Fiction, your argument right now has 3 main flaws that I will point out:
1. Analogy of guns to marriage is incorrect. Right to marriage we provide to certain groups, and guns to all groups. Your analogy would actually be represented should we let say only heterosexual people have guns etc. Basically there is really no connection between the two, other than that they are two (totally DIFFERENT) rights. And I guess conservatives have the rather deformed and retarded side of the coin, because there are no empirics that explain that gay marriage hurts people. I guess you righties should open up your eyes, and realize that equality really won't hurt so bad, except it may hurt your ego
Basically, conservatives have no real reason to hate gay marriage except for their own beliefs, as no empirics back up the idea that gay marriage will hurt people. This is truly inappropriate considering the long standing ideal of separation of church and state, but I guess you repubs don't really care about that do you, I mean look at the Kansas Evolutionary hearings etc. I guess what we can gather from this debate is that liberals (I shouldn't generalize, but I guess we can specify this for gay marriage and other social issues) like to ban/expand "rights" that hurt people or promote equality based on empirics, rather than conservatives who would ban/expand rights based on bigotry/beliefs, as there have been no empirics backing up ANY of your points.
2. You have yet to make an argument against gay marriage, just ad hominem all over the place, with analogies. I want an actual argument, not some dumb blips coming out of your computer, right now no one has provided an actual argument against gay marriage that isn't grounded in (ridiculous?) beliefs.
3. Argument for knives etc. I already addressed, but I guess I'll re-post it. I guess consistency might get to you right? Probably not, but I'm just trying to help.
Other weapons
"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")
An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.
Edit: I guess the other weapons part also addresses Love's underdeveloped, underreseareched, and unintelligent argument saying that banning guns doesn't stop criminal activity of knives and fists. According to all these (multivariate) analyses, knife violence, and other weapon violence are anywhere from 2-12 x less deadly than gun violence. I'd take that any day. Look at the gun thread for the other studies explaining why having guns is in fact the vicious cycle, and how criminals would not obtain them in fact if guns were less traded. Look to empirics, not blindly accepting what you think logically works (even though your argument is not logical).
Edit 2: I just saw your argument below mine, and look to the gun thread, I guess I'll just post it, but most guns that are gotten illegally are either A. Stolen from law abiding citizens or B. Bought in states with weaker gun laws and brought to states with heavier gun laws to sell.
This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indiciation of its soundness. For a complete and vigorous defense of the study, please see this essay by Steve Kangas.
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
