We need to be subjective. What if people enter into legal marriages with animals? We rely on the judges to make rules about our lives in every ideological point along the spectrum. If anyone attempts to state why marriage equality is wrong because it sets a precedent or will lead to something dire, there really is no point in countering the argument because their reasoning is flawed and immature. You're not actually responding to the argument. The correct analogy would be take the 2nd Amendment and to apply it it to education or some other topic, which is what you're doing to the 14th.
Create an Account or login First Name.
What if some careless homosexual is struggling with a heavy suitcase and decides to lower the mass of the planet to reduce the strength of gravity? Maybe by some theories of jurisprudence, same-sex marriage could, indeed, set a precedent for the legal recognition of threesomes or group marriage, as opponents worry. LGBT couples will get to file one joint tax return instead of filling out multiple returns in states where same sex marriage is recognized at the state level, but not at the federal level. That doesn't weaken the legal basis for two gay people from marrying.
Yet I see few homosexuals or other advocates of "social change" standing up and arguing for, say, limiting legal relationships to two, unrelated people over the age of consent.