Yes. But there you go again Oscar, using a strawman like you always do. Where did I ever say that order of importance is a universal scale?
Based on my own judgements, same sex marriage is of more importance to rectify in regards to a constitutional issues than incest for reasons I've stated.
Now, for someone else, it may be entirely different. They may find it FAR more important to argue about incest. And more power to them. Everyone decides what's most important in their mind based on the criteria they set forth.
Others may not care about social issues AT ALL and focus only on things like budgets and defense. That's also legitimate.
However, you will not show me a single solitary individual on this forum...including yourself...who argues equal time, with equal passion, every single solitary issue that they believe is of even the smallest amount of importance in this country. Because its not physically possible while living an actual real life.
got it, so gays should have the same rights as straights, but to hell with polygamists and practicioners of incest
The "right to contract" is regulated in a number of ways. That's not convienient, thats truth, whether or not it has anything to do with SSM.
You're not really arguing equal rights. you're trying to side step the the gay rights issue. Many ahve tried to sue this slippery slope (fallacy) argument. The point is, each stands on its own merit. They can, and likely should, be discussed separately. If there is no just cause, not just icky, then they should be allowed. If not, not.
wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else
wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else
Same sex marriage bans easily meet gender discrimination, which is middle tier since sex is a protected class.
wrong. I am saying if you are going to argue for equal rights for gays, then you shouldn't agrue against equal rights for anyone else
Nobody is ...
Actually, you were saying that if someone argues for something in one case they must argue it in EVERY OTHER CASE regardless of any differences they may have, or else they're a hypocrite.
Which is retarded.
Depends on the reasons. If it's because you think it is icky, I agree. but if you can show just cause, then do so. As we're speaking of same sex marriage here, that is what you need to do. Show just cause to prevent it. There's an incest thread elsewhere.
But, here, you're just diverting, using the slippery slope fallacy.
actually I wasn't arguing anything of the sort.
but the main arguement for SSM is EQUAL RIGHTS for gays. I'm just saying it is hypocritical to bleat for equal rights for gays and then argue against equal rights for another group.
(Ten Characters)
Moderator's Warning: |
Final warning - stick to the topic, cease with the personal attacks, baiting, flaming and one-liners or else. |
haven't been paying attention have we? I support gay marriage
They failed to reach the necessary level to justify the discrimination under equal protection.
In the case of marriage, being hetero gives you special rights that gays do not have. Straights can marry someone they are attracted to. Gay cannot.
Gays can't marry someone they're attracted to, but neither can siblings.
What uniquely homosexual attributes set SSM apart from any other form of marriage? I'm not saying there are non, I'm saying you need to base your argument on those attributes.
Changing gears: I already oppose ruffly 50% of all hetero marriages. If gays are no different than heteros, I therefore automatically oppose ruffly 50% of all SSMs for the exact same reasons.
Well that means you could accept roughly 50% of SSM.
I believe that's what I just said, yes. Thank you for reiterating it, I suppose. Not sure what your point is though.
Gays can't marry someone they're attracted to, but neither can siblings.
One group wrongly being denied their rights doesn't make it okay to wrongly deny the rights of another group.
Gay marriage does-not-compare to incest.
In the case of marriage, being hetero gives you special rights that gays do not have. Straights can marry someone they are attracted to. Gay cannot.
jeez, does the opposing side have any arguments at all? I mean it's almost as if there's a record playing itself over and over.
What harm does gay marriage pose to society? -right, none.
Moving on. What harm does incest pose to society? Genetic disorders. There's a difference, and trying pretend that there's not is disingenuous.