I want one good reason that being gay is ok

Maybe gay relationships are not "better" than straight ones, but if they are equal, why disparage the gay relationships? One real piece of evidence that you may be thinking of in making this statement is that there are lower rates of domestic violence among gay couples than straight couples (though admittedly I don't have a reference at hand...)Unfortunately, your examples are anecdotal. And "completely happy"? I'm not sure any relationship is 100% happiness. The homosexual couples, and children of homosexuals I know are no less happy, and no more screwed up, than those of heterosexual couples - of course this is anecdote from my viewpoint.Also, you seem to be walking a fine-line - I've seen others do the same: "I accept them the way they are. I just do not agree with the act of being gay." If you don't agree with how they live their lives, you are not accepting them the way they are.One good reason gay is ok? Because if two people love each other and make each other happy, it shouldn't matter what their sex is...

Gay people control statistics?!? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard since, "The evil Jew controls the secret world economy."I take that back, perhaps "Gay men tend to molest male children far more than straights" is more ridiculous.At best this is the ignorant prattle of junior high school boys uncomfortable with their own sexuality. At worst it is hate-speech.Which makes it all the more offensive that it is prefaced with phrases like, "I accept them the way they are."Either way I have been sickened by a number of posts in this thread...You want one good reason? Love. Love is not negated as a reason just because you don't understand it, or can't come to terms with it, in this context.

Riverrat, I did give you an answer back in message #130, that you either missed or ignored:

No, you didn't, so don't be so adamant. I've been waiting since I posted message #130, and this is the first response. People have straight sex even when they are not in Love, therefore neither gay sex or straight sex is "ok"? You've now switched the question from "being gay" to "gay sex." Hopefully you realize the difference, just as there is a difference between "being straight" and "straight sex".Since it seems you believe that the term "being gay" is sexual in nature, this shows that you have an ignorant concept of homosexuality entirely wrapped up in sexual acts, which again is no more the case than heterosexuality is 100% sex acts.Since it seems to be the sex acts themselves that you find distasteful:What about heterosexual sex acts beyond the vagina? What about oral sex between a man and a woman? Or anal sex? Or breast-fondling? Or toe-sucking?Give me one reason why doing any of these things is "ok".

Didn't you read the rest of riverrat's message?A bunch of gay people control the statistics, so they are biased.I think that qualifies as "pulling it out of his ass."

Just out of curiousity, riverrat:If you see a man and a woman kissing in public, do you think they are having sex? Or is just when it is two men?

The entirety of your reply to me: Exactly how do you see this as answering my questions to you?You are quite a question-dodger; I've noticed that even when you give someone an answer, it has little to do with the question they asked.I wish you'd stop hiding behind "I'm gonna start another thread" to avoid answering the question most pertinent to this thread - why is being gay not ok?If you can show any of us a single valid reason why being gay is not ok, then we will know that being gay is not ok. Get it?Just answer the question - you don't need a separate thread.

Riverrat, honestly. Find any secular definition of marriage that describes it as a "license to practice sex".I don't believe you understand what marriage means in this country. Marriage does NOT legalize sex. Any and all types of sex are legal between any consenting adults by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.I asked you: Your response: Riverrat, would you please specificallyexplain to me the "moral purpose" you see in man and woman having anal sex, or sucking each other's toes.Once you've done that, explain to me specifically why two women sucking each other's toes does not have the same "moral purpose" - what is the specific difference other than gender?

Crashfrog, you've just given new meaning to the song:

Okay, but what about breast-fondling and toe-sucking - I asked you to please explain the "moral purpose" that is inherent in these acts when performed by heterosexuals, that is not found in the same acts done by homosexuals. I see, immorality here is about "spilling your seed anywhere but into the vagina". Hence the moral purpose of toe-sucking, or perhaps a woman anally penetrating a man with a strap-on.Then obviously you have no problem with lesbian sex, since there is no "seed" involved.

Wait a minute, Riverrat - I hope you aren't saying you support birth control!You just said that the "spilling of seed" removes morality from any sexual act - if you are using birth control you are actively making a choice to "spill your seed". A condom prevents the "seed" from entering the vagina, and hormone-based contraceptives essentially block the "seed" from its seedly activities even if it enters the vagina.So by your logic heterosexual sex on birth control is equivalent to homosexual sex when it comes to "moral purpose."

MY ADVICE: Riverrat, you claim to have homosexual friends. My belief is that these are more like acquaintances to you, or you have a vastly different concept of a "friend" than I do.If they were truly your friends, I believe you would not be so ignorant and close-minded regarding the character and lives of homosexuals.I suggest you actually get to know these homosexuals you count as friends. I realize this may be difficult, since you have a very prejudiced and judgemental barrier set up.As an example from my own life - I was raised in a moderately racist household. I mentally separated myself from those ideas, had a few minority 'acquaintances', and considered myself free of bigotry.Several years later I become 'friends' with people whose skin color was different than my own. Looking back, I didn't become completely open and free of my conditioned bigotry until I truly accepted those people as friends and we became part of each other's lives.I've never met an individual who had a homosexual as a true friend that made the kind of bigoted statements you have been posting in this thread.Hopefully you will consider this with an open heart and mind, let your guard down, and attempt to get to know your homosexual acquaintances better.Good luck.

Well, by your logic, you shouldn't have had sex since you were saved, because that would involve "spilling of seed", and thus not have "moral purpose".Since reproductive capability and the avoidance of seed-spilling are key to giving sex moral purpose, any sex you have had since you were saved would be equivalent to homosexual sex. What about all of the people, for whatever reason, cannot "afford" to raise any children? Whether it be financial, psychological, or other reasons, some people are not ready, willing, or "equipped" to have any children. Why is it okay for one person to stop at five children, and not okay for another to produce none? Many people do their "work" in other ways that do not involve child-production (many religious leaders and devotees come to mind).Perhaps it is time to rethink procreation as the root of sexual moral purpose in the eyes of God, and that making babies is doing God's work.

You are absolutely correct that it's your right to feel any way you want. That doesn't mean that the way you feel is right, any more than it is right that one person discriminates against another for their religion, or the color of their skin.Also, we must have very different definitions of what it means to be a "friend".Friends accept and love each other - from what you've posted in this thread you harbor too much bigotry to allow true love and acceptance of homosexuals.