The following debate took place in a Facebook comment stream. The post was a video of a 10-year-old who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance because same-sex marriage is not the law of the land.

Me: I don't think this child actually "put thought" into this. If he did, he would have realized that "liberty" means freedom to make your own decisions, regardless of what other people think about it. And had he done his research, he would know that our marriage laws ARE equitable and that the US has done more to eliminate racism and sexism than most of the rest of the world.

Opponent: How are marriage laws equitable when same sex couple cannot get the legal protections of marriage while opposite sex couplea can?

Me: Nothing prohibits a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Likewise, a straight person can't marry someone of the same sex.

Furthermore, aren't laws prohibiting polygamy, plural marriage, polyamory, sibling marriage, first-cousin marriage and interspecies marriage just as "inequitable"?

Opponent: Irrelevant and worn out argument. Someone who is a homosexual would not be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. The law prohibits gay couples from signing a document granting certain legal protections while straight couples are allowed. That is disparity. Your same argument was made against interracial marriage as well. Black people were free to marry black people and white people were free to marry white people. The bigots of the day found that fair and equitable as well. They were wrong.

There is no law banning polyamory.

Animals cannot sign contracts, so bringing that up is irrelevant too.

Government can establisb a rational basis to prevent incest. Children from incestuous unions are more likely to have defects. So to prevent such a thing, all incest marriages are banned.

Bigamy/Polygamy: No discrimination becauase everyonemarriage e allowed to have a civil marriage contract with one person. Once you add more people onto the marriage, certain legal powers het blury (like who is next of kin and who gets auto power of attorney). So that is a rational basis to prevent polygamous marriages.

I find that when people resort to the two arguments you just made, that it tends to show the weakness of the argument because you basically are relying on two logical fallacies: Slippery slope and a red herring.

Me: "Someone who is a homosexual would not be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex." That is their choice. If they wish to exercise that choice then they must live with the consequence of that choice, which is that they cannot get married.

"The law prohibits gay couples from signing a document granting certain legal protections while straight couples are allowed." Which law is this? Cite by statue number.

Re incest and justification for prohibiting polygamy: Government can establish a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage. Considering that homosexuals spread disease by engaging in risky, unprotected and promiscuous sex more frequently than opposite-sex couples. And thorny legal problems are already arising from cases of legal SSM.

"No discrimination becauase everyone marriage e [sic] allowed to have a civil marriage contract with one person": Here is the hypocrisy of the sex activists. They want the law changed to accommodate their lifestyle, but refuse to make equally-logical demands to allow other types of unions. There is no discrimination because everyone is allowed to have one civil marriage contract with one person of the opposite sex. And there are justifications for government prohibiting SSM.

Opponent: Why would anybody CHOOSE to be gay in a society that treats them like second class citizens. I didn't choose to be attracted to women, I just am. Gay men do not choose to be attracted to men, they just are.

The Louisiana constitution prohibits the legal incidents of marriage from being given to anyone other than a heterosexual couple. And go look at the Florida case of Lisa Pond to see how easilly a hospital got away with ignoring power of attorney documents when a woman went into the hospital and her life partner tried to get access. She was denied EVEN THOUGH she had the proper paperwork.

And you need to do research and gain some common sense. BLACK HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN are the fastest growing population when it comes to AIDS. And the best way to prevent HIV from spreading is to promote monogomous relationships… i.e. marriage.

What "thorny" legal problems come with SSM? Please enlighten us

Me: "Why would anybody CHOOSE to be gay…" But they choose how they deal with it. Some deal with their sexual urges appropriately. And some try to force everyone else to accommodate them.

Does the Louisiana constitution say "heterosexual" or does it say "only a man and a woman"? And the Florida case is just one situation out of many. You didn't answer the question, which is to cite a specific law that explicitly discriminates against homosexuals. And you didn't because you can't.

Of course AIDS is now growing fastest among heterosexuals and women. It's been a plague among homosexuals and particularly homosexual men for over two decades.

Opponent: This is not about sexual urges. This is about contract law. If the vast majority of people who are heterosexual gets their relationships accommodated with civil marriage then the minority who are homosexual, who are consenting adults, who can legally sign any other contract, should be be able to sign a civil marriage contract as well.

A heterosexual relationship is a relationship where there is more than one gender. Seeing as there is the MALE gender and FEMALE gender, the fact that the constitution says "only a man and a woman" clearly means "heterosexual".

The Florida case is a GLARING example of why the argument of "well they can just sign legal documents" is absolutely wrong.

Every ban on gay marriage discriminates against homosexuals Jay. Just because you have some warped view of what discrimination is it doesn't make your view on discrimination valid. If you honestly believe that someone who is only attracted to people of their own gender is not being discriminated against because they can still legally marry people of the opposite gender, then you are an idiot. Period.

AIDS is a virus that kills everyone. Your argument that we shouldn't allow gay marriage because of AIDS is flawed. NOT just because everyone (regardless of sexual orientation) can get it. It is also flawed because the people who want to get married (i.e. monogomous people) are not going to be the ones spreading HIV to others.

Me: "Just because you have some warped view of what discrimination is it doesn't make your view on discrimination valid." Likewise! Your view is just as "warped," based on emotion rather than logic and reason.

"… then you are an idiot. Period." And the loser in the discussion resorts to the last desperate tactic of the loser: call his opponent names.