Legalize Gay Marriage

In defense of my slavery analogy: I'm not sure you understand what my analogy really was. I didn't realize I needed to have an exact analogy for marriage. You see, the principle is the same, a minority told the majority how to define a person. Yes, it is difficult to compare the treatment of gays to the treatment of slaves from slavery onward, but the principle is the same.In defense of my saying the majority is in favor: One, I don't see how politic opinion matters here. While we are on this topic of majority and minority, can I bring up the fourteenth amendment, which states that all citizens are equal under the law? That was put in place to protect minorities from the majority, and claiming that the white, middle class, straight, Christian, and overly privileged middle class is being bossed around is a terrible argument. I mean, let's ignore all the hate crimes made against gay people over the years, let us all shed a tear for you, for can being brutalized be compared to having to change your way of thinking and having to accept someone? In defense of my gray area statement: You seem to be confused again. I was wondering how you can used outdated sources to bring up such clear answers on an topic that seems to still be up for debate? In defense of the gender role statement: I think half your response could be changed if you actually understood what I was trying to say. I am saying gender roles are wrong and create a sexist society. In defense of the second gray area statement: You are, indeed, drawing conclusions on outdated and unclear sources. Or, should I say, you copied and pasted conclusions from outdated and unclear sources WE HAVE.In defense of my exaggeration: It was an exaggeration. I don't see how having sex more often could be considered an objectively bad thing. If an act is consensual and safe, where is the downside? You may find sex outside of marriage an immoral thing to do, but then again I don't remember coming to you to make my moral decisions for me.In defense of the average birth age of mother's statement: It matters because you stated marriage is for children, yet mother's are having more and more children at an appropriate age outside of marriage. Perhaps marriage isn't so crucial. In response to my second exaggeration: Exaggerations are useful and entertaining, if not completely respectful. (Oh, and I didn't say that to make you seem stupid, but your argument to seem stupid.)In response to the second gender role statement: Again, I am posing that this idea of gender roles, where one has to be the manly figure and one has to be the feminine is outdated and sexist. It's like when straight people ask "Oh, who's the guy?" You wanna know who? NEITHER. Um, you go on to say that I can't compare the gay rights movement to the women's rights movements and the civil rights movement in the 60s because it's culture? Not sure how to respond to that but to say that you're wrong. Whether or not it is culture, it is an oppressed group of people fighting for the right to be, you know, not oppressed?In response to the husband taming/gray area statement three: Yes, we agree no study can be for sure (YET) but here you are making conclusions on unfinished data! To put it in perspective, you are looking at an early draft of the "Creation of Adam" painting. You are looking at the hands of God and Adam touch, and you are trying to make conclusions of just the hands, when really, if you'd give Michelangelo so time to finish, you'd see that the full picture.In response to the definition statement: Again we see a fatal miscommunication/misunderstanding. I was stating that it isn't a procreative relationship, which you have both yet to prove and yet to refute my refutations. If we used your definition, marriage would be "Pump out a baby nine months or see those benefits... DISAPPEAR!" Since, you know, marriage is purely a procreative relationship, a philosophy that is outdated and unsupportive with both a lack of creativity and lack of understanding of human history. You don't want culture to change, you don't want to see the evolution of our species, to see us realizing the mistakes we make against our own people. To see our ignorance and mishandling of issues for what they were, mistakes. You'd like us to go back a few hundred thousand years ago, when our species really did need numbers to survive and we didn't have a serious overpopulation risk approaching. If you are going to cling to bronze age beliefs, please call them what they are: neanderthalic in nature. Thanks for the round. I await your response.