What you fail to realize is what every breeder knows. All breeding spikes and then plateaus, there is a line that can't be crossed no matter how much breeding you do; dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats.

But the two biggest questions for Darwinism is where did life come from and where does genetic information come from. Since life and information are abstract realities there can be no naturalistic explanation for them. And if naturalism were true these abstract realities and all others wouldn't exist. Their very existence disproves Darwinism and naturalism because these theories can't account for them, yet there they are.

This is not an argument but supporting evidence of why abortion should be banned. This woman knows first hand what abortion is and what it does. If you are going to argue for abortion you will need to overcome this woman's testimony. But I bet most people will just attack her character falsely.

You would deny a group of people their rights and privileges as granted by the United States Constitution because you have a problem with their behavior

And what exactly are these "rights and privileges as granted by the United States Constitution" that are being denied?

And if caring whether our not someone destroys their life is a selfish and vile agenda that makes me a common racist and bigot. Then I'm guilty as charged and will wear that badge with honor because I care enough about my fellow man to warn him when he is in peril.

This isn't an argument about the merits of homosexuality

Ideas stand or fall based on their merits, at least they should. So if you think gay marriage is a good thing, please make your case and show me the merits of it. Because as it stands now when I weigh the issue the negatives far exceed the positives.

So here is my challenge to you; If you support gay marriage convince me that it is a good thing and should be embraced by all people.

Final thought; Insult is not an argument, it's the failure to provide one.

Here is a thought for you. Imagine a large island with just gay people and they are allowed to marry. How long would that population last?

Consider Webster's definition of dysfunctional in regards sociology; a consequence of a social practice or behavior pattern that undermines the stability of a social system.

So someone please tell me why it would be a good idea to legalize dysfunction. Is that not the antithesis of government?

And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and want to see them set free.

And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means.

That's like saying buildings make bricks. It's the other way around. Just like bricks proceed buildings, marriages proceed societies. To put it another way, marriages are what societies are made of just like bricks are what buildings are made of. So it is illogical to say that the thing made defines the thing that made it.

We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love.

Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable. So much for toleration.

Why don't you try and use the art of persuasion to convince my that a lifestyle that causes early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing. And that it is some how the more loving thing to do to let someone destroy their life.

I'm sorry that's not loving, it's hateful to let someone destroy their life. Even more so to endorse it and encourage them. It's like encouraging a man on the ledge of a building to jump.

You lack moral clarity if you can look at something so destructive and call it good. Do you know what they call someone out of touch with reality? Schizophrenic

Take the time to get educated about what you are endorsing. Below is a link that Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. wrote in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005

And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.

And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.

It's news to you that homosexuals have reproductive organs

That's not the point, you need male and female organs to reproduce, gay couples don't have that combination and therefore can't reproduce. They have to adopt from a heterosexual couple or inseminate from someone of the opposite sex,male. Since men can't carry, this procedure is only available to lesbians. And if they obtain children by these means then they logically deny the child a critical element in healthy development, a mother or father depending on the type of relationship.

The goodness of a behavior can be judged by the fruit it produces. In the case of homosexuality it is clear that it produces a tremendous amount of problems and destroys the life of those impacted by it. It would be safe then to say that it is dysfunctional in nature because of the fruit it produces. It would then be poor public policy to endorse and support such dysfunctional and destructive behavior.

Here is Webster's definition of dysfunctional in regards Sociology: a consequence of a social practice or behavior pattern that undermines the stability of a social system.

And just because people take a vote or a judge rules that it is not dysfunctional doesn't change the reality that it is. We don't write the laws of physics, we obey them or pay the price. If we don't use something for the purpose for which it was designed there will always be negative effects. Just try using your cell phone as a hammer sometime if you don't believe me.

In regards the effects of homosexuality please consider the following article from The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Since homosexuality leads to high rates of suicide, infectious diseases, depression and a reduction of life expectancy by 20yrs it is clear that this lifestyle denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Making gay marriage legal in the U.S. would therefore seem least likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If it is legalized it then would be the duty of all Americans to change the law since That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Please read the following article from The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005 if you doubt that the gay lifestyle robs people of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Wow, that's news to me. I didn't know two sperms can fertilize or two eggs for that matter, amazing.

About rights, gays have the same rights as the rest of. They just choose not to exercise them. Were is the discrimination in that?

About involvement: If the state issues a license, gives tax incentives, sets up family courts and all the other benefits they extend; I think I would consider that involvemnt.

About my evasion; glad you liked it :) I am one of those infertile couples :)

If love is the criteria for marriage what do you do with all the arranged marriages that occurred throughout history, are they not marriages by your definition.

This notion of romantic love proceeding marriage is a fairly recent development. It used to be that love developed and grew within the context of a lifelong commitment. We have just reversed the order. And we wonder why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Before we remove a fence we ought to ask why it was there in the first place.

About equality; it depends on what you mean by equality.

About differences: it ought to persuade you if you recognize a difference. Because that's the whole point of the debate. Some people want to say there is no difference when there clearly is one.

It's arbitrary because all I have to do is change the law to suite my preference. Which by the way is something that is actively being done with the age of consent. And this is exactly what is being done with marriage. The law used to say one thing and now that definition is being broadened to suite more peoples personal preferences. Yes, I was using hyperbole to make a point. If we stretch the legal definition of marriage to cover a groups preference what's to stop another group from demanding that it be stretched to cover their preference? Were it ends then becomes an arbitrary standard. And if you don't set one, the thing gets so stretched that it hardly resembles what it first look liked.

Just for the sake of humor:

consent is not a passive action, but an active one. It requires that there is a fulfilling of some verbal criteria, whether written or spoken, and it has to be initiated within the strictures of the ritual.

Me and my cat had a ritual; it actively walked up to the alter in my apartment were I was kneeling and meowed and I respond back with "I love you too" we rubbed noses and I said till death do we part. Then she meowed in response. So I guess we are married and the state needs to recognize it. :)