I have no issue with this, just stop referring to the Civil Rights then if you're making your own independent case.
No. Because equal rights cases DO build upon each other and use one another for legal precedent.
Since you believe that everyone should make their own case
I don't. I take a sane middle ground between "These are 100% different and you can never talk about anything else" and "These MUST 100% lead to each other because Slippery Slope!!"
So, I ask yet again, why is it ok to compare the homosexual movement to Civil Rights, but not to the movement of other groups, i.e. toaster love, when all groups are different in the first place?
Comparing SSM struggles to civil rights makes sense because the decisions made during the civil rights movements will directly influence how this matter gets settled. Comparing toaster-love to SSM makes less sense because SSM isn't settled yet. Now if you want to start defending ped
ophilia by comparing it to miscegenation laws, that would make a lot more sense than comparing it to SSM. At least then you'd be using an established precedent to base your pro-pe
dophilia movement off of. I doubt it'd be a strong argument but it'd at least be grounded in some sort of fact. But the reality is that people waving their arms and hooting about these things aren't interested in advacing the cause, they just want to tie SSM to it because they have an easier time trying to scare people with pe
dophilia than they do scaring people with two adult males spending their lives together in legal matrimony.
It's not an insulting argument because of pe
dophilia or toaster-love or whatever. It's an insulting argument because it implies I'm too stupid to understand why you're suddenly running for different ground.
Not at all. This goes back to what I said before, it's the EFFECT of the LAW, not the intent of the law.
The effect of SSM legalization will be to allow same sex couples to legally marry. Full stop.
You can't make arguments that "Consenting adults should be able to marry" and somehow believe that doesn't include polygamy and incest
Sure you can. The basis I use is the same as given in Perez
. Marriage is a fundamental right that can't be taken away except for significant social reasons. I have no issue saying "We're denying [X] their right to marriage" (unless people like Gbaji who contort themselves seven way to avoid admitting it). I believe there are significant differences between SSM and the various boogeymen arrangements used in the slippery slope arguments just as there's significant reasons to serve rabbit at my restaurant and not panda, even if both taste delicious. Line added because of forum duplicate post detection. Seriously... NOW it works? Where is it when I double-post all the damn time on my tablet? Edited, Sep 9th 2012 10:43am by Jophiel