Gay Marriage should be 100% legal

Thank you for responding. I would first like to apologize for a small misconception. When I said that I felt self conscious about being twice as old as you, I meant that I felt old, not that you were too young. And since you live so close to me I must say: The weather is absolutely awful, isn't it! Now, back on topic. "But one man's pursuit of happiness cannot disregard or overpower the happiness of the majority of the population (that is against it)." I definitely need some convincing that it makes other people less happy. Well, I know THAT it makes people less happy, but whether that is justified, which is, to some extent, what we are debating. "Regardless of why individual people are against gay marriage, it is their right like you said." I almost never drink. I think it shouldn't become a habit. I tell my friends who do to maybe drink less. I accept that drinking is legal. Freedom of speech means that you can have an opinion and tell it to people. And remember that if someone wants to go all out and be a stereotypical gay (on a related note, I have a severely homophobic friend, who has had a very similar debate, except I think he makes up 99.9% of his facts. Anyway, I have successfully rebutted almost all of his points, so the other day, he had the audacity to tell me that he would be fine with gays if they didn't talk all weird. I laughed. Hard. He also said the only good thing about the holocaust was that they killed gays. I did not laugh. At all.), fine by the first amendment. If someone wants to be openly homophobic, fine by the first amendment, as long as they don't hurt anyone. I'd be the first to say that my arguments, and the way I say them, almost never are perfect. Now, I know I said "judge," but I suppose that came out wrong. I think by "we" I meant the law. Sorry. "Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock." Obsolete- "no longer in general use; fallen into disuse:" Although your definitions are not yet obsolete, who's to say they can't be made obsolete. I'm sure you've read..d Shakespeare. In "Romeo and Juliet," "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" does not mean "where are you," but "why are you." I'm just bringing that up to show that definitions change. Granted, Shakespeare practically invented the English language, but my point is, definitions aren't set in stone. Another example, perhaps more related to the topic at hand, if you listen to music from as late as the '40s and '50s, you'll hear about them saying that things are gay. Unfortunately, today, if you were to say something was gay, that would be a bad thing. Back then, though, they meant happy. The dictionary doesn't yet show that as obsolete, but in common tongue, it is. "Who are you to tell the entire population that one chromosome doesn't seem like such a big deal? What does not seem like a big deal to you may in fact be a big deal to other people." So I can't marry someone with Downs syndrome? That's a difference of one chromosome. They have an extra chromosome 21 (usually). Women are just like men, except they have an extra X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome. By your logic, what would you do with someone with Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY) or Turner's syndrome (X). Technically, Klinefelter's is male and Turner's is technically female, but it's the same amount of difference as normal male (XY) and normal female (XX). I think I was unclear about what I meant by keeping the pursuit of happiness. If rape and murder makes someone happy, obviously that shouldn't be legal. It is really an issue of common sense. How much damage will it do? Gay marriage? No damage at all. Rape? That does damage. If we repeal the social laws, including gay marriage, that don't do any damage whatsoever, then the country won't go into chaos. In fact, if anything, it would get more peaceful, as people wouldn't have as much to complain about. "First off, you may care less about those wants but many people would disagree. This is indeed America, but "wackos" are not allowed, if they were the United states would be in chaos. Our court system attempts to prosecute those "wackos" in a fair manner, which will not always result in punishment due to our innocent until proven guilty law." There's no reason to prosecute "wackos" until they actually do something illegal. Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton have broken the law, but people who want to live their life, who aren't affecting the public, I think they are weird, but it doesn't affect anyone but themselves, and the government doesn't (shouldn't) have the right to determine something as petty as who they can and can't marry. The government is there to keep the peace, not micromanage the people. I think you may have misunderstood my argument, and I may have been unclear. I absolutely don't believe in pedophilia. I meant, by my being against the age of consent, that children should be able to marry, and yes, have sexual intercourse, as long as they want to and their parents allow it. I'm not looking for a sexual perversion driven society, and I think you are a bit too assuming there. I simply meant that it shouldn't give heterosexuals rights that others do not have (the right to marry who--or what--you want) "But the thing is, is that marriage is a religious ceremony." For the sake of time, read my argument 3. "You can get married. No that does not mean you could have a gay marriage since you are Jewish. sorry." You could have elaborated a bit? I was just trying to get the point across that your idea of marriage being a religious ceremony is wrong. "Since when is marriage only for children might i ask? Last time i checked under aged children cannot get married unless accompanied by the consent of the guardians of both proposed." I'm sorry, I was unclear. Totally my fault. I meant that marriage was only for making babies. And yes, you are singling out a single group. You are singling out heterosexuals, such as you and me, and the majority of or population. However, for a free society, like you said, all the groups deserve the same rights. "Gays do in fact have the same rights, liberties and opportunity at happiness as us heterosexuals have." uhh... How about the right to marry who you want? I'm excited to hear your response, as I'm sure it will be excellent.