It absolutely is an equal rights issue and all the semantic bull**** in the world isn't going to change that the basic premise of your argument is that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it, it is absolutely still bigotry and it should absolutely still be called out as bigotry whenever we encounter it.
No, your presentation is in error.
The "semantic bull****" you falsely accuse me of is simply a reflection of the
assumptions in your
own ideological position, nothing more.
And resorting to calling my accurate analysis of the situation "bigotry" is ideologically similar in decadence to calling those opposed to amnesty and legalization for multi-count law-breaking illegals "racists" -- it's erroneous and incendiary rhetoric, not valid at all.
But play the LCD victim card if you like .. it's meaningless .. but it will provide debaters good information for the future.
In other words, discounting all of the cases that don't support your trumped-up argument. Ignoring the history of all of the marriages between one man and multiple women, the handful of cultures that allowed marriage between one woman and multiple men, and the marriage rites that various cultures have practiced between members of the same sex throughout human history. You are basing your entire argument on sophistry and semantics and then falsifying the historical record in order to prop it up. This is inexcusable. If you are going to insist on advocating against gay marriage, at least have the common decency and intellectual honesty to admit that you are deliberately and specifically denying them that privilege and excluding them from that institution. And then make an argument that justifies that instead of pretending that the very concept of a "same sex marriage" is a logical impossibility.
Of
course we discount cases that reflect
erroneous representation of reality.
You can't reference people in history calling a cat a dog and then say "see, look, a cat belongs in a dog show".
You can't call something that is simply
not a marriage a marriage simply because people in history called what was clearly
not a marriage a marriage.
There is no "sophistry and semantics" in my argument, nor "false historical record" as you falsely allude.
I mean, we all know what marriage was from the get-go, 12,000 years ago, and always has been: "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Thus SS couples cannot, rationally, reasonably, avail themselves of marriage.
Sure, they can avail themselves of a civil union domestic partnership, recognized by government and private enterprise, even call it
homarriage to properly and accurately distinguish that union, like all such fundamentally different unions are distinguished, they just can't call it a
marriage, obviously.
As I previously accurately stated, definitive propriety renders the ideological spin "privilege", "rights", "equality", and the like, simply
inapplicable: SS couples simply are not nor have they ever been subject to marriage.
And, as I previously accurately stated, the oxymoronic brainwashing performed by SS activists over the past five decades has seduced many into thinking that historical erroneous reference to marriage wasn't erroneous at all.
This is the challenge we face today, in accurately respecting our species, our human history, to shake off the ideological mindsets that dumb us down to the truth about our past and our present.
Do we call a man wearing a wig a woman simply because some men in the past wore wigs to look like women?
Do we call green brown simply because we're looking through rose colored glasses?
Do we call Jesus a God simply because no one found where his body was laid?
Do we call American citizens who are separatist survivalists the citizens of "New America" simply because they say that's the country they now are citizens of somewhere in Oklahoma?
No.
Not if we don't suffer from a brainwashed ideological mindset.
And neither do we call anything other than a man and a woman as husband and wife a marriage, as that's the only thing a
marriage has ever been: between a man and a woman as husband and wife .. and always will be.
Obviously.
:lamo