There seems to me to be a logical error in this whole argument.
The premise seems to be that if X is made illegal, then Y should too. And if you don't want Y then you should not want X.
The flaw here is that X has very little to do with Y. We might try to separate them with rules (like consent) but that's only ever going to be a part of the differences.
You know what Gay marriage is exactly the same as? GAY MARRIAGE!! To pass gay marriage is not to accept a rule which will allow people to marry their vacuum cleaners in a few years, nor is it the same as allowing mixed race marriage. It's a debate all by itself.
Comparing it to any other kind of marriage allowance is simply irrelevant. Each must be considered on individual merit.
The premise seems to be that if X is made illegal, then Y should too. And if you don't want Y then you should not want X.
The flaw here is that X has very little to do with Y. We might try to separate them with rules (like consent) but that's only ever going to be a part of the differences.
You know what Gay marriage is exactly the same as? GAY MARRIAGE!! To pass gay marriage is not to accept a rule which will allow people to marry their vacuum cleaners in a few years, nor is it the same as allowing mixed race marriage. It's a debate all by itself.
Comparing it to any other kind of marriage allowance is simply irrelevant. Each must be considered on individual merit.
"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
