I read this somewhere, and I think it's appropriate here:

"I am a conservative.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level

determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its

valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."

Science has also found the same regarding things like alcohol; that some people are more prone to becoming alcoholics than others. That doesn't mean they all WILL become one; just that they are more prone to. That's kind of where I lean with the whole homo/hetero thing. I think there may be some people more prone to being homosexual. I also believe that situations/issues from early childhood (nurture) can play a role.

Okay, this statement is much more reasonable then your first that claimed that homosexuality was caused by abuse at a young age. Obviously there is a complex relationship between our genetics and our environment, but certainly what the evidence points to is that biology plays a significant role. This is probably balanced with social pressures and other factors in our development, but unless you can show me some study that connects homosexuality with childhood abuse, I'm definitely going to be skeptical of that particular theory.

All I am going to say about the whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing is that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore I fail to see how it could be "sinful." Then again I'm an atheist so I don't base my morality off of a religious text but on reason.

Hell if I know... the important thing is not the name however, but instead the evidence which undeniably points to a warming earth because of human activity.

Actually, what happened with the volcano is very different than the effect that CO2 has on our atmosphere.

When a volcano erupts it throws up a tremendous amount of dust and dirt into the atmosphere, which then reflects the sun's light. The same effect (more or less) can be achieved by painting ones roof white. Obviously car exhaust does not reflect radiation from the sun, but instead traps the radiation and re-emits it as heat.

Active volcanos that aren't erupting tend to actually spew CO2 into the atmosphere however, so in that way they do contribute to global warming, but not even close to the level that human emissions contribute.

I guess people like you are willing to take any fact out of context to try and prove your point though... watching all that fox news must have rubbed off on you.

Joe. How many times are you going to make me prove you wrong on this issue? There are a million things wrong with what this guy says, but let's stick to the graph that he claims shows a global cooling.

I am far too tired of repeating myself, so instead watch this video:

MY point is, you can't compare humans to animals.

Why not? There is nothing about humans that excludes them from the definition of animals.

Throwing feces is also prevalent in nature, as is eating it. It's in their biological make-up. But not in humans.

Do some research. You will find that the consumption of feces is not even close to as common in nature as homosexuality, and in fact has nothing to do with biological makeup. Good try though.

Just curious...do you believe that murderers are born that way? I mean, murder is so prevalent in nature......

Okay, so now you want to compare homosexuality to murder? Murder is bad because it infringes on the freedom of others (more specifically, their freedom to live). In what way does homosexuality hurt others?

Responding to your question though, there are some people who may be born with bad tempers or be more prone to violence, but certainly our genes are not our fate.

Back to the idea of homosexuality being biological though, you dismissed my first evidence that showed virtually every mammal (and actually most reptiles, birds, and fish) have significant percentages of their population that are homosexual. This however is not the main evidence supporting the claim that humans are biologically straight or homosexual.

Can we agree that sexual impulse towards the women is biological in straight men? Can we also agree that sexual impulse towards men is biological in women? Can we also agree that people who are straight do not make a conscious decision to be that way (as in, there was never a day when you decided to be straight, but you have instead always been attracted to women)?

I ask again though if you want the scientific studies that point to a biological influence in a persons homosexuality, because you seem to be making your arguments based on ignorance and unfounded assertions whereas I have actual science to back me up.

Regardless though, of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, why do you have a problem with it? Homosexuals do not hurt anyone, and in fact, if they are allowed to marry and adopt we would have significantly less children in foster care. In this way it would help society accept gays.

1. Plants can't feel pain, or think.

2. By eating plants you still end up killing less plants then by eating meat. This may be a difficult concept for you so I'll try to explain it as clearly as possible.

By eating lower on the food chain, you are eating more efficiently. You can eat plants which get their energy directly from the sun, or you can eat animals who get their energy from plants which in turn get their energy from the sun. Therefore, no matter what the overall effect is that the energy comes from plants. The difference is, by skipping the middle man, you get more bang for your buck (so to speak).

Therefore, if someone hypothetically did care equally about all living creatures (I'm not sure if there are people like this, but for the sake of argument let's say there are), they could minimize the amount of organisms killed by eating lower on the food chain (a.k.a. becoming a vegetarian).

Again, spell out for me these rights for me. You can't do it ;) can you ;)

Marriage. That's the right. I already showed you the unanimous supreme court decision that says marriage is a right. When you then show that homosexuality is not a choice (which has been done scientifically), then you see that a fundamental right is being denied to a group of citizens.

Happy?

Wow, it's like talking to a 5 year old.

My point is that your theory that homosexuality is caused by abuse doesn't hold up because of the numerous examples of homosexuality we see in the animal world. Clearly homosexuality must be biological otherwise why would it be so prevalent in nature?

'm not telling gays to stop fighting for equal marriage rights. I'm telling them to take a different tactic.

What you are saying is don't follow the legal process. I guarantee if they had listened to your advice from the start you would be complaining about how they weren't following the law (which you actually seem to be doing as well, ironically enough).

If forcing people into something they don't want is wrong, then it's wrong. It isn't wrong for one group of people but OK for another. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

By getting married gays aren't forcing anything on others. You could argue that allowing blacks to go to the same bathrooms and schools as whites was forcing racists to do something they didn't want.

And again, WHAT RIGHTS? A piece of paper that says you're married? Benefits? If you want benefits, fight for benefits.

Actually it's not me, but the supreme court that argued that marriage is a fundamental right. source Maybe you should check your sources before making claims that are demonstrably wrong.

So yes, homosexuals are fighting for rights. Not benefits, not to force their views on others... rights.