Originally posted by NemesioYour example doesn't apply to this debate.
This is true to an extent. I can prove 2+2=4 and people can still refuse to
accept it. And those people who think 2+2=5 can be just as strongly convinced
of their convictions as I can.
The difference between me and them is that I can demonstrate the inconsistency
in their line of thinking, and they cannot do the same for me. Yes, they're in
the ...[text shortened]... nd nails and crucify Him
all over again before you'd support same-sex unions.
Nemesio
The fact that there is possibility that gays will be granted the same rights as normal people doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do.
You insist with your phase ''civil privileges granted to some will be granted to all'' that today we live in a homophobic society, or that people who disagree with are homophobic, but I'll say it again: not considering gay relationships ''marriage'' is not homophobic, its common sense.
Originally posted by generalissimo
The fact that there is possibility that gays will be granted the same rights as normal people doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do.
The fact that there is no such recognition doesn't mean that it's the right thing.
So what makes something the right thing?
I mean, do you think that 'equal protection under the law' is a just concept?
If so, then what reason do you offer to justify refusing benefits to one kind
of dual union and offering it to another?
You insist with your phase ''civil privileges granted to some will be granted to all'' that today we live in a homophobic society, or that people who disagree with are homophobic, but I'll say it again: not considering gay relationships ''marriage'' is not homophobic, its common sense.
Find the word 'homophobic' in any of my posts. You're confusing me with
someone else.
'Common sense' once said that women shouldn't wear pants or that men
shouldn't have long hair. Common sense just means prevailing opinion.
It is legally meaningless.
Nemesio