@toast_burner: CARM is an apologetics site written from a Reformed perspective, but it doesn't surprise me that you categorize it as a "hate blog" because it disagrees with the modern-day liberal agenda in its exegesis of Biblical scripture. Anyways, I'm not linking any source, because you have neglected the info I have provided so far. I'll give you some names and you can look them up yourself: Bradley Wright, University of Connecticut; Bradley Wilcox, University of Virginia; Scott Stanley, University of Denver. Then you can come back and misconstrue the information to work in your favor.

We're actually off-topic; it's partly my doing for refuting an argument that goes something like: "Most Christians divorce, so therefore they have no right to say anything against homosexuality." So I, someone who has not divorced, cannot speak against homosexuality because other Christians have divorced? Guys, where in the world do you get your moral standards?Sounds like you just pluck them out of the air. Kind of a flimsy, uncertain way to live life if you ask me. Again, the standard is the Bible. Even if there were only one couple in the world who remained faithful with one another as Christians who argued against homosexuality (the Biblical view), it would be a legitimate argument. You don't base the legitimacy of an argument on the majority of those who follow it or do not. After all, thirty-years or so ago (and for much of human history), homosexuality was condemned almost universally. I'm going to bow out of this topic now, because we'll just go in circles.

@MakeMeaSammitch: So I give you the facts about statistics, a study done at the University of Virginia that defines "Christian" or "dedicated" to faith based on how often a couple frequents Church, and you call that a Scotsman argument. Yet you come back and say, "The ONE person I know who is "religious" has been divorced twice" THEREFORE all Christians are hypocrites. Amazing.

Such a great system, the Wii U. Best game: Super Mario 3D World (10/10 in my book).

Bad argument, and you're wrong. The divorce rate among Christians who are serious about their faith is MUCH lower. That lie you are spreading is one that the media loves to perpetrate in an attempt to diminish Christians and heterosexual matrimony. The University of Virginia even did a study on which couples are more likely to divorce, and they found that just those who regularly attend Church are much less likely to divorce. The Bible does not allow for divorce, so Christians who do go through with it are disobeying their worldview's standards. You don't judge a standard based on those who fail to follow it. The law says "do not steal," (the eighth commandment) yet thievery is a common crime. Is it a bad law?

My goal is not to bring up "what if" situations but to expose the idea that recognizing homosexual relationships as legitimate is a fundamentally flawed position, because it is contrary to the natural order and the proliferation of the human race. I'll even answer your question, "Should we ban being male?" If we castrate men, can the human race continue? Nope. Now, how does homosexuality promote the well-being of humankind?

You want me to treat people "equally?" Does it mean I should recognize this as a legitimate marriage? What about this couple? Don't those "couples" deserve equal rights? Perhaps you agree with this German committee that argues incest as a "fundamental right?" I can give some other examples of twisted depictions of marriage, but I am in my University's library, and I want to be careful with the search terms I type into Google, because even my very liberal university finds some things indecent that others would say is "love."

So what is marriage exactly? What do you base your morals on? Why should I bend my ear to you when the basis of your argument is "treat others equally?" What does that statement even mean? Do you know that you are stealing from the Christian worldview when you use that statement? What other worldview asks us to treat others as equals that did not steal from Christianity in the first place? Is it possible that you are simply following the whims of your culture, which has no fundamentally good reason for believing anything that it believes or promotes?

How is being gay unhealthy? Maybe you should read some stats about the unhealthy lifestyles of the average homosexual.

Yikes. As someone who makes minimum wage and works only part time, my insurance would probably be really cheap. But I'll be finishing up my final degree program this time next year and looking for a teaching job, which means my rates would likely skyrocket once I land a position. So I'm skipping on Obamacare and trying something like Samaritan's Ministries when I get better work.

The Great Gatsby (1974 version). I don't even call that a film adaptation. It's more a film translation of the book, and that's why its great. I'm scared to watch the new version.

Ban heterosexuality? Heterosexuality is the only means for reproduction and thus the proliferation of a society. Homosexuality cannot give you that. I remember one bisexual guy saying that he wished his parents were homosexual, because he thinks homosexual love is so wonderful. Do you see the problem with that thought? If homosexuality were as prominent as it is now when humanity was small in numbers, would that be a good thing? Family is the most basic, fundamental institution in a society, and it can only be accomplished in a heterosexual relationship. In order for a homosexual "couple" to have a family, they have to borrow from the results of a heterosexual relationship by adopting a child conceived by a man and woman. They cannot "start" a family on their own. I make the comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality because both are unhealthy sexual practices. There's plenty more: bestiality, heterosexual promiscuity, incest. My argument is that heterosexual monogamy is the only healthy sexual relationship, and I mean in marriage. All of the other options are not healthy.

No. But our society condones unhealthy heterosexual practices as well. If half of all people who are "sexually active" (what a ridiculous term, as if we're all a bunch of sex-craved chimpanzees ready to pounce on someone's backside) get sexually transmitted diseases, why do middle schools administer kids contraceptions? The rhetoric from leaders should encourage people to abstain from promiscuity until they monogamously settle down with someone in a committed relationship (marriage), but instead we basically tell people to be very careful when playing with fire. See, a secular-humanist society can only define a person by his or her most base urges. It's as if people are no different than cats and dogs who are in heat. We're all just so desensitized to it all (including myself), and we don't even question anything anymore. The pressure to grab onto the coattails of society's shift in ideals is enormous, but I hope we can think for ourselves and have legitimate reasons for it, especially when it comes to moral issues and things as intimate as sexual practices. I don't identify a homosexual person as a homosexual. I think more of their humanity than that. A human being is far more deeper and valuable than the sexual acts that he or she wishes to participate in or does participate in. But secular-humanists don't see that, and without realizing it, they devalue humanity.