Gay marriage

"I don't care whether a heterosexual or homosexual wants to marry a person of the same sex-they ought to have the right based on their individual liberty as rational and consenting human beings." Liberty is not relevant to having a marriage license. Again the attempt to bluer the issue. They are free to be with who they choose and that is were the "liberty" lies. "Moreover, to say gay people can just chose to marry those they aren't attracted emotionally or physically isn't much of an argument if your aiming for equality." I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they can. That's why it's equal. To be able to marry the same sex would be a new right. No were in the requirements for a marriage license does it call for emotional or physical attraction. "...so, law never prevented inter-racial marriage? I guess if your living in la la land and have never opened a history book I would expect someone to make that claim." If your going to contest my statement that I pass a factual you should be siting a source. I would offer one, but there is no website for laws that never existed. "ESPECIALLY since you went on in the very next sentence to say that the law was "taken into their own hands" and did prevent inter-racial marriage. That is what the law is-the rules and guidelines for right and wrong established by the majority of society." My statement was ment to refer to mob mentality, not that ppl were enforcing the law on their own. I ment that they made their own law. I won't comment on your condemning of the action. Of course it was wrong, just not relevant. "Additionally, by claiming that the broadening of marriage to allow blacks and whites to marry is simply a "clarification" is foolish. They are levying the RESTRICTION of inter-racial marriage by broadening it's definition. I laughed when I read "clarification." Again it was clarification...I won't link the definition for "clarification" or "Broadening", I'll assume the judges at least know the difference. Again you lack a reference for a law that I had previously claimed didn't exist. The only except able defence would have been a source. "Just as their seems to be a debate now as the "humanity" that gays posses." I don't know anyone questioning gays "humanity". I'd like to know what kind of pigs you hang out around that talk like that. "I drew the line in the very first argument I made. The line is drawn when we are not dealing with rational and consenting human beings with the rights of life, liberty and property." Again that is not an answer. I gave specific examples of were a line could be drawn. You could have even said, "I draw the line at keep it in the human branch of the animal kingdom with any number of ppl" and that would have been a clear answer. If you can't draw the line how dare u question ppl willing to take on a task you will not. "And if you think that monkeys can be rational and CONSENTING human beings with the right of life liberty and property then you don't know much about monkeys or human beings." I read an article to that effect in the UK just a few weeks ago, lol. Not what I claimed, just another attempt by to to bluer an issue your losing. "The only accusation made in my argument is that blacks and whites and gays and straights are all equally consenting and rational human beings and needed to be treated as such. However, you accused me of racism-way to go." No, you don't get to play the victims. I said you were hinting at racism, that would refer me as the target. Your not going to spin it now that I shut that down. Again, no relevant just another attempt at a bluer.