You're just looking at the natural human body, there isn't a problem with it.

"And it harms children if they are brought into the equation."

Huh? How so?

"Death will never be conquered.....never. As I said.....they can't address the common cold and what cancer has ever found a cure. In fact more diseases and sicknesses are found all the time."

Actually, huge progress has been made recently in cancer research. A brilliant girl recently invented nanoparticles that kill cancer.http://online.wsj.com/article/AP27e6b4fd88bf44e49660ba127407d5f4.html

A possible cancer vaccine is in it's early stages of development. http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/152242/37/Roswell-Park-Makes-Major-Annoucement-on- Cancer-Vaccine

"To say that gays help the over population problem is hilarious. Please....they adopt and they hire women to have babies for them."

How does adoption affect population? When a gay couple adopts a child, the population does not increase magically. And regardless of the "hiring women to have babies for them" (lol), they still are more probable not to have kids than a straight person.

"Gay people are human beings......its the sex act that is ungodly. It has nothing to do with evolution."

What makes the sex act ungodly?

"Your so concerned with the population......well hey your alive arent you? Your taking up space.

Do you think they should just kill all the elderly and poor and sick and handicapped......?"

That's quite a conclusion you've jumped to. I doubt she/he means that. The population is definitely a concern, we simply aren't efficient enough to support the current population properly. It's absolutely a concern that should be addressed simply by people having less babies, which gays tend to do.

They weren't told to stop being gay.

The Israelites were all about multiplying, and during the time of the Bible, homosexuality was a foreign concept.

It's debatable if they were talking about gays in some of those verses.

Yes. It's a civil rights issue, it shouldn't be debated about, are you serious? Why is marriage necessarily between one man and one woman? What has made it that way? Religion? Religion has no place in influencing law. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. Do people realize that their precious bible doesn't even mention gay marriage anyway, and only brings up gays 3 times, with the verses' meanings being debatable? Try reading this, for anybody using their christian/jewish religion as part of their argument: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017293599_glickman21m.html?prmid=obinsource. (i understand that not all people are christian, just taking the most used religious book for the religious argument)

"we need to keep the sanctity of marriage"

What sanctity of marriage are you talking about? That's absolute bullshit.

"how do I explain two men/two women getting married to my child?"

I don't know, it's your fucking kid. Are you trying to refute the legalization of gay marriage because you can't take the 5 minutes to explain something to your kid?

If civil rights don't convince you for some reason, I will tell you that gay marriage has economic benefits. Although I hate to use economic reasons for rights, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/opinion/16whitehead.html.

No, when I swear, I feel like its the best way to express myself at that moment. I don't give a shit about "looking smart". It doesn't mean I don't have the vocabulary skills to express my feelings otherwise.

Having a uniform forces poorer families to buy even more clothes for their child. And then because whatever the uniform is is suddenly a uniform, it causes a raised price on those clothes.

Second, they are often uncomfortable, and bring the idea of robotic conformity among everyone, making it difficult to represent your individuality due to tons of restrictions to what you can wear.

Finally, for those who say that lower class people will be picked on for their "worse clothing", consider the following: There's a reason we have anti bullying programs, people can still pick on you for it with or without uniform, and if school is supposed to be some sandbox where all our kids are safe, how do they know how to deal with these shitty people at an adult age? People don't magically change their social classes once they leave school.

I'm confused, do you think I support the death penalty?

Crime is not on the rise. It's actually been on a decrease. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I feel as though you're implying that the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent. If you are, then let me tell you that eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

You can never completely stop crime. But crime is already being stopped a lot more. It's simply getting harder and harder to commit a crime, especially without getting caught. Security has been tightening, there's cameras all over, obviously DNA has helped a ton in solving crimes, social programs have been trying to reach youth children growing up in bad neighborhoods, etc. I wonder if they should decrease the amount of things that are considered a crime, such as smoking/possessing marijuana for recreational purposes.

No. The death penalty should never be used.

First of all, you can never be sure that the person is 100% guilty. Even if there's the slightest chance that this person is innocent, you shouldn't risk it. Once they're dead, you can't change anything.

Second, it's too costly, as the trials are extremely long. If you try shortening the trials to cheapen costs though, the chance that the person will be innocent and executed only increases.

Finally, morally, it's wrong. Killing a person for them killing someone else ( I understand this is not necessarily the criteria for receiving the death penalty) makes you no better than the executed. And it's tough for people to have the thought that they executed another.

Pure prayer does not help at all. It's just your imagination. It may drive you, but it doesn't really do anything. That surgeon was the reason why you survived that injury, not because you prayed to God for help. A question to the people saying "yes" to god answering prayer, would you rather pray to god to save your life from a critical injury or go to a secular hospital and get help?

Why not? Everybody deserves the same rights. All this "adam and eve, not adam and steve" bullcrap has no place in the reasoning for any part of our legal system. There's a separation of church and state for a reason, religion shouldn't interfere in matters like this. What "sancticity of marriage" are people talking about? Marriage isn't necessarily a religious union between a man and a woman, why should it be? What makes it so special that it can't be between a man and a man? Or a woman and a woman?