Yes, I am. Because opinions change, scientific or otherwise. Recently opinions changed from calling homosexual marriage an absurdity to a civil right. They also changed from saying that a parent should teach their child about what it means to be male or female into saying that a child can choose his own gender.

> What "plenty more people" do you have in mind? ... tell me how those cases aren't covered by my discussion of consent and we might get somewhere.

Polygamy/Polyandry:

Three consenting adults all love each other and are currently being denied the right to be married. Why should they be deprived of this "basic civil right"?

And if a person loves 20 other people and wants to marry them, then why should they be deprived? Because you don't personally feel that way? Because it's too much paperwork?

Pedophillia:

We are now told that young children have enough understanding and mental faculty to decide that they should be assigned to a different gender and that they should have the ability to control their own sexuality by obtaining birth control with only their individual consent (not their parent's).

If we have come to say that a child can consent and be in control of their own sexuality, then how can we say who they are allowed to have sex with or marry? And by what standard?

If a child is convinced that they are in a mutually consensual, loving relationship with an adult, what right do we have to violate that child's consent?

Zoophillia:

PETA has already shamefully attempted to exploit the pain and persecution of Black Americans (just as the homosexual movement has done) in order to try and say that animal freedom and rights are equivalent to human rights.[1] If animals can feel and think and be happy and give signs of cooperation and acceptance, then who are we to deny their freedom? If an animal wants to marry a human, then how can we deny the two individuals this basic right? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZBV8O5pfI

And feel free to add on any other combination that an individual decides is their civil right. Because as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, who are we to stand in the way of love? Right?

You fail to make a convincing argument why this is a bad thing and not a good thing. As you've written it, it's descriptive and not prescriptive. The way I see it, these are great things. Tell me why they are bad things.

> Polygamy/Polyandry: Three consenting adults all love each other and are currently being denied the right to be married. Why should they be deprived of this "basic civil right"

You're trying to paint this argument as a spectrum, and attempting to make it seem like "gay marriage" is violet and "polygamy" is indigo. Polygamy has material differences from gay marriage between two adults, that the government will likely not budge on: namely, two vs. multiple. I don't personally care if twenty people get married to or have sex with one another, and many cultures don't care either. Yet again, my opinion is only one in the melting pot. If it's legalized, what's the harm? You've yet to successfully opine as to what harm will come about if polygamy/polyandry is legalized.

> Pedophillia: We are now told that young children have enough understanding and mental faculty to decide that they should be assigned to a different gender and that they should have the ability to control their own sexuality by obtaining birth control with only their individual consent (not their parent's).

Yet again, you're ignoring the point that deciding what one's own gender identity is, is completely distinct from being sexually involved with an adult third party. This is a clear line, and is well defined legally. Consent isn't the slippery slope that you're making it out to be. A child can't create legally binding contracts in the eyes of the US government. What obligation (and to whom) is engendered by deciding that one wants to switch genders? The standard describing who a child can have sex with is based on existing statute, that modern/current science has revealed to be a pretty good way to continue doing things. That is, "don't let an adult have sex with kids below (age of consent)." The notion of an age of consent is a hot topic for a good reason: age is truly but a number, but science and psychology suggest that very young children shouldn't have sex with people over a decade older than them.

> Zoophillia: PETA has already shamefully attempted to exploit the pain and persecution of Black Americans (just as the homosexual movement has done) in order to try and say that animal freedom and rights are equivalent to human rights.[1] If animals can feel and think and be happy and give signs of cooperation and acceptance, then who are we to deny their freedom? If an animal wants to marry a human, then how can we deny the two individuals this basic right? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZBV8O5pfI

How has the "homosexual movement" exploited the pain of Black Americans? I wouldn't call it exploitation, I'd call it liberation. Using your logic, we shouldn't have freed slaves either, because the "gays" will soon be able to marry, right?

PETA making the argument that animals are like slaves is a silly one. People with darker skin tone are still people. Animals are not people. People who like members of the same sex are still people. This is simple logic. Genetic makeup is the criteria here, much like age and number are the significant criteria for your previous two examples.

> And feel free to add on any other combination that an individual decides is their civil right. Because as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, who are we to stand in the way of love? Right?

Your bitterness is absurd. Polygamy/polyandry may or may not harm others. Pedophilia and zoophilia do harm others who don't have a voice, hence the clear divide between those two and a type of legal relationship between consenting adults. Have a good day... my patience for ignorance is wearing thin so my input ends here. Thanks for the semi-sincere arguments.