Why I voted NO

Originally posted by bourse ↑

Is it not a basic human right for all people to be treated equally and have equal rights regardless of their sexual preference?
Any reasonable person would say yes - so this is a human rights issue and indistinguishable from the Womens and aboriginal examples I offered.

We can go further, and use abolition of segregation giving Blacks the same rights as white - even though Blacks had there own toilets, drinking taps etc.

So this idea that SSM should knock on doors until they find a compliant church to marry in, is like denying Blacks equal rights on the basis that they had their own buses, toilets and drinking fountains.

So therefore your premise is unsound - this definitely is a HUMAN rights issue.

Expand

"Is it not a basic human right for all people to be treated equally and have equal rights regardless of their sexual preference?"

No it isn't, and you don't believe that either, unless you are arguing that ALL sexual preferences are equal in quality and morality and ALL of them should have the same 'rights'? Secondly, homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else, they can marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex that they choose to. That is EXACTLY the same rights as we all have and if we change it for one minority (homosexuals) then we can change it to suit any other one, polyamorists for example or three men in a tub instead of two.

"Any reasonable person would say yes - so this is a human rights issue and indistinguishable from the Womens and aboriginal examples I offered."

Hardly indistinguishable as I have already distinguished it for you after your last request.

"So this idea that SSM should knock on doors until they find a compliant church to marry in, is like denying Blacks equal rights on the basis that they had their own buses, toilets and drinking fountains.

So therefore your premise is unsound - this definitely is a HUMAN rights issue."

Nice try....but wrong again. When blacks had their OWN buses and other amenities they were FOR BLACKS ONLY(are we talking about pre-60's America here?), white people couldn't (or wouldn't) use those same amenities and the blacks couldn't used amenities marked for whites only. I guess their sole purpose was to maintain segregation. If a SSC goes to the Church down the road, rest assured, it is not a gay-only Church. It is a Church used by all members of the community, gay, straight, black white or otherwise. Same goes with any other amenity like bakers and florists. In contrast your black people were not allowed in those places full stop. But conflating homosexuality with race has been a tactic for decades, personally I thought that tactic had already been put to bed, obviously not. But it's still good for pushing people's emotional buttons.