What marriage means is different to a lot of people. The state shouldn't be defining what it means, they should only offer civil unions to all couples.

Saying that something goes against nature cannot be refuted by showing that it is natural.

Nature is referring to the way things fundamentally are or should be. Sex is between a male and female; the parts fit.

Yes, homosexuality has been observed in animals, and yes it is natural in that sense. But that doesn't change what sex is or should be.

Also, defining what is right or wrong based on what animals do seems like a bad idea to me.

Just for fun, I'm going to go with this.

People should only have sex if there's the possibility of reproduction. Of course people are going to have sex for pleasure, but does that mean that it's moral? Nope. It means that it's pleasurable. If morality if defined by pleasurability, then we're going to have big problems.

Whoa there, if you don't think a third of the world should be judging you, maybe you shouldn't be calling their beliefs absurd. Much less than one third of the world's population doesn't believe in God, perhaps belief in God is a perfectly viable reason to judge something as moral or not.

That said, legislating and forcing people to behave in a way that one considers moral is not the answer with regards to homosexuality. So I agree with that half of your argument.

I don't think government should be in the business of marriage at all. The government should give out civil unions to everyone, homo- or hetero-.

Not sure what others think of this, but I'd say that marriage is something done in the context of religion, so the government doesn't really have a place defining what it is. The government's role would be to provide benefits, if appropriate, and rights to couples who are in a civil union, whereas churches and other religious organizations do the marriages.

I think this is pretty simple. You shouldn't be able to end a pregnancy prematurely just because you would rather have a boy (or a girl) one. I don't think it should be a parent's choice whether to have a boy or girl.

I think the opinion you present is the crux of the debate. If it is the woman's body, then she has the choice. If its another person, then that person has the right to life. If it's not quite a person (no brain and such) but isn't quite just a part of the woman (it will be a person if it's born) then who has a right to decide?

I'd say that it has a right to life because it would be a person if it did. Because even if its not a person, it can become one if you just don't destroy it.

Your argument does not follow. It also does not follow that because a Christian says the Bible is agaisnt homosexuality that God is against it. God loves everyone. Boom. That said, he also wishes that it all worked out better, but what are you going to do?

I'm just wondering if you are actually a Christian or if you are pretending to be. If you are, insulting people isn't going to help. If you aren't, please stop.

Pretty sure this Guy was saying that gay sex doesn't make sense. Right?