We would all be dead without technology.

If you had a little cut, that would of meant certain death back then. Diseases would of wiped us out instantaneously without any treatment.

That is irrelevant to the premise of which the topic of debate- which is involved with that of a woman's problem. It does not matter which gender invented a label for the word of controlled argumentation- debating is based solely on topical matters, and males in this current topic of debate are not as entitled to debate about what they will never experience first-hand, in a first-person perspective as they are not women.

What if the man had a learning disorder, and the woman was highly intelligent?

No sense. No sense at all in this dumb religion...

Under that logic, then one can commit murderous deeds because on has been born with the killer gene. Instead, we are to control ourselves and become the opposite of who we have physically born as.

You have it wrong. The killer gene is just a name for which people act more physically and violently than the rest of the populace. It is much easier to control a violent nature. Homosexuality is different, just like how you cannot simply change the nature of a straight woman/man to like the opposite sex. It is a large characteristic that determines who you are, and it cannot be changed unless you alter your whole biology which is impossible to do, unless accompanied by future technologies.

It's also just the same with people born with retardation- you simply cannot change their nature. Hypocrite.

I don't understand what you are trying to ask. One can find his or her mate attractive along with being able to touch and kiss him or her.

But you denied all sexual relations to exist before marriage.

Love does not require a sexual component to it. Therefore, it is not equivalent. Homosexual relations do not require love.

Do you not think heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in marriage? Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are human; they both share the same 'love'.

That is what I am saying; it should be equal, it should be fair. They are born different without their will, so restricting their rights is unjustifiable.

That is a red herring.

It isn't a red herring; having sexual relations with a child is wrong to have, knowing they are not fully developed human beings to have sex at all.

Another red herring.

Animals are completely

Yet again, love does not require sexual relations. Love and list are separate.

Shouldn't of used the word 'love'.

I meant to say 'love' with the context of what is shared between both heterosexual and homosexual couples; what drives them to get married and start a family. And I would also want you to become aware of the financial benefits occupied with marriage.

Neither are heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex, and gain the benefits of marriage. Homosexuals are not, which is quite oppressive, knowing that it isn't their choice.

The only way anyone can have sexual relations is through marriage, which is how God intended it to be, which is good and holy.

So, no finding a mate attractive? No touching or kissing? That is not scientifically how human beings work in the real world.

For example, if I have the desire to murder, then, according to this logic, I should be allowed to murder, simply under the premise of my inclination to want something.

Murder is a far-fetched example of a basic human right to love.

Well, then one must include pedophilia

Sexually undeveloped and immature human beings.

and bestiality

Socially unaware animals.

and incest.

As long as it involves two consenting adults, it shouldn't really be much of an issue. Love is love.

How much did what mindfuck you?

You really should be using complete sentences because I don't have any idea what you are trying to say.

But as Cartman said "How come homosexuals are not allowed to give in to the SAME EXACT desires, but heterosexuals are? It doesn't make sense."

It was completely dead, timeless and devoid of life, until it exited through the vagina where it instantly gained life and movement.

against my personal beliefs, does not mean that I cannot respect the right of other people to their freedom of belief and choice in their lives.

Believing in freedom of belief defeats the flawed morality of religion. Maybe you should consider just which belief is more important, and more viable. The ignorance and intolerance of old ideologies, or the enlightenment of unbiased, free thinking.

You are not acting like God when you come to accept other people's beliefs, you are acting better than God- in relation to the God that is envisioned in the bible. He has committed mass genocide for no morally justifiable reason at all- which is quite fallacious, since he is meant to be portrayed as the epitome of morality; the counterpart of the devil.

But you do know, it contradicts your religion, which was what I was trying to say all this time. I have no idea where you came up with calling me an anti-choice troll.

The message you sent me was irrelevant to what I was trying to say; your religion is incorrect about being anti-gay.