>You're right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a gate we've opened and said that whatever your sexual compulsion is, no one else has a right to tell you that it's wrong. That is a very dangerous gate to open and you don't get to close it after gay "marriage" is approved - others will want the freedom as well.

Call it what you will, a gate or a slope: we are describing the same phenomenon: "Things will get worse now that we have allowed this one thing." Answer me this: why is it [a] dangerous [gate] for two people of the same sex to commit to one another (mainly financially) under the eyes of the government? "Others" might want the freedom, but social mores at large will dictate what becomes legal practice and what doesn't. (P.S.: You've yet to explicitly define "others". What exactly do you have in mind?) As I've stated above, the ability to consent is what separates out what should remain illegal and what should not remain illegal.

>And to play devil's advocate (and that language is intentional) who are you to say that a child or an animal can't consent to a sexual relationship or marriage with another child or an adult? How closed-minded of you.

Bitter and unfortunate irony aside, "consent" isn't some ill-defined term that I'm pulling out of left field. College campuses across the United States are developing programs for 18-year old freshmen so that they understand what consent entails, so as to encourage the formation of psychologically, socially and physically healthy (sexual) relationships. For the most part, these programs are geared towards alcohol awareness and the new found freedom of dorm life, but the concepts remain the same. Can a child fully understand the implications of "touch me here"? Can an animal? Can a person blowing a 0.30 BAC? Also, I am not deciding that a child can't consent, I am merely describing social issues that are studied by people who know more than I do.

> We are already giving children under 18 the right to access birth control (without their parent's consent) and the freedom to decide that they are not the gender that they were "assigned" - so why can't they decide who to "love"?

Oh the humanity! Birth control for post-pubescent girls! Birth control and gender assignment are issues of a different nature than gay marriage or pedophilia. Firstly, birth control has medically useful applications outside of pregnancy prevention. Regardless, both birth control and gender assignment are things that only impact the "self", so the comparison falls flat. What does birth control have to do with harm or damage to anyone else? What can gender reassignment do to harm anyone besides the individual in question? It is a well-known phenomenon that victims of child abuse and sexual abuse have issues that last into adulthood. [1] Neither birth control nor gender reassignment surgery promote poor mental or physical health.

> And who are you to say an animal doesn't have the same rights, feelings, and ability to give consent as a human? I think PETA and many others would actively disagree.

I don't have a quote from PETA (I will leave it up to you to flesh out that argument, and find evidence that they actively support sexual relations between man and animal.), but I have found a quote from another ethical promotion society. "As animals do not have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. The HSUS takes the position that all sexual activity between humans and animals is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not." [2]

> If you pay attention, I haven't mentioned religion. What I've mentioned is the reasoning and appeal you gave for allowing what is "natural". Who decides what is "natural" and acceptable for human beings? The animal kingdom? You personally? These are not troll questions, these are important questions and it matters gravely how we answer them.

Whether or not you've explicitly mentioned religion, reading between the lines of your post suggests that your version of "natural" is based on what comes from the Abrahamic religions. What is "artificial" about letting people feel more comfortable in their body? (Gender reassignment) My personal definition of "right" (and to a lesser extent, "natural") revolves around minimizing harm (physical, emotional, social) done to others. Without getting into an argument about natural rights and the purpose of government... The government disallowing two consenting adults of the same gender from sharing certain financial rights promotes undue harm and hardship. Why should they suffer because they are attracted to the same gender rather than the other? Conversely, the government disallowing an adult from having a sexual relationship with a minor prevents undue harm to a defenseless child.

I don't get to decide what is ultimately right, so the above postulation is just one of many that gets thrown in to the pot of "democracy". Independent of who gets to decide for society, what matters in this forum is strength of argument and logic. Frankly, you've haven't made an argument (that I can see) as to why allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalization of pedophilia/bestiality/taboo de jour. With that, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in taking your implication at face value: that gay marriage, in and of itself isn't bad, but since gay marriage might lead to "bad" things, it becomes a "bad" thing too. (Which I believe is specious at best.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse#Psychological
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Arguments_against_zo...