Homosexuality

Since you presented your arguments in four separate sections that weren't interdependent of each other, I will also offer my rebuttals as such. Rebuttal 1: The Wikipedia article that you cited, as it turns out, did not claim that any perfect being that may exist is truly the God of the Bible. Not to mention that assumptions are made at the very basis of this argument (that this being of maximum excellence exists) Therefore, the assertions of the Bible have no standing in any argument of morality, especially considering that slavery, incest, and even murder are endorsed and even commanded by the God of the Bible, despite the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments, which apparently don't apply to God. Rebuttal 2: Your assertion that homosexuality is largely responsible for HIV/AIDS is baseless, as only careless sex practices cause the transmission of this disease. Failure to use a condom or be tested for the disease prior to intercourse is what gives people HIV. Concerning the increased risk for mental health issues, this strengthens the argument that homosexuality is not a choice, as it could be linked to a recessive "gay gene," and therefore we can't "cure" homosexuals, or tell people that homosexuality is wrong, as they have no choice in the matter. As for the 20 below average life expectancy, I must ask if this could be correlated to the increased rate of suicide among homosexuals due to social and, even more powerfully, religious pressures. If so, then once again, this shouldn't be blamed on them, but rather on the intolerance of homophobic groups. Rebuttal 3: Ah, the U. S. government. Such a beautifully imperfect, but well-oiled machine. Another basis for our government is the U. S. Constitution, and a supreme court judge has recently overruled Proposition 8 in California, saying it deprived them of the basic human right to the pursuit of happiness, defended as one of the core aspects of everything the constitution stands for. People against gay marriage were the majority in California, but obviously that doesn't instantly make them right. Furthermore, the opinions of the vast majority would likely change for the better if less were indoctrinated into biased religions early on in their lives, or if more people were given a proper education. Rebuttal 4: I must say, I find that I mostly agree with you on this point. Marriage is fine, and when it's based on love, then it's beautiful, but I don't think that constitutes government support that others don't enjoy (except perhaps tax free transfer of property, to make hectic times less so) but then again, marriage as a whole should be saved for a later argument. This is about gay marriage as opposed to straight marriage as a ceremonious occasion that they have the right to enjoy. We're not arguing how that marriage is defined or upheld, we're arguing if they should be allowed to marry. The answer is: of course! How could two people being in love enough to enter into the mutually binding agreement of marriage be harmful to anyone else? Exactly, it isn't, and there's no reason that a man can't marry a man with the same level of acceptance that a man marrying a woman gets.