(August 25, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: An advocate of what, equality? Sort of goes with the territory for me. We hold these truths to be self evident - recall the line? You know, they might not see the need to seek protected status.......if they weren't roundly and openly discriminated against, food for thought. I told you I wan;t actually interested in arguing your "arguments", I'm just looking for the executive summary.
Gays are different things for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.
Gays are inferior for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.
The state has an interest in discriminating against those different, inferior gays for "reasons" - your reasons don't concern me one single iota.
I just want to give you as many opportunities as possible to repeat those claims, in as many forms as you can imagine, and I made that clear from the start, did I not? So it doesn't matter "what is argued", because there's no one on this end to argue against. Is my summary inaccurate? Is this not your position?
Ha ha!! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So recognition of the creator also goes with the territory? No. Than may we say the argument all men are created equal is as valid a statement as them being endowed by their creator?
We recognize that all men are not created equally quite readily. Sure they are all born human. Some are born blind, retarded, deaf, mute, deformed, psychopathic, sociopathic, etcetera. To say they are equal to those not born with such conditions is a false equivalency. They are different and must be dealt with differently. To not do so is to harm those in need of aid and to harm society by not prohibiting those in need of restraint.
But it would appear we are in the same boat as your false equivalency does not concern me one iota.
