This is why I hate debates over whether it's a choice or not. It can't be proven to straight people because they can never understand unless they are actually gay. The best proof I can give to you is this: I am gay, and, if I could change my sexuality, I would in a heartbeat. I live in a family of super-Catholics, where homophobic statements are expressed whenever someone remotely gay appears in the media or in real life. I have not come out to them, and I will most likely never do try to. All I want is for my family to love the real me, but I can't. Instead, I have to live this life of constant paranoia until I move on to college next year. I've known about my sexuality since I was eight; I'm seventeen now. Life has been miserable for about that long because I realized that it was wrong. I'm not trying to write you a sob story about why you should believe that being gay is not a choice. I am just trying to give you the best proof that I can, which is my personal experience as being gay. To me, this is proof enough, but, if you want to, I can go into all of the juicy details of why I'm not attracted to women, and it isn't because I'm sexist; I have many more female friends than male friends, if that doesn't surprise you. It's all because of the biological attraction to women, or even the fact that I have had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and the only ones that have ever felt right were homosexual ones. There are numerous other reasons why I know that I am gay, but those are the key ones that prove it the most for me. Sorry for talking your ear off, but I hope that this helps.

"I've been treated like shit most of my life, I should take it out on others." Is that what you're basically saying? If so, then I feel bad for you. I would and still do feel sad to hear that this has happened to you because I can relate. But just because I feel like I should be more irritable towards others doesn't meant that I should act out on it. It helps when I try not to be angry, otherwise, I treated like shit even more :/

Yes, but in the case of fighting back against the government of one such as the United States of America, you cannot state that there is evidence of such a revolution being successful. The government of the United States is far more powerful than any of the those other governments during that time. Yes, Libya and Syria were different, if you're referring to the modern day struggles, but they are still war-torn, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. If we are to even stand a chance against our government, we need more than just guns. You can't successful fight against tanks, militaristic planes, missiles, and various other weapons with just assault rifles. So if you're suggesting that all the public needs is assault rifles to combat against a tyrannical United States government, then you might want to recheck what the government's capabilities are.

To be honest, though, I am fine with people having guns, but I see no reason for assault rifle possession among civilians. Why do people need something that can release such a large amount of bullets when the gun is already extremely lethal with just one in the barrel? I have not seen a valid reason as to why any civilian needs one. If you could please explain that to me, I would be very grateful.

You really think that civilians with assault rifles will be able to take back their government, which would hypothetically possess and implement powerful weapons such as tanks, missiles, and heavily-armed soldiers to control the public? This isn't some fantasized situation from the movies, where the civilians are able to outmaneuver and take back their government. The United States has one of the strongest militaristic systems in the world. I'm pretty sure that, in the case of civilians fighting back against the government, the masses would lose. Using the Second Amendment doesn't even apply anymore. It was drafted in the 1700s, where technology was limited to basic handguns and rifles, along with the occasional cannon. Times are different. I shouldn't have to explain the numerous advances in militaristic technology. The ability to kill is significantly higher. Does this mean that we should just abandon the Second Amendment? Absolutely not, but there should be restrictions on what civilians should be able to possess, otherwise, if you really want to completely follow the amendment, why not just let everyone have whatever firearm they want? I can guarantee that, if everyone possessed a weapon to "protect themselves", the mortality rate will rise. One disagreement that gets out of hand can lead to a standoff. Do you really want everyone to have to ability to possess high-capacity magazines with their assault rifles? It's just bound to get out-of-hand, no matter how much regulation is done. We are only human, and people make mistakes all the time. Unless there is a way to prevent every single human being from developing even the slightest feeling of anger, I will never back up the argument that assault rifles should be allowed for possession among civilians.

This is so repetitive, it's annoying. Here's the deal. People are constantly posting these, and the statistic is the same every single time. More are pro-gay marriage. So seriously: get original with your debate topics.

Oh, and I'm pro-gay.

It is if you make it serious. For me, I see it as serious because it shows that you trust that person to share their body with you; it's one of the most open ways you can be with someone. So, in my opinion, yes, it's serious. But again, that's my opinion on what sex means to me.

It's different for everyone. Some people want love more than money, and others want money more than love. In my opinion, however, I would rather have love.

Ok. Thank you for explaining that. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying in your initial description. Yes, I agree; haste is waste. I like to argue things carefully. Sorry if I presented myself as stubborn and jumpy when it came to debating.

I also agree that we need to work together to resolve the God debate on both ends, otherwise it isn't a mutual conclusion.

If you are asking from a moral standpoint: then no. But in all honesty, equality is a human idea. Nothing is ever equal. We cannot, however, determine whether girls are better or worse than boys; there are so many positives and negatives for both that it is almost impossible to figure that out.

I, however, believe that we should take the simple and peaceful route and say that both are equal.

Ok. You have absolutely no confidence in yourself. I am not saying it in a mean way. Here's the revelation. You have posted 4+ debates on how you can get women, and have repeatedly said all of the negatives about yourself and can't seem to find the positives. You are obviously at a low point in your life and possibly need to see someone about your pessimism. IF you want a way to find women without meeting them publicly, just use dating websites. They are an easy way to get familiar with someone before you meet. If you have good chemistry with them online, you are likely to have chemistry with them in public. I don't know what else to say besides this:

You need to take action in what you want. You constantly ask people on a debating website about how you can get a girl to like you, and yet, when it seems like great advice is showing up on each post, you just create another perspective debate over what you should do. Seriously, take action. You cannot find a girl by asking others. Yes, maybe you have failed a few times at meeting a girl, but if you fail many times, you need to find a different way to find one. Women only like guys without personality, success, and looks if they want to do community service and help them achieve one of those things. You, however, are doubting that you have any of them.

If you don't have a great personality, fine. That can always be changed. It is by psychologists that, if one pretends to be someone for a long enough time, they will eventually develop that persona as their own. This can be very bad advice though, because you do not want to use this to exploit women.

If you do not have success, it's not too late. You believe it is, and therefore, you make it impossible to achieve. If you don't have confidence in yourself and work hard, you will never achieve success.

When it comes to looks, you believe that you are average or below. The funny thing is, when a man has a lack of confidence in their looks, they usually turn out to be because they believe it to be true. Even if that man is generally a nice-looking guy, he can believe and cause his appearance to look bad through facial expression, dress, attitude, etcetera. Have confidence in your looks. Try to find features that you like about yourself. Soon enough, you will create a happier, more confident person, which is actually very attractive to women.

Actually... Rape is forced sex. Just pointing that out.

Click the link and read the definition of rape.

In your opinion, God sends people to Hell. It is not a proven fact, it is a belief.

As for the funeral part, I am neutral; either way is fine, but it depends on what the deceased wants. A party celebrating that person's life is meant to celebrate the things that they have accomplished, what they will leave behind that imprints their existence into history, whether big or small, and it is meant to be meaningful and joyous that they had a wonderful life on Earth.

So, only if it is a Christian symbol, it is OK to be displayed on public property?

It is his house; he can do as he pleases inside his home. He should, however, be considerate and close his blinds so that he does not surprise or upset anyone around him.

I am glad that you are putting your opinion out here, but the question was about what you believe is the most important thing that you should do before you die. I am glad that you are a very devout Christian; Christians are the most optimistic people I know. But please don't try and preach to me what the most important thing I should do is, based on your opinions. This debate is only about what you want to do.

I'm sorry if this comes off as up-front and hostile, but I am being sincere this time and am just asking for peace.

I believe one of the few reasons why I am still alive, to this day, is that I want to find my special someone, or at least someone very close to that. I am an affectionate guy, and I want to find someone that I can look forward to seeing everyday and live for. If I don't get that before I die, then I'll have wasted my entire life.

In reality, this is an opinionated question. And I'm stating no.

Well my mom and my dad our married and they are Christian and they haven't had a divorce.

I congratulate you on that. They are very lucky that they still love each other. That is true dedication.

If your a Christian once your married to that person you have to stick with that person for the rest of your life.

Based on the Bible. It is your opinion whether you want to believe that or not. People can still choose to go against that. Not every Christian abides to this.

...if I am alone and not married and I need an emergency and I am home alone who is going to take me to the hosiptal?

Either call 911 or have LifeAlert, and the ambulance will come once you call for them. You don't need family to take you places. The hospital has staff for those instances when you are alone, or you could simply have friends to call if you need help.

No... You're talking a bit extreme.

I was in a relationship with an adult that was a few years older than me. It was a mutual relationship, and it lasts for many years. He never raped me, and we were very much in love.

no tennagers that young have to many hormones

Puberty. Nuff said.

dont begin to understand real love till 18 or older

Not true. Just like my ally above, I too have fallen in love when I was a teenager.

We both were in love for quite a while, and it was true, but it faded away over several years. It was, however, a very mutual and loving relationship.

it is wrong

In your opinion.

Note: There is a spell-check button, or you could just right-click the words that are underlined in red. They will give you the correct spellings.

Do you think [sexual intercourse is] for the sake of pleasure?

No, but to some people, like me, sex is more about being with your partner than having children. And that is my opinion; everyone doesn't have the same opinion.

...we are humans beings we are not insects or animals.

Correction: We are animals, but are also intelligent.

Actually... There is an age limit on certain videos. They make you sign in onto certain provocative videos and, if your account's date of birth is above 18 and you click the "I Confirm that I Am 18" button, you can view them.

Two names of great female comedians: Chelsea Handler and Kristen Wiig.

Drake because 1) He's fresh and already has a lot of harder-hitting singles. 2) He got into the Songwriter's Hall of Fame within two years of hitting the mainstream. 3) He puts more heart into his lyrics. 4) A wide variety of audiences are raving over his music.

I believe that it depends on the music. If it's a song that everyone within hearing range likes, then yes, maybe they could blast it out loud. Other than that, I advise just listening privately in your headphones or ear buds.

True, but I have absolutely no declaration. I vote for the party who makes the most sense at the time. That is not Libertarian.

Obama because Romney is kind of a nutcase. He makes promises that could never be completed in a 4-year term, such as completing a border that goes along the entire Southern border of the United States.

This is an opinionated question. My opinion is you're OK.

Neither because I'm neutral on pretty much everything that is political. I go for the one that is most logical, like placing this post on both sides.

Neither because I'm neutral on pretty much everything that is political. I go for the one that is most logical, like placing this post on both sides.

I know. I didn't state that overpopulation is caused by a drop in standard of living. I stated that overpopulation leads to a significant drop of standard in living; they are hand-in-hand. I think we are stating the same thing, but are just confusing each other because we are wording it differently.

Yes, it definitely is a very valid argument. It shows the contradiction of the idea of God. If one is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and benevolent (all-loving), ideally, that person, or in this case, deity, is perfect and will have perfection.

God is described as having all of these qualities, and because of this, His existence is disproved for many reasons.

For example, one could bring up the topic of natural disasters. God is benevolent, meaning that He would not want people to be harmed by these disasters. Seeing that He is omnipotent and omniscient, He knows that they will occur and has the power to prevent them, or to not create them in the first place. But why do they still occur? For natural disasters to occur, He has to have an absence of one of those qualities. He could be both omnipotent and benevolent, and just not know when they will occur. Or He could be benevolent and omniscient, and not have any power over the disasters. Or He could be omniscient and omnipotent, and not feel any remorse for those that die in those disasters.

This is just one example as to why "The Problem of Evil" is a valid argument. It can be applied to many aspects of life. If need be, I can post other examples to show how, in other ways, it is a good argument.

I agree with you that the standard of living will definitely drop once a state of overpopulation is achieved. The point that I am trying to explain, and probably have not effectively placed in my preceding posts, is that, once a general state of overpopulation is achieved, then yes, the standard of living will drop, whether it is significant or insignificant.

If it is a significant drop in the average, that means that a large percentage of the families that were already struggling before the drop will now be at more risk to possibly die off, and the mortality rate would go up. With a significant drop in standard of living, there is a significant drop in population, and it could take many years to finally bring the average standard of living up.

Same here. I don't seem to get uncomfortable a certain age group. It's only certain people that make themselves uncomfortable to be around.

I believe humans are, indeed, a pretty crappy species. Yes, we are very intelligent, but that seems to be more of a negative than a positive. There are so many reasons why humans suck, and they seem to outweigh the reasons why humans are great. I can't list all of them off of my head, but once someone inevitably disputes this, I can start listing some.

Which language was the first one you learned as a child? Based on proven psychology, humans learn languages easier when they are children. If you learned English as a child, then you can't say that English isn't harder, because you don't have the experience of learning it after learning your first language. It's harder to transition to a second language than it is to learn it first as a child.

I meant that, if every military couple was producing children, then it could cause overpopulation.

Because of nature... Unless you believe science is non-existent?

It most definitely is not above 70% in all of America. In certain cities, however, it could be; they would be the ones where the population is very, very low.

Guns really aren't causing large amounts of deaths; in fact, they're very random. I advise you kindly to not make assumptions because you seem to be frightening yourself over what you think might be true, based on narrow observation.

It's fine. But still, getting a salad at a fast food restaurant isn't healthy, either. A majority of the time the produce is processed and they give a lot of dressing. Plus, the calories in those salads are usually really high.

I disputed to support myself.

Fast foods, in my opinion, is used stereotypically to brand a food as unhealthy if it comes out of a restaurant. Fast food is not always bad for you, but it rarely is good. I've yet to find a restaurant that makes food fast, but also makes it healthy, while keeping a lower price for it.

Here's a very good reason as to why this is happening:

In this era of American history, more Latinos are immigrating into the country. This may sound like a stereotype, but it truly isn't: Many are coming into the country looking for a better life, and the majority of those Latinos don't have a lot of money. Because of this, they are forced to buy cheaper foods, which usually means from fast food restaurants, and have to work extra long to get as much money as they can to support their families, taking time out of their home life.

Cheaper foods such as McDonald's and Taco Bell usually are usually the only option for those with less money. For example, the vast majority of Native Americans on reservations are forced to get fast food because they are living in impoverished areas. This is similar to immigrating Latinos. Latino families come to America with a small amount of money and have to find jobs quickly; if they can't, they will become broke and could possibly starve to death. That's why cheap foods are usually their best and only option.

When it comes to occupation, they usually can't find a very good job fast and have to resort to very low-paying jobs. That's why many usually stay more towards the border; the further north they travel to find a place to settle, the more money they have to spend.

Since both parents usually have to spend time working long hours to provide for their families, Latinos don't have a lot of leisure time to do things such as exercising. As for the gym part that you mentioned in the description, many can't afford to pay monthly fees, and even if they did, the harder-working families usually cannot go often, proving that a membership would be a waste of money.

It seems like you don't have much confidence. When you try to meet a girl, you can't just be friendly. Most "average" guys think they can't get their "dream girl", and they won't be able to because they have doubt. The thing that separates "extraordinary" and "average" guys is that level of confidence.

Extraordinary guys usually have a certain strength in them, whether its their charisma, wealth, or looks; this causes them to have a higher level of confidence because they believe that they can get the girl they want. Average guys, like yourself, have this doubt that causes a lower level of confidence, and it shows during social interaction.

My advice is to build up your confidence, and be genuine about yourself; usually these pretty girls are smart and have adjusted to be paranoid. They get tons of fake guys that only want them for sex. Show that you really want to be with them, and not use them.

I believe that teenagers should be able to date adults. If anyone has any reasons why they shouldn't be, post something as a dispute after mine, and I will gladly debate with you.

Actually, it is. Other languages are generally straight-forward, but English is constantly contradictory in its grammar and pronunciation rules. That's why it is one of the hardest modern languages to learn.

Yeah, definitely. Match.com or eHarmony.com

And it also sounds like you're not confident in yourself. If you want to put your main focus on finding a suitable lady in their 30s, you need to show that you have confidence in yourself, otherwise you won't find many because many are waiting to be found. Believe in yourself every day, and you will definitely find someone soon.