Gay marriage

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with interracial marriage, under that same argument. I am saying that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used in Loving v. Virginia to protect a basic civil right for interracial couples, can be easily extended to protect a basic civil right for homosexual couples." Okay, I will admit that I misunderstood, but the fact remains that the court case Loving vs. Virginia speaks about the civil rights of interracial couples(of opposite sex) getting married but not the rights of homosexual marriages. I will explain why it is in fact that it is a civil right to be married if your a interracial couple(of opposite sex) to get married but not a homosexual couple. The definition of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. So, the idea of a homosexual marriage is a fallacy within itself. http://dictionary.reference.com... "This was the same argument used by those who sided with Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court ruled that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the same race" violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like I said, this logic can be easily extended to show that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the opposite gender" also violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." No, there is no constitutional right for the legalization of gay marriage. Everybody in this nation is treated equally, yes even gays. Nobody forced those people to be gay it was a choice that they made. Now blacks on the other hand didn't have a choice, they were forced into this world being black so therefore must be protected by the law. Everybody has the right to be married with one man and one woman since that is indeed the definition of the word itself. By saying that homosexuals have the right to marry other homosexuals then you are using the word incorrectly. You want to know what its called when a homosexual couple wants to be joined together? A civil union. Civil union-a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex. http://dictionary.reference.com... You see gays do legally have to right to be bonded together in unity already there is a just a wording difference. They just can't get married with same sex couple as opposite sex couples don't get civil unions. "I would like to say that I can easily show why all of these slippery slope scenarios are immoral" One can just as easily argue that homosexuality is immoral therefore should be illegal. "I don't even know if these scenarios are really relevant to the debate" Of course they are relevant scenarios if you believe marriage is a civil right for homosexual marriage then you must believe that it is a civil right to bring man and son together and 23 year old and 12 year old together is the same union. "A horse isn't "man." A horse isn't capable of consent. Homosexual partners are capable of consent." I will give you this one. "A pedophile is a criminal. A pedophile has therefore given up his or her rights." Yes, today if you are a pedophile it is a crime to have sex with a minor or touch a minor inappropriately. But gay acts used to be considered highly immoral and also illegal. But, somehow the Supreme Court decided that in 2003 gay acts will be protected by the law in the court case Lawrence V. Texas. The court ruling stated that the state can not legally punish people for doing sexual activities in the privacy of their own home. Remember the state cannot legally throw somebody in jail for suspicion of being a pedophile. The only way the state can do that is if the pedophile either had illegal sex with a kid or touched the kid inappropriately. You can just as easily use the case above "Lawrence vs Texas" to justify the acts of a pedophile as long as its in the privacy of their own home. Do you see how that works? It is the same argument you are using to justify homosexual marriage. http://www.foxnews.com... "A 9 year old is incapable of consent in that a 9 year old is typically incapable of making such a decision." No, that is not true there are many cases of children consenting with having sex with adults. Why wouldn't there be cases of child marriage consentors? Want some examples of child consent? MANBLA(Man boy love association) Also Nambla(North American man boy love association) "As long as they're both consenting, then the only reason not to allow it is because of the health risks posed to possible children." So your saying that these marriages shouldn't be legal due to health risks? "I'd like to point out that your scenarios aren't protected by the Constitution because they bring up issues addressed in other laws–age of consent, criminals, the possible harm done to babies by incestuous relationships, and the like. Gay marriage, however, should be protected by the Constitution, because it does not fall under any of the other categories." I would like to point out that the Constitution does not protect homosexual marriage for simple reason of the definition of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.