I don't subscribe to Iraqi law. I subscribe to the United States Constitution and the laws derived from it.
I never claimed you should subscribe to Iranian law, rather I was pointing out the flaw in your logic.
These laws are clearly based in religion (refer to previous links to the Supreme Court decision referring to the US being a Christian Nation and the link to the Library of Congress which shows the religious basis for our nation) and religious values that recognize the natural order of things.
Sorry, but no. Our laws are not based in religion. Rather, the majority of this countries laws were originally based on English Common law -- without the religious laws the English had (since the Church of England was the official religion and there were laws enforcing it). And, perhaps if you want to find the intent of the founders you should look at the
Treaty of Tripoli which was signed in 1797 -- a treaty actually drafted by the founders rather than a court case from 100 years later -- that specifically states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...".
A casual examination of human physiology, shows the natural use of organs.
Sorry, this is a specious argument. For example, why is the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] positioned in a way that it is difficult to stimulate well during heterosexual intercourse? And why is the male prostate, most easily stimulated through the anus (and not stimulated at all during "traditional sex"), a source of sexual pleasure for men?
If you have to presume about physiology, I suggest you do some basic research on it. It's a part of science and that is a critical element of the topic of this thread.
And, again, is specious. It only works if you deny the fact that anything homosexuals do sexually, heterosexuals also do and/or try to claim the only purpose for sex is procreation.
The law does not treat minors the same as adults.
Exactly, because children are not capable of making informed decisions. Therefore they are not able to enter into contracts, including marriage.
Members of the military are treated differently by the law than those who are not in the military.
And that is something military members contract with the government when they join the military. If people do not join the military they are not treated differently.
Foreigners with diplomatic recognition are treated differently than foreigners without it and even citizens. The law makes appropriate distinctions.
And again, this is because of the government having justification to treat them differently. In this case, the government has legitimate cause to treat foreign dignitaries differently than other people. One reason is that dignitaries are representatives of their government and therefore courtesies are extended to them, not as individuals, but as the representative of their government. Second, we extend those courtesies with the understanding that the foreign government will give our governments diplomats the same treatment.
Then the simple answer is to change the law as was done with sodomy and as I said in another post, animal consent is not necessary. Animals are merely property under the law and people enter into contractual agreements everyday with regards to their property.
Sorry, but no. People cannot contact with their property. While property can be mentioned in contracts (for example, renting or selling a car) it is not a signatory on the contract.
But what happened to equality? That was the basis of your argument above. We do not stop any other couple from marrying though the may have inheritable conditions that could or would lead to birth defects. Additionally, by your logic, marriage isn't necessarily about sex or reproduction.
You entirely ignored the second part about the idea of coercion or that it can cause mental problems. Further, it isn't my decision, I'm merely stating why it has been claimed the government has a compelling interest in denying these marriages.
My position is completely consistent yet your position contradicts itself.
No, my position is largely consistent. I said there is no compelling government interest in denying gay marriage but, by contrast, the courts have found compelling reasons to deny the other types of marriage you mentioned.
Tell that to gays in California.
Gays in California know that homosexuality is legal. Even more, gays in California know they can get their relationships legally recognized. What gays in California are upset about is that about half the people who voted in the last election decided that gays do not deserve equality.
I'm sorry but that is some basic science that you need to educate yourself on.
No, as I pointed out above, I think it may be something you need to educate yourself on.
If you believe that I suggest you read a little more about the founding fathers because they have said things completely contrary to what you just said and they also practiced government in a way contary to your assertion. Additionally, refer to my links in this thread that refute that assertion.
And as I pointed out, a treaty signed and approved by the Senate states categorically that the United States is not in any way founded on the Christian religion. Sure, there are founding fathers that talk about wanting religion and government mixed, etc, just as there are founding fathers that spoke to the evil of making law based on religious beliefs. In fact, there were several founding fathers that were either nominally Christian (they would not be considered Christian by the standard of Christian Forums) or Deists.
I don't care about a specific group of kids getting picked on. Kids are cruel and get picked on for a multitude of reasons. We need to teach tolerance for all not specific groups.
Exactly. No one has ever claimed that children with same sex parents should be singled out to say they shouldn't be picked on. Rather, as I mentioned before, you mention that there are all types of families and that just because the parents of one family might be different you don't pick on them.
Are you telling me this book presents relationships appropriately?
Children's book "King and King"
Are you going to tell me that there are not men who fall in love with other men? Since it is a fact that there are men who have fallen in love with other men, and even children who have two men as fathers, then you have to admit that it presents relationships appropriately (that they occur). Nor is there anything in the book that says that a man falling in love with a man is moral (or immoral); rather it is left to the parent to teach the morality.
Though to talk about the specifics, this book was not part of the curriculum, it was not something the teacher taught to the children. Rather, it was part of a bag of books that was sent home with the child (and which the parents had signed a release saying the child could bring it home, as I recall this case). Again, it was left to the parents to decide if it was appropriate and to teach about the morality the believed was portrayed by the book.
Additionally, there are many "facts" about life that are not essentially to a public education. When schools cannot even manage to give a decent education despite all the resources thrown at them, they have absolutely no reason to go off teaching topics better left to parents. When schools learn to master the basics or reading, writing, and arithmetic, then we can discuss the extracurricular.
Let's not sidetrack this with a debate on education.
Homosexuality is legal. Agreed.
Even in California.
Homosexuality is normal for homosexuals? Then let homosexuals teach homosexuals about it. For many heterosexuals, it's absolutely not normal not just for them but for anyone. And natural? Cancer occurs naturally yet I'm sure you'd try and treat it if you got it (God forbid).
Yes, cancer occurs naturally and, despite the fact you are trying to equate it with being immoral, we still teach about it in schools. So what are you suggesting, that when they teach sex education in high school they have one class for those that are heterosexual and another class for those that are homosexual? Which class do the bisexuals go to? And which class do those who are unsure of their sexuality go to?
And perhaps you can find me a treatment that works 100% of the time for homosexuals? 50% of the time? Again, the fact is studies show that it is likely not more than 3% that can go from homosexual to being heterosexual -- and that is a quote from Dr. Spitzer based on his study which is cited by NARTH as proof that some people can change orientation.
Since 71% of new AIDS cases is related to male to male sex, you'll have to show me the evidence that those who are married in the gay community do indeed suffer a proportionate incidence of AIDS as married heterosexuals.
Actually, this is false. While it may be true currently in the US, as others have pointed out here the largest number of new AIDS cases in the world is through heterosexual sex. Further, someone who is gay does not spontaneously get AIDS, rather it requires having sex with someone that has AIDS (or be infected otherwise through infected blood). Now, I'll admit that anal sex (which some gay men perform, though not all) causes a greater risk of infection than other types of sex (which again is why lesbians have the lowest risk). But again, women are at far greater risk of many STDs though vaginal sex than men (either gay or straight) -- does this mean that heterosexual sex is immoral just because women have a far greater risk of contracting some STDs through vaginal intercourse?
But to answer your question about "evidence", it is self explanatory. Couples that have no STDs and are monogamous have a zero percent chance at contracting an STD through sex (whether heterosexual or homosexual). And, this is where you seem to be terribly inconsistant -- if you were really concerned about gays and STDs, shouldn't you be doing everything in your power to encourage gay men to be in monogamous couples? Instead, the fact that you are trying to discourage gay men from getting married makes it appear you are encouraging them to have risky sex, and hence to contract HIV.
