Gay marriage

"Again. Yes they do. They don't however have the additional right to marry same sex. That would be an additional right as already stated." 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. 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. "No, I consider that clarification. The law never prevented inter-racial marriage. Ppl took the law into their own hands preventing it. " ...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. 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. However, the banning of inter-racial marriage was WRONG because it violated the rights of two consenting and rational adults...as I've stated a million times before but you are having trouble understanding. 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 I consider that clarification. There was a debate at the time of what level of humanity Blacks possessed." Just as their seems to be a debate now as the "humanity" that gays posses. As gays are human and rational and consenting individuals-as blacks were at the time of slavery, we need to respect their individual liberty to make their own choices which includes marrying those they love. Again, the clarification was the broadening of the definition. Clarification is an obtuse word that doesn't really define anything but change. "I asked you were would u draw the line. Your unable to do so, that is why we do not continue down this slippery slope, as a society." 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 I believe that was clarification not expansion (see above responses). Drawing the line at citizenship-at monkeys, would be were your logic leads not mine. Thank you for seeing were your silliness was heading." Again, the clarification was the expansion. 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. A monkey-like a dog or a small child, can never truly consent to marry. They cannot sign their name with understanding of what they are agreeing to. They do not posses the ability to fall in love or even understand love. Gays on the other are capable of all of the above. Try reading what I'm saying instead of calling me silly. " I also see a bit of hinting at racism in there...let me direct you to my picture before it goes further. I'm 1/2 black and white. I don't intend for that to support my argument just to stop you short at further accusations." Finally, I only used the examples of inter-racial marriage because they are a blatant examples of when marriage has been clarified in order to broaden marriage as to respect rational and consenting individuals such as blacks and whites. 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.