the 'promised land'

To embellish on the virus analogy
All viruses are obligate intracellular parasites. They lack the necessary mechanisms to replicate and reproduce themselves outside the body of a host.

So is it ok for you that people try to "lure" homosexual children into behaving as heterosexuals? I have a little bit of news for you. Homosexuality has existed in nature since the beginning of time, and NOT just in the human species. The gay agenda? These people are simply trying to have the same rights and luxuries afforded to EVERYONE ELSE. A bigot by any other name is still a bigot.

I'm not going to talk about those personal experience. It's just way too personal to share on a site like Current.

As for the gay agenda, not all gays share in the agenda, and I don't pretend that they all do, but it's not hard to google and find out what I'm talking about, start with NAMBLA and move on Obama's "school safety czar" and then look at the books that have been promoted for elementary schools, the sex ed agendas...

as i said inthe post, I really don't understand what the historical and cultural context for the hair idea was...it's hard for me to imagine how that could ever make sense but it may have had a very understandable origin at that time. Not that we'd condone it today, obviously. Let me give you one completely hypothetical concept about the hair cut concept. At the time the Romans dominated Judea, the tradition among Jews was to have long hair, and in every Roman statue, they had short hair. I could see how a Jew with short hair would have been seen as a collaborator and a traitor, so I could then see how they would say that anyone who betrayed Judea should be "put to death".

Now, I have NO idea if there was anything like that going on, but it would help explain why they would make up such a law.

As for working on Sabbath, for the people back then, they LITERALLY 100% believed that God was there, was close by, was watching, and any disrespect of God could result in his disfavoring the people and punishing them with all sorts of calamity. They would see tolerance of blasphemy as a direct challenge of God, and they would fear his reprisal. Can you blame these people with very simple, even primative, understandings of the natural world for fearing that allowing the people to skip the observation of sabbath might result in being punished with floods, earthquakes, invasion, disease...?!

My whole point is that you are applying YOUR modern, cultural and scientific mind to judge the mindset of people who lived 3000+ years ago. Do you think the aztecs were assholes for performing sacrifices, or do you look at them and say, "well that was what they believed at the time"?!

So why do you and others choose to be forgiving of the absurd beliefs of some groups and then outrageously condemning of others?

Where I believe that condemnation is valid, is in today's modern world. I would condemn any nut who stoned a gay to death, but at another time, they had very strong religious beliefs about God and lacked our modern scientific understanding of how the world works.

hmmm. I missed this.

"Like say, into a certain way of thinking, that one persons sexuality and or lifestyle is right and another is wrong. One of my roommates is messy as hell and doesn't clean up. While that bugs that heck out of me and I can talk to him about it it's his way of existing in the world. And it's valid."

Really? It's "valid"?

Is it valid of BP to be negligent of safety and pollute?
Is it valid of some ignorant redneck fisherman to throw his beer cans down next to the river?
Is it valid for a roommate to come home and blare music at 3 AM while you are sleeping on a night before a test or when you have to work?

You've stated a very strange contradictory form of tolerance, my friend. As I said, this area is very "gray" and difficult to discuss, but I disagree that your roommate has the "right" to disrespect the people with whom he cohabitates, in the same way that polluting is, in my opinion, immoral. For that reason, it's also illegal in most places.

Why are you so afraid to say: "THAT'S WRONG"?

As for sexuality, I see it a little bit like motorcycle helmet laws: it generally just puts the individual at risk with little risk to society at large...(although that analogy breaks down when it comes to communicable diseases...), which is why I may not like homosexual behavior but I don't dislike the individual unless he or she uses it to make a poliical comment, you know, "in your face".

Could you explain to me how, in a species that perpetuates itself through sexual reproduction, "Homosexuality actually is normal behavior."

Is fucking animals "normal behavior"?

wow.... you sure did it this time curits, how are you going to compare animals with people?? you're just an ignorant sad fella...

If could vote you down 100 times i would, but i can't... wow, you sure are ignorant...

Do you believe that couples that cannot reproduce are abnormal and do you see such couples as no different than those who have sex with animals?

Sure, I can explain the difference between loving two people loving each other and "fucking animals."

It's two completely different things. One is when two beings capable of thought who live in society that have feelings for each other. People. Not animals. I'm talking people who go about their lives and pay their taxes. Everyday people like me and you.

Who the hell are you two say that two people can't love each other?

The other is having sex with animals. Which, last time I checked was pretty sick and twisted.

If your going to come at this with moral arguments your going to have to do better then that.

We also "perpetuate" ourselves through understanding, and working through ignorance. What's the above letter about? Just because you were taught a certain way doesn't mean that it's correct. Just as the way I was taught may not be correct.

If your not going to expand upon what you base your argument then don't bring that to the table. Your saying "I think A because of B." And when I ask to understand B you say no it's personal. Well if it is don't try to play ball with it. That is just absurd. How the heck am I suppose to debate or argue a point when your point is a wall.

So give me another real reason why your against the non existent "gay agenda" other wise I think your just blowing around hot air.

But here's the best part check out NAMBLA?!?!?! WHAT THE HECK MAN!?!?! You've got to be f-ing kidding me. Your siting and organization that advocates sex with children? Sure that will make a valid point and not anybody pissed.

What if I"Hey, said check out the Westboro Baptist Church website. They'll help you see my point." You know they have listings of funerals of people who have died because of hate crimes so the righteous can go and protest at them. Yeah, that would make my voice seem credible in this discussion.

Ridiculous. I was hoping for an actual, thought provoking argument. Instead your just making noise.

Yes, it is valid. Cause I'm talking about a life style choice that may be slightly annoying. But it doesn't hurt anyone. And if you re-read my post I say "I can talk to him about it."

And after we talk, the problem gets solved. My roomate is nothing like and never will be like BP or a redneck fisherman.

I'm not afraid of anything, thank you very much. Except ignorant bigots with lots of money. And instead of saying THATS WRONG, i can TALK ABOUT it and not start a fight.

I don't expect any attempt to understand the point from you, you've more than proven that all you do is troll and attack.

There are perverts in every facet of life. What ever happened to you as a child could have easily and most probably been a prime example. Straight people have anal sex and that doesn't make them gay and it isn't necessarily a gay act. When an adult tries or does have sex with a child it is molesting regardless of whether it was done by straight person or a gay person. It is done by both.

Children are more prone to being violated in the anal area whether they be male or female. The ratios of children being molested is actually extremely high. This is the perversion. Again, being anally violated as a child is not gay but a perversion perpetrated by the adult whether the adult be straight or gay.

As you have pointed out, people of religion thousands of years ago wrote of what they assumed or believed to be the correct way. The problem is, religious writings were supposed to be the word of God. Any clear thinking and logical individual can see that much of what has been written is ill-founded and illogical and most likely not the word of God but of those religious people and their desires or agendas. Granted, many things they wrote of may be fitting and applicable but so many are not.

Heterosexual people tend to be the norm based on percentages of the population but that doesn't make it the absolute.

Most heterosexual people can't understand homosexuality because it is contrary to their nature. It is most often offensive and repulsive to them but on the flip side, heterosexuality is repulsive and offensive to the homosexual. Neither can stand the opposite when it comes to the act. People are drawn to that which they are chemically wired for. The chemistry within is what navigates the desire not the physical attributes. Some people are born with both sex organs so for them, the decision as to be female or male is left up to the chemistry within. If being born with both sex organs can happen by way of nature then why is it such a stretch to imagine that the chemistry can also be switched by way of nature? That is only logical and science is now beginning to prove it to be factual. This being so only pounds another nail in the coffin of religion.

Your reply is good. It's getting closer to the point.

What do we call it when an individual is sterile? Is that "normal"? No, it's a medical abnormality. What about other abnormalities?

For example, some babies may have a genetic defect that prevents their body from producing a substance called 21-hydroxylase. If a developing baby girl lacks this substance, she will be born with a uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes, but her external genitals will look like those found on boys.

It occurs periodically, but simply because it happens, is it "normal"? No. It's an abnormality. It is a condition that runs CONTRARY to the natural, biological plan of sexual reproduction.

What about behaviors instead of anatomical disorders/abnormalities?

I mentioned zoophilia not because I equate homosexual behavior as a moral equivalent to bestiality, but for another reason.

There ARE humans who find copulation with animals to be gratifying. Just because it happens...and has occured for thousands of years...is it "normal"?

Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as zoosexuality, is the practice of sex between humans and animals (bestiality), or a preference or fixation on such practice. A person who practices zoophilia is known as a zoophile.[1]

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, such acts are illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.

The established view in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder.

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, but this was revised over the past few decades.

But on what basis can anyone call homosexual behavior "normal"? It is an aberrent behavior that runs directly counter to the laws of nature regarding a species that depends upon heterosexual reproduction to perpetuate itself.

This is why I disagree with the notion that homosexuality is "normal". While I do not call it "abhorrent" (a moral judgment), I believe it is undeniable that it is "aberrant" (behaving in an abnormal or untypical way).

You may not agree with me, I'm stating my opinion based upon the reasoning above.

Now this should be scripture! We will call it the book of truth and enlightenment.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I said that I was unclear about the reasons for the various "laws" mentioned around hair etc. I also said I do not judge them because I don't (didn't) understand the historical context for them, but I thought that if we did know the reasoning, we might be able to understand what the intent was for the laws, and not come to the conclusion that the biblical references don't invalidate the wisdom of the Bible.

There are references in the Bible that, if taken literally, do indeed seem outdated.

"Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Who today covets their neighbor's ox, or donkey? but my point is that we'd be morons to have to take the bible so literally that we'd say "ah, this law is out of date because it talks about oxen and asses". The intent of the passage is what is important, and the last phrase clarifies that.

Ah, here we go.

"Who the hell are you two say that two people can't love each other?

The other is having sex with animals. Which, last time I checked was pretty sick and twisted."

I never said two people can't love each other. Now you're putting words in my mouth (or post, as it were).

I agree that zoophilia is pretty sick and twisted. Is it NORMAL? That's the word you chose to describe homosexual behavior. Is it NORMAL? Well, there are peole who "love" their animals enough they copulate with them. Is it NORMAL?

and for that matter...if two men love each other, great. but how can you say it's "NORMAL" for them to suck and fuck each other?

if you think that a roommate's choice to disrespect the common area is "valid" and you'll just allow it to happen, you're just asking to be pissed on.

it does in fact "hurt someone" it has obviously bothered you or you wouldnt' have mentioned it.

The GAY AGENDA is very much alive and well. Examples of it abound. I don't give a rats ass if you want to believe it or not, just do a search and ye shall find.

as for the number or percentage of gay vs straight pedophiles, where did you get that "there are more hetero..." statistic? pulled it out of your buggered ass?

HAHAHAHAHA..... troll?? dude, i can't compare to you... i don't think you look at what you post or do... the words troll and attack are synonym to curtisreed... or how do you think you got a negative -29 on one of your comments??? only ONE!!!

I don't think, actually, I KNOW if you add all of my comments and add all the negatives I still have less negatives than you have.

lol.. you're worthless!

brother, I said: "Some people may be born gay, and I don't think anyone should wish them ill. But many people are "introduced" to it, and are "groomed" for it, or there is an attempt to "seduce" them into trying it. That's not speculation, that's a fact, and I experienced it as a youth and was fortunate enough thanks to my upbringing to not be tempted. "

what the heck do you thnk happened? come on, what makes you think I have to go into graphic detail about that to be able to make the point that there are gays who try to "groom" straight kids so they would be receptive to gay sex?

I've seen it in multiple locations.

Please note, I'm also aware that there are hetero pedophiles who do the same, and it's jus as wrong. My point was that the statement that "gays are born that way" is only true for a percentage of gays. Other people "learn" to accept a homosexual lifestyle. I had a roommate who admitted as much to me, he had been straight but then had "some problems" I won't go into, eventually he was not able to find a woman who wanted him and was "introduced" to a gay lifestyle and "learned to accept it". I've known kids who were tempted at a much earlier age and convinced it was "cool"...they had shown no proclivities before but later just accepted it. I wonder to this day if they had not had that experience if they would have continued thinking of themselves as heterosexual and never experimented with homosexuality. We'll never know.

I can't agree with your "reasoning" and opinion because you're grasping at straws to support a very simplistic and narrow view of humanity and nature. Same sex sexual behavior is very prevalent in the animal world. Additionally you are completely sidestepping the importance of relationships in society and the fact that homosexuality is not a health threat.

that's nice. I don't really care to keep tabs on popularity points. I say what I think and on a predominantly liberal site that's bound to attract opponents. You seem to follow me around so I'm pretty sure deep down you just can't resist.

but the difference is, I actually engage people on their beliefs, argue the points, and don't just follow a person around to shower insults on them. I was engaged in a discussion with someone else when you showed up and you didn't contribute anything but insults. They may not agree with me, but I notice that they've all civily disagreed.

You have still not grasped the point. I have not argued that same sex behavior does not exist. I have said it is NOT NORMAL behavior. Keyword: NORMAL.

In respect to homosexuality and health threats... the original spread of AIDS is generally attributed to the promiscuity of homosexual men.

Of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the United States during the year 2003, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that about 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men.

As of 1998, fifty-four percent of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men, and the CDC stated that nearly ninety percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.

Not all things are black and white, in fact most things are many shades in between. Bi-sexuality is more real than most people would care to admit. Think of it as a scale on a number line (-10 +10). All people fall somewhere on this number line and can pull in either direction to some degree depending on how close they are to the middle.

You are right. Sexually transmitted diseases are not gender specific as some would like to lead others to believe. The health threats are based on who you are with and how clean both partners are or have been and the sex partners they have been with before, straight or gay.

ahh, i see what you're trying to say... so for the first time that you've decided not to attack and call people names, than we are to believe it makes you the better person here today? lol... today maybe..

but I think many people here will agree that there are times you make some sound points... but most of the time, you're attacking and yes, engaging people just to question their belief and call them names..

just because you chose a better path today, it doesn't mean you have changed over night... or did 29 people (and probably more) just decided to vote you down because you made a great or intelligent comment?

There are many people here curtis, not even Ayips or whatever his name is, has had a negative 29 or is consider an ass like yourself...

By the way, please don't flatter yourself in thinking i'm following you around... I commented on this way before you knew about this article, so that's why i noticed your comment. Please, you're not worth my time to follow.. i rather follow JJ and ihatethemall, before i follow your stuck up, unintelligent, bigoted, racist ass.....

=D

The statistics you present are intriguing because some of the highest rates of STD's are in elderly people. Both the elderly and homosexuals are not at risk of unwanted pregnancy but if individuals of either demographic are not aware of current sexual health risk they have a higher chance of contracting STD's. So the statistics you presented expose faults in public awareness of STD's and not threats proposed by any particular demographic.

I would say it's VERY normal any two people to want to give each other pleasure. Do you enjoy what you do with your significant other? Why? Is that normal? The answer is yes, yes it is. Same goes if it was guy-guy or girl-girl.

The DIFFERENCE is that one example, of the examples your throwing around here, is HUMAN and the other is an ANIMAL. Two different things. I don't know how I can say that any clearer.

Adults having sex with each other = NORMAL
Sex with animals = NOT NORMAL

It would only "hurt someone" or be disrespectful if he didn't change his ways AFTER talking about it.

Right. Your not saying it. Your just implying.

Well if your not saying two people can't get married and love each other you must just be trying to compare homosexuals to people as sick and twisted as those who have sex with animals.

Are you talking species or what? Now you are only being logical, that will never fly.

So, since 1998, 54% of all aids cases in the US were homosexual men which means that only four percent is the portion over half of all cases is attributed to homosexual men and only 90% of those 54% men were acquired by sex with other men. Does that mathematically equal out the 4% so all in all it equals about fifty fifty give or take a few? How many married couples have aids? Where did they get it and how was it spread? How many of these things go unreported by non-homosexuals? How accurate are the facts? How many contract aids through other means and are falsely reported or not reported at all?

HIV is transmitted through direct contact of a mucous membrane or the bloodstream with a bodily fluid containing HIV, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, and breast milk.[4][5] This transmission can involve anal, vaginal or oral sex, blood transfusion, contaminated hypodermic needles, exchange between mother and baby during pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or other exposure to one of the above bodily fluids.

Many people have aids and don't even know it. It can take many years before it even manifests. So much information out there and much of it was released before it was fully understood. At first it was a pandemic of fear that raced through the masses of the population. The Gay Society was the first group to be pegged for its existence.

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, originated in non-human primates in Sub-Saharan Africa and was transferred to humans during the late 19th or early 20th century.

Two types of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent, is easily transmitted and is the cause of the majority of HIV infections globally. HIV-1 is closely related to a virus found in chimpanzees, and molecular phylogenetics indicates that HIV-1 appeared sometime between 1884 and 1924 in equatorial Africa. HIV-2 is less transmittable and is largely confined to West Africa, along with its closest relative, a virus of the Sooty Mangabey (Cercocebus atys), an Old World monkey of Guinea-Bissau, Gabon, and Cameroon.

No one knows for sure how it initially was transferred to humans from the chimpanzee but some believe it was from either getting bitten, cut, or scratched or eating the meat by one that was infected. Others believe it could have been sexually transmitted or by vaccines that were at one time derived from the use of chimpanzees through research into a poliomyelitis vaccine..

right? I grow weary and tired of this.

In time, science will prove more on the subject of homosexuality and that it is not a choice. Religion will feel the blow and be smitten as they say.

Not exactly - many aquatic species, fish included, simply release their sperm and their ova in the water, no intercourse takes place.

Curtis sometimes you just give these complicated long winded comments that just run on and on and on like diarrhea. Perhaps you need to go to an onanonan meeting.

lol.. you said it best!! lol... voted up!

I don't think you have to worry about divulging personal details on the internet in this forum...its not like you have any identifiable data about yourself...you are safe in your anonymity and that is what makes you courageous enough to post your BS. And if people really did know who you were they would probably walk away in disgust.

HAHAHAHAHA we are cumming for your children....HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Who defines normal?

lol.... when i have my kids, i'll have you babysit Jubal... if you don't mind of course...

According to many pastors and priest who regularly hear confessions....almost 70% of people who go to confession confess that they have thought about doing it with someone of the same sex.

There are a lot of lonely straight farmers and ranchers having sex with their goats and sheep....say daaaadddyyy like a goat.

Indeed, pedophilia primarily affects heterosexuals.

Hopefully religion will just die and be buried...the sooner the better.

Indeed Heteronormativity is the leading cause of suffering and suicide in the world today.

Indeed....less messy.

I have 12 nieces and nephews who are all geniuses, in spite of the fact that their mothers turned into meth addicts. I think my mother and I have done a good job keeping them moving towards college and giving them stability.

I would consider it an honor to babysit.

The vaccine route seems most likely.

Normal basically means within the norm. That doesn't mean unnatural - homosexuality is not the norm, sure, but it is perfectly natural. :)

Priests (Catholic and Orthodox) yes, but since there is no confession in the Protestant churches, pastors do not hear confessions, it is not part of their job, it is not part of the rituals and rules.

Jubal, for thousands of years, the virus (a retrovirus which mutates all the time) was harmless to both chimps nd humans and other primates. The origin of the HIV virus does not lie in chimps, it lies in Green Monkeys - they are aggressive and often bite humans. AIDS first arose in East Africa where Green Monkeys proliferate, not in the Belgian Congo. It was likely brought to the Belgian Congo by East African truck drivers who had been infected in their home countries.

Not in a formal or ritual way...but my current partner was a protestant pastor first as a Presbyterian minister, then later as a Evangelical minister for a total of 30 years of pastoring between the two. He tells me that he has informally heard hundreds of confessions from those in his flock. Its not like in the Catholic church with a confessional but it is confession none the less. Usually it would be in the form of them being very distressed and wanted to talk privately with him and cried and told them their sin and affliction. He had to have the patience to let them tell their whole suffering and to share with them the evangelical message of Jesus love and forgiveness. He would counsel them about the things they confessed to him.

Another thing he told me is that many people who had marital problems many of them had problems having sex with their wives or husbands...that their marital partner didn't want to please them by doing certain types of things to them like perform oral sex or try other positions or keep their genitals washed and cleaned so that sex could be more enjoyable.

There was a great deal of political unrest after the demise of Julius Caesar. Many things changed after that. The Roman's did in fact embrace all forms of sexual conduct and homosexuality was seen as normal. As we all know, politics gets into everything including religion. Some people tend to think that 2000 years ago such things were not possible but they were equally possible and equally common as they are now as we see in everyday politics and religion.

You state: "There is no possibility of procreation in a homosexual marriage so there is no point to the marriage." In contrast, marriage is not required for the purpose of procreation so the necessity of it is also pointless based on the same criteria. Society has only deemed it proper and preferred. Procreation will happen whether a marriage ceremony is performed or not. The point of marriage on the deepest and most desired level is when two people find true love and commonality. Society has determined marriage to be the only exceptable union as per religious guidelines. Heterosexuals find the act of homosexuals repulsive and in some cases alarming. On the flip side, homosexuals find the act of heterosexuals to also be repulsive and in some cases alarming. So it comes down to who is right and who is wrong or whether anyone is right or wrong on this issue.

Whether the Romans did or did not embrace homosexuality is inconsequential. There is evidence that it was more openly accepted than many heterosexual people care to accept; but in any case, the Greeks and the Romans are not the standard.

Moving forward to modern day, evidence indicates that homosexuality is not a choice but a reality as to how many are born. Bi-sexuality is an area that covers those caught somewhere in between. It is not just a one or the other reality, it can be a blend of both. It depends on the chemistry in their brain not the physical configuration that controls their sexual behaviors. Science is finding that choice is not at all a factor with regards to someone that is gay. So, if this is the reality, it will have been the reality since the first union between same sex partners.

Religion has taken upon itself to deem what is proper and what is not. Religion came long after the first humans and marriage came sometime after religion. People that are offended by it use religion to brow beat anyone that is different and homosexuality is one of their favorite targets.

Whether religion initially detested homosexuality can not be determined as any religious book is subject to manipulation or editing whether it was or is written on stone tablets, brass plates, papyrus, or any other medium. Since all religious books were written by man and not
God, the writings are subjective and questionable and heavily based on the biases of the writer or writers that have had any influence of the writings whether initial or revisions since. Most religious books were written during the times when things that came out of the sky or heavens were either Gods or Angels. We now know that is not true.

Religion is not evidence of God and God is not evidence of religion. Sorry.

Ideally biological parents should raise their own children I agree; however, there are exceptions here as well. There are many children that either don't have living parents, or their parents may not be willing to and in many cases aren't worthy to raise them.

Procreation is the easy part of any relationship and marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it. One is not dependent upon the other. Procreation is not a requirement within a relationship and here again one is not dependent upon the other.

Most creatures including humans that have sexual intercourse don't do it with the intent of procreation but rather procreation is a bi-product of the activity. Granted, there are humans that do it just for the reason of procreation but they are not the majority. Sexual instinct is in place for furthering the species but the driving force is still driven by hormones and not planned parenthood.

Teenage pregnancies are a classic case of hormones as are many accidental pregnancies amongst all age groups and not the intentional act of lets procreate. As I stated previously, the chemistry of the brain is what triggers these hormonal actions and not the physical genitalia. So if the two individuals involved happen to be of the same sex it is because of the chemistry. Whether they can produce the bi-product of procreation is not the governing factor. It is the chemical attraction between the two partners involved.

Supporting your claims with evidence of beliefs or practices of those who both accept homosexual desire and reject homosexual marriage is fine but it still doesn't change the fact that being gay is not a choice. Again, marriage and procreation are not one and the same and they are non-related or dependent upon each other. The bulk of society has deemed it appropriate to enter into marriage prior to having sexual relations but again this is what society dictates or believes.

Granted you never once mentioned religion in your initial comment but without the guidance of religion, society would most likely see things somewhat differently as would you. Whether or not you spoke of religion, your perspectives have most likely been molded by many religious aspects or beliefs and any experiences of your own and those around you.

Since science is finding homosexuality to be set into place at some point between conception and birth leaves only the perspectives, beliefs or practices of society and their religious persuasions on the opposing side of this issue. The common human reaction to anything they fear or don't understand is to reject it and most often condemn it and quite possibly destroy it.

Since the majority of the human race is not gay, the accepted default or belief is they must be correct and anything else is incorrect. This pushes those who are different out into the fringes. The majority by default can't understand, support or extend the same rights or privileges to the minority since their level of understanding is void or incapable of grasping the minorities reality.

The issue of marriage, which is not dependent upon procreation but more of an accessory to it, becomes one of the first areas of offense to those who have deemed it inappropriate for gay people. In our society, there are many benefits given to a married couple and since gay people can't get married, these privileges are denied them which takes us back to the issues addressed in the first part of this paragraph.

With regards to the rearing of children, it has been proven that two parents are generally better than one and in your perfect world of heterosexuality, many marriages end in divorce leaving these children in need of perfect rearing shortchanged. It has also been proven that gay couples can perform the task of rearing children perfectly well and believe it or not there are still extended family, which draws in grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc whether they are direct bloodlines or not. Love and nurturing is something very powerful no matter where you find it. Bloodlines are not required. Otherwise any and all adopted children are hopelessly lost, even those that are adopted by heterosexual people.

I hope this addresses your concern of my having any problems in reading but I am concerned as to your ability to interpret and understand what I have said and the reality of some of the other people around you.

If you ever have a child that happens to be gay, you might come to understand the depth and reality of this issue and for the sake of that child I hope that you do. Many suicides are a direct result of this very issue due to society and the inability of the loved ones around them that can't seem to grasp or understand the plight of the homosexual. If you have a child that commits suicide due to your inability to understand and except them for who they are because they are gay, your life will never be the same and understanding will then be your best friend and reality will be your torturous nightmare. This is how many heterosexual parents come to understand their gay children.

Marriage seems to be more aimed at promoting monogamy between the man and the woman. It tends to establish commitment between the couple and show their devoted interests not only in each other but the union. Not all men are philanders but it does seem that many do follow that direction. As society has changed, many women are feeling safe enough to venture in that direction as well. Through history, securing lineage as well as exclusivity was an imperative to support the ego's of men. In some cultures, it was common practice to put female offspring to death if they were the first born. The ego is an amazing thing and what it can promote people to do. I still believe procreation is a byproduct of marriage since procreation was well in place long before marriage. The concept of a legal marriage was the result of the things as mentioned above.

Supporting gay marriage would fall under the guidelines of establishing monogamy and devotion to each other and their union. This generally equates to love and devotion and sexual attraction of the couple. In reality, monogamy amongst any couple (hetero or homosexual) actually serves the best interest of society especially with the existence of so many sexually transmitted diseases.

Granted, lineage would not be addressed in a gay marriage but what is the real advantage or value of lineage? The only true value would be to assist in medical diagnosis and predictions to the health of future generations. Some religions do put an extreme value on the tracing of lineage but if the after life is as they prescribe it to be then all of this should be clear in spite of their attention here on the physical. Society quite often pursued lineage for the egos of royalty and the rich. In the end, lineage can be traced if it is that imperative regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. It comes down to the ability of those detesting its existence to overcome their fears and attitudes towards it. Nothing more! Here again, it comes down to the embedded moral perspectives established by a religious society whether this embedding took place thousands of years ago or trickled down to present day.

As I stated before, there is a lot of gray area between being heterosexual and being gay. It is not always just one or the other. The chemistry of the brain of any and all involved can be various levels or graduations of both. Bisexuals don't necessarily set right in the middle. They can be more inclined towards heterosexuality than homosexuality or vice versa. Many heterosexual marriages end up being broken due to the realization of one mate or the other finding themselves attracted to someone of the same sex even though they as a rule don't. Their chemistry gets triggered towards someone of the same sex but only in rare occasions. They in many cases were not even aware or couldn't bring themselves to admit to this varied attraction. Some people are hard core one or the other by way of hetero or homosexual but all variations definitely exist. In fact, bisexuality is more common than many people care to admit. Many fight this tendency secretly all of their life due to the fear of rejection or condemnation from their loved ones, society and or their religious affiliations.

I whole heartedly agree with you as to the narcissistic attitude on a relationship. It doesn't matter whether it is a business, friendship or marital (hetero or homosexual) relationship. The effects of it can be caustic and usually quite destructive. Any relationship if processed through love and/or respect stands a far better chance of survival.

Most marriages start under false pretenses and this is why so many fail. I have seen so many marriages begin and fail but it is generally due to the blinding and intoxicating force of the libido. Their selection of a mate is generally skewed. Many do not intend on having children anytime soon but it still generally happens do to such activity tends to result in offspring. Procreation is inherently embedded in the process in spite of the desire to procreate or the lack of it.

Ultimately, many marriages take place because people think or believe they are in love when in fact it is purely animalistic lust. Procreation may or may not be part of the intended equation or union.

Some marriages take place due to one or the other or both participants are trying to escape their dysfunctional home life only to find themselves in more of the same. Marriage doesn't fix things that are broken it only magnifies them.

So ultimately, marriage can be a curse or it can be the greatest thing. Friendship, love and respect not only for yourself but for your partner are the key ingredients to ever hoping to have a successful and happy marriage. Procreation often only adds toxicity to an already toxic relationship which is evident in much of our society. Children do not secure the marriage or happiness there in although they may provide happiness to one or both of the individuals. This is the chaos of so many single families that plague our nation and the youth of today.

Marriage should be granted to any that feel confident in their abilities to make the union work whether they be hetero or homosexuals. On the other hand, procreation should not be doled out so liberally. Many are not qualified, capable or devoted enough to performing all of the follow up responsibilities attached to the resulting offspring. There in lies one of the major malfunctions of our society.

Marriage has been spoken of as a civil right prior to the gay marriage debate. It used to be illegal for interracial marriages to take place especially between "Blacks and Whites." Once it became a civil rights issue it was more openly spoken of. Granted, this falls within the 20th century time block. Eventually, it became acceptable and the nation has been better for it as will be the case for this gay issue once it comes to the same end.

I agree that the social costs for unfaithful women have always been higher than men. Women are equated to nothing better than "sluts" and men, well, "men just do that kind of thing."

I also agree, the nation is not officially atheist but I would dare claim that many are beginning to question the reality or sanity of many religions.

I am quite certain that Alexandrek does know what the word "equality" means in fact probably more so than you. Granted you man be able to define the meaning from a literary perspective but I am inclined to believe Alexandrek can most likely define it better from a literal and realistic perspective.

You haven't made religious arguments against gay marriage but you do use the same arguments that religion uses. So you can define your arguments under any name or terminology that you like but it still equates to the same basis and that is one of religion which much of our society is based.

Alexandrek most likely doesn't have reading issues so much as being impassioned about his feelings and perceptions as are you.

As Alexandrek stated: "This nation is founded on equality for every individuals," although this nation likes to claim such a statement, our history is heavy with evidence of the contrary. This statement mostly applied to the white male. The Native Americans, Chinese, women, African Americans and Gay people can attest to the fallacy of this proud claim. This nation took a few hundred years to begin to migrate towards their claim of "Equal Rights for every individual." This migration is still underway but I believe in another thirty to forty years we will obtain it. Then America can actually truthfully claim this grand claim of a free nation.

At least one and a half more generations need to die off to uproot the biases and bigotries that lie underneath the undertones of society. Religion will soon take a back seat as it becomes more exposed for what it really is and this unveiled truth will launch this nation and the rest of the world into a more harmonious and peaceful state.