Almalieque wrote:
You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying one way or the other that SSM is or is not a "civil right" movement (in this thread). The fact is, proponents are referencing it. Do you think those people were fighting for SSM? I doubt it, because if so, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. So whether or not SSM was part of the intent, it's still applicable, which is the point. Regardless if you want to accept it, the same applies to every other denial of marriage if you were to allow SSM from a dumb inclusive argument such as "As long as they love each other" or "two adults should be able to marry". It has to be explicitly defined to exclude unwanted marriages. If not, you have created precedence for other illegal forms of marriage.
Anyone know what the hell is going on up there?