>>Saying "kids or animals can't give consent under the law" is no argument, because gays can't consent to marry each other under the law too.
> consent as in: legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon an appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of an action (using this the same way "age of consent" is used). Since children and animals legally don't have the (full) ability to do this, my argument stands.<<
No, because you suddenly FEEL that's more vital a law than laws against homosexuality doesn't mean I have to share your feelings or be "disproved".
>>Anal sex is measurably more likely to lead to rupture than vaginal intercourse.
> 1) this isnt life threathening, it heals and 2) who cares, if people know the risks.. you might aswell forbid wearing high heels because the risk of falling is bigger. let people take their own risks.<<
You complained there wasn't medical evidence anal sex is any worse, and a rupture where bodily fluids enter the bloodstream CAN BE life threatening. What you meant was "there's no medical evidence I consider politically significant" which I can't argue, since political rules can require you to believe medical absurdities.
>>If staying up all night playing the computer is a defining characterisitc of a protected class not a neurosis or a choice, then firing people for napping on the job is discrimination, and if you don't agree you're a BIGOT. QED.
> napping on the job leads to decreased productivity and is a violation of your contract. Being gay, having a homosexual relationship or marriage doesn't do harm to anyone but perhaps bigots who feel they should have more rights. QED.<<
Extending benefits and discounts to people who aren't legally married is surely a higher cost. I think paying out money you shouldn't have to is a "harm". Pay me $5 for that answer or fess up to your bigotry. Also I'll sue you.
