Gay Marriage should be legalized

I thank 'kingcripple,' for his contentions. In this round I will be responding to them and making some arguments of my own. Contention 1 'It says so in the 14th Amendment.' My opponent bases his first argument on the content of the 14th amendment. He says that by not legalizing gay marriage, we are not infringing any of the 14th amendment rights. Now at first glance, Con's argument is sound. However, we don't have to delve much further into the amendment to find material that is not too helpful to the point that Con is attempting to make. I am interested in the parts just before and after all that jazz about liberty and property etc... "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" By just legalizing heterosexual marriage, it is clear that some states are in violation of this. The privileges or immunities of gay citizens are clearly being 'abridged' by saying that only a certain part of American society are allowed these 'privileges'. "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You don't have to be a genius to see that only allowing heterosexual couples the right to marry, is not giving equal protection before the law. If we really were all to grant everybody equal protection of the laws then both gay and straight people would be both be able to be legally married. However, I think that the main problem that gay marriage campaigners encounter, is in fact not from the state, but from the church. I will address this in more detail later on in my arguments... So as I have just proved, it is actually not at ALL difficult to prove that there is plenty in the 14th amendment to contradict what Con wants it to say. Contention 2 "If no law were made in support, then no one's rights would be infringed on." Con is getting in a tangle over rights. First of all, no one has the right not to be sued. I'd be very impressed if you can find me a source of that claim. Suddenly, we have a situation where church ministers have these super rights where it is impossible for anyone to sue them and gay people are just supposed to accept the fact that they are going to be continued to be treated like lesser citizens. Also, since when did the the dignity of certain members of the church become more important than the struggle of the gay rights movement? Did I miss something? I commend my opponent for not basing his entire argument on the bible which is what so many before and after him have done and will do. However, his point makes little sense. Of course they would be sued if they turned gay couples down! It would be against the law! What we should be arguing is not, the personal loss of ministers, but the collective gain of a gay rights campaign that has for too long seen medieval attitudes obstruct their journey for equality. Contention 3 "Glorify God." Alas, he has fallen at the bible hurdle. Gays should not be allowed to marry because the bible says it wrong... Well, the bible says a lot of things, not all of which my opponent will agree with I'm sure. Did he know that according to the bible, eating shell-fish is a sin? King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." http://bible.cc... Did he also know that the bible also says that wearing wool is a sin? "The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment;" http://bible.cc... I could go on but I think that my pointy is clear. You can't just only use the bits of the bible that back up your own beliefs! If you want to use the bible like that, you need to take EVERY WORD literally. And no one does that because most people know that that isn't what you do with the bible. It isn't supposed to be taken literally. Therefore your point doesn't stand. Contention 4 "I do not think one should marry for tax purposes." Con says he thinks that these rights should be universal, but if the only way that gay people can get these rights is to marry than surely they should either be made universal or be granting the right to marry. If they are made universal, than I don't see what the problem is. He's saying that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are doing it for financial gain, whilst simultaneously recognizing that they are marrying for the rights. He tops it off by making A MASSIVE generalization by saying that gay people are only marrying for the rights. He has not statistics to back this up or even some analysis. It can subsequently not be taken as a legitimate point. I await my opponents response.