Gay Marriage

If marriage was a test from god that led to the outbreak of aids, than why was homosexuality around a very long time before aids and why is it that aids should affect all sexual preferences? If this is a god designed virus to punish what christians believe to be immoral conduct than it should be punishing only those committing the act. After all, god(according to the bible) has caused other plagues to only affect those who god deemed worth punishing, while leaving others unaffected. IMO these types of statements are only for the purpose of justifying a prejudice.

Wether I believe it or not is besides the point. I am merely responding to the statements of andygodlove in the OP. Namely that homosexuality is a test from god that led to the outbreak of aids.

Oh yes. Actualy the confusion was the fact that my name is Andy as well . However if AGL does indeed hold true to his statements. I would like to discuss what I see as fallacious in a Christian world view such as that. Or anyones world veiw, in the matter of why we would/ should discriminate against a certain set of peoples.

By strict definition of the word. I would say that, discrimination is - unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. On a side note, I would like to add. IMO acts that do pertain to legal rights or ability but that are conducted maliciously should also be included, although that is not the strict legal definition of the law. In regards to the music industry or publications, there is a lack of ability on the part of the individual to participate in said activity, as well as the fact that the nature of said productions is not in turn malicious. If a company produces a CD, that in itself is not discrimination. If they produce one that makes fun of their disability, than yes that is discrimination. Although matters of free speech would also pertain.

quote:

---

It is easy to indict DOMA as a case of discrimination. But it would be just as easy, all things being equal, to say the same things about other things this society deems as an unlawful sexual vice. How then does someone pick one without denying the other? Because if they cannot, then it is a case of hypocrisy AND discrimination.

---

I disagree for two reasons.

• The parties entering into marriage must be willing to contract. Anyone underage is unable to legaly enter a contract.
• Discrimination only applies when it is contrary to law. No one has the right to underage sex. The legality of same sex is however changing as societal veiws change.

quote:

---

You have never explained why legalizing civil unions for gays is insufficient to meet their legal needs.

---

I believe that two areas where civil unions and marriage hold different rights would be social security and federal tax status. Unfortunately with California's decision, these areas are still not addressed since they are federal issues not controlled by States precedence. However the courts ruling agreed with the opinion of many Californian gay couples, that labeling homosexual marriage seperate than heterosexual marriages marked gays and lesbians as second class citizens.

quote:

---

Then what about polygamy or incest, since all parties are seeking to enter in to a contract of their own volition? What about prostitution? Both parties agree to exchange sex for money.

​

You say that it isn't legal, and therefore is moot. But you overlook the fact that homosexual marriage is illegal. That would be hypocritical, not to mention discriminatory, to allow one and deny the others.

---

I think the area that you are overlooking, NJ. Is that besides the fact you are comparing apples to oranges, homosexuality by itself without regards to marriage is not illegal. All the other examples you compare it to are illegal. There is a large difference between denying the right to marry based on something not illegal vs. something that, by itself is illegal ( polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc.)This is not hypocrisy, it is the accepted veiws of our society. To compare, this would be like denying a job based on sexual orientation (illegal) vs. denying a job based on arrest record (not illegal).

quote:

---

Please help me out here. A marriage between a man and a woman is not the same thing as a "marriage" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

---

Alright HM, besides the obvious gender differences between the two types of relationships, what do you see as a difference in a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship? If everything else is the same (love, family, partnership, etc.) than why do you consider the two so different? I only ask because when I look at the two, all I see is a gender difference?

quote:

---

This is one of the bigger issues for my hesitation to allow same sex marriages. Its not that I want to deny rights to gays, its the Chuck's and Larry's out there who could find the loop-holes in the laws and exploit them. Opening up marriage to same sexes provides more loop-holes and I hesitate to simply flip the lightswitch and give the go-ahead.

---

In what way? Some examples would be nice. Remember in both hetero and homosexual marriage we are still talking about two legal, consenting adults who are able to contract.

So by this reasoning HM, reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage? What about women who have vasectomies or men who have suffered a deformity causing accident? Obviously these people should be excluded from marriage because their parts don't work in the accepted or normal manner. How a person enjoys their sexuality has no berring in regards to marriage.

Ok so everybody knows there is a difference in how hetero's and homo's have sex. Is reproduction the sole reason for marriage though? If there are other reason's for marriage why is the difference in sex even a point?

What is it exactly that you mean by "natural law". You have given a few examples, cannabilism, homosexuality, etc. What confuses me however is that some of these things occur quite frequently in nature. Many animals and humans do and have practiced cannabilism. That is not unnatural. ex:Look what happens to baby mice if you don't seperate them from their mother. So to me it kinda makes your arguments absurd. You dictate how nature behaves? Pretty absurd.

Yes maybe in areas where cannibalism is not part of the culture, that would be true. However there are many documented accounts where cannibalism was socially normal. In those cases cannibalism comes down to not nature but society. This is of topic however. What I meant in my previous post is how do you define natural laws? And what makes you think that homosexual behavior is not occuring in nature? If homosexuality does occur in nature, than laws permitting it and marriage do not go against your supposed natural laws and your argument has no legs.

Ok, so humans live in "nature" ie. "Earth" and they do have same sex couples (quite frequently) so there is nothing unnatural about it.cs. wow I actually agree with you on something other than physics. great J you still have me confused on what is natural law? You used an example of how humans want to live in harmony. However I doubt this is the case, seeing as how we so rarely do. I would say that strife seems to be more natural for humans than peace.Edited by rueh, : forgot I wanted to say more before I went out for beers. YEAH BEER

CS, can you provide an example of one of the aforementioned 1000+ laws that would be violated, if the context of marriage were to include same sex couples as well. I actually was partialy swayed by this reason however I can not think of an example that would be detrimental if it included both types of marriages. Thank you.