HipHop Sesame Street: Voice Of Elmo Accused Of Gay With 16-Year-Old Boy

Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy......you can't link A to B with C if A is no longer linked to C.......

Your problem is that you ignore causality, you chose to ignore that A is no longer linked to C.

Sorry, but just because you can't see how flawed your logic is does not make me too stubborn to accept how right you think you are.

Even though we continue to be at odds, you are still alright in my book.
 
If A was once linked to B and C and no longer is, what's to stop B and C from no longer being linked at a later time? A was once linked, it no longer is, so why can't B and C(that for some reason were once linked to A and no longer are)not follow the same path?

That's like me once being a criminal, straightening up, and no longer being linked to crime thinking other criminals can't do the same. What makes me special?

I've said that my last 800 posts. What's flawed about that logic...nevermind, you lack the comprehension skill to understand I said that the last 800 posts. Lol. That's not an insult, just realized you don't understand LOGIC so it's easier to say mine is wrong. Before you respond reread the post I just made prior to this one and figure out you just went left field as f**k from the convo indicating you can't be reading anything I post. You woulda just answered a question. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
you are both arguing in syllogisims - that, is logical fallacies or logical falsehoods, to whit:

All cats are brown, my coat is brown, therefore my coat is a cat... the final statement does not follow from either of the preceding statements but is a logical conclusion to draw from the first two unrelated statements
 
you are both arguing in syllogisims - that, is logical fallacies or logical falsehoods, to whit:

All cats are brown, my coat is brown, therefore my coat is a cat... the final statement does not follow from either of the preceding statements but is a logical conclusion to draw from the first two unrelated statements

Correct.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that his slippery slope argument is based on such a fallacy and not based on a logical cause and effect.

I have not been doing a very good job of it.

---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 AM ----------

That's like me once being a criminal, straightening up, and no longer being linked to crime thinking other criminals can't do the same.

Other criminals can also decide to go straight, but is it reasonable to assume that they will go straight because you decided to go straight?
 
Last edited:
Notice the thread hasn't been updated. You guys still following the news on this?

Hate to say i told you so. But....

You guys were too busy defending homosexuality to observe how perverted of a situation this was until everything hits the fan. Now he's 3 accusers in and guys are saying he was doing really wierd things with them while they were underage in a room full of puppets.

All I said was the "out of the norm" outweighed the "norm" in this situation and apparently, regardless of a guy recanting his storythis dude is a pedo puppeteer. Maybe one day you guys will read this thread back and get what I'm saying. Nothing wrong with being gay. Hell, IMO there's nothing wrong with having multiple wives, swinging, do what you do. Just quit acting like the people who involve themselves in "out of the norm" sexual escapades are the most likely to put boundaries into account.

Something's wierd about 50 year olds who manage to f**k with barely legal folk. They indeed have the attributes of a pedo, f**k what the law says. If no law was in place, they'd go younger. I wouldn't say the same of a 21 year old dating a 17 year old(ILLEGAL BTW). I'd just say he needs to get out more and find a girl closer to his age. :cheers:
 
Notice the thread hasn't been updated. You guys still following the news on this?

Hate to say i told you so. But....

You guys were too busy defending homosexuality to observe how perverted of a situation this was until everything hits the fan. Now he's 3 accusers in and guys are saying he was doing really wierd things with them while they were underage in a room full of puppets.

All I said was the "out of the norm" outweighed the "norm" in this situation and apparently, regardless of a guy recanting his storythis dude is a pedo puppeteer. Maybe one day you guys will read this thread back and get what I'm saying. Nothing wrong with being gay. Hell, IMO there's nothing wrong with having multiple wives, swinging, do what you do. Just quit acting like the people who involve themselves in "out of the norm" sexual escapades are the most likely to put boundaries into account.

Something's wierd about 50 year olds who manage to f**k with barely legal folk. They indeed have the attributes of a pedo, f**k what the law says. If no law was in place, they'd go younger. I wouldn't say the same of a 21 year old dating a 17 year old(ILLEGAL BTW). I'd just say he needs to get out more and find a girl closer to his age. :cheers:


That actually doesn't prove much of anything as far as the slippery slope thing goes. It just shows that a dude who's gay who works with kids alledgedlly molested kids. I mean you hear it about it all the time with straight people, but it usually just flies overhead and people forget about it. Like in Ohio with the teacher who used to be a cheerleader for a nfl team was having an affair with one of her High School students. Same scenario. Person in power messing with a person who has less power
 
^^^You guys keep imposing that I was saying that "gay" was the issue. No, the issue is a guy working around kids who prefers relationships with people a 3rd of his age. You guys have it set in your mind that I'm referencing his homosexuality beyond being another factor that I should have the right to judge upon.

R. Kelly is an exact parallel to this situation. The difference was, his "deviance" of choice was pissing. So you guys can replace "gay" with "pissing' in every post I wrote and replace "Elmo's voice" with "R. Kelly' and I'm making the same point.

"Oh, we find out the "girl" "R. Kelly" was "Pissing" on was 18, so now everything's cool? I'm supposed to not think he's wird for 'Pissing" on "girls" a 3rd of his age?

And your response being "That's a slippery slope arguement, we can't relate pissing on people to pedophilia". The difference is, R. kelly didn't work around kids, if he did and a vid of him pissing on a lady twice his age pooped up, why do I not have the right to think he's an inappropriate role model for my childen? Why to I not have the right to bunch it up with the millions of other abnormal sexual acts out there?

Y'all can't be reading anything I've written. I've given a million other examples of "out of the norm" than homosexuality, why do you defend that 1 against pedophilia so hard? Because IT HAS BECOME SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. Furthering my point. So socially acceptable that you defend it by classifying my statements as slippery slope fallacy when they're nothing close. When(not if) polygamy starts "trending' i'd say the same of it as I do of homosexuality. When people are deeming their foot fetishes as something newsworthy to the public, I will have the same statements about the footsies out there.

Social acceptance is why people can walk around with a cup of Codein and be deemed as cool, but a line of coke is still kept behind closed doors. Both have physically damaging effects. Both show the similar levels of danger in usage.

All I've said is we're becoming way too comfortable with what's socially accepted. notice how many popular TV shows have at least 1 homosexual character on it? That's not real life. It's not that many circles of friends out there with 1 gay guy in it. But when I deter to give examples with solid foundation, you guys get confused.

It's also become socially acceptable to have lighthearted racial jokes. Name a popular TV show that doesn't have a black or Jew joke thrown in on a fairly regular basis. Just a decade ago, you couldn't say anything about a jew without it being editted, lol. Dudes be like "that muthafukka ain't shyt, he a muthafukkin tightwad, I swear there's _______ in that boys blood." What word would get editted like that these days? It's become SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE TO IMMEDIATELY ATTACK ANY REFERENCE TO HOMOSEXUALITY WITH EVEN THE SLIGHTEST ELEMENTS OF NEGATIVETY AS WORDS OF IGNORANCE AND FALLACIES.

I've observed and simply made the statement that the world is crazy when no one has a problem with a man that has sex with other men a 3rd his age UNLESS they're underage legally. Like if it happened in Canada where age of consent is 16(not sure of that, just making a point)it would've gone overlooked that he was gay, sleeping with 16 year olds in his 50s, and surrounded by kids 24/7.

Even the post you just responded to after quoting fine lined that his age prefence was the emphasis but you guys keep defending his gender preference.

I would be just as wierd if he was straight in his 40s pissing on girls a 3rd his age. But I wouldn't have gotten attacked for saying pissing was wierd...because there's not a guy pissing on someone on every TV show in primetime...yet.
 
Last edited:
^^^^
When you read that Elmo was a homosexual and a pedophile you mistakenly believed that it supported your prior slippery slope argument....that the social acceptance of homosexuality would lead to the social acceptance of shit like bestiality and pedophilia......you mistakenly felt vindicated and brought that shit up even though that Elmo shit does not support your original slippery slope argument at all.

In order for that Elmo the gay pedo shit to support your original slippery slope argument you must demonstrate that because people are willing to accept a gay puppeteer that means they will accept the same puppeteer if he turns out to be a pedophile......and I just don't see that shit happening.

You can categorize a whole bunch of shit together if you like but when you imply there is a slippery slope from one thing to another you had better demonstrate cause and effect, otherwise your argument does not hold water.
 
Maybe one day you'll have the comprehension skills to understand that is NOT what was implied, but an insecurity you allowed to surface as what I was trying to present.

The only negative I put on homosexuality in this discussion is the fact that sleeping with MEN A THIRD OF YOUR AGE AND ALLOWING IT TO MAKE NATIONAL HEADLINES IN A POOR LIGHT once was enough to have you booted from a job of this guy's status. Now it's all about whether or not the kid was underage.

I went on to say if you're 50 and f**k 18 year olds(nothing about homosexuality mentioned), you'd f**k a 16 year old if it was legal(as it is many places). I then went on to say there are some places where f**king 16 year olds is fine, but if you f**k the same sex you can be stoned to death(FACT). And connected all the above with socialism and what's acceptable in different parts of the world.

I then related polygamy and the rights in other countries vs. the rights here. Then i related polygamy to homosexuality to anal/oral/period straight/hetero sex to sex with dogs to "pedophilia"(quotes because if 16 is the legal age in the place of discussion, it's not pedophilia there) and how social acceptance plays into what certain societies accept and others do not.

You keep relating what you feel is the worst(pedophilia) to what you feel I'm attacking(homosexuality)without realizing ALL THE ABOVE ARE RELATABLE BECAUSE NONE OF THEM ARE BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE OR THE NORM.

So I'm relating having 2 wives to pedophilia. I'm relating Anal sex between a man and a woman to pedophilia. I'm relating dudes letting women put leashes on them and walk them around like disobedient dogs to pedophilia. I'm relating all those and every other OUT OF THE NORM SEXUAL PREFERENCE UNDER THE SUN TOGETHER. Homosexuality is one of them. Not the 'bad one' as you keep trying to make me say...but yet ANOTHER ONE WE'VE ACCEPTED SOCIALLY IN AMERICA(still doesn't fly a ton of places though).

Apples and chicken have no relation until you're talkin about FOOD. The problem is, when you talk about food, dudes who hate brussel sprouts miss the fact you're relating every food under the sun because they're too busy trying to convince you there's no relationship between Chickens(because they're animals/meat produce/ect.) and Brussel Sprouts(because they're crops/vegtables). Regardless of how negatively you feel about one...they CAN BE RELATED.

The irony is, I can even relate by the book straight sex/relationships to all the other things involved if I was talking about "Sexual Acts/Preferences" in general. So yeah, even straight sex/relationships between a man and a woman can be related to sex between a man and a dog or pedophilia. If it couldn't, there would be no foundations for homosexuality to relate enough to what was socially acceptable at the time to become socially acceptable as well. Keep playing too dumb to understand logic while trying to rearrange my stance to fit your own agenda to convince us gays aren't scary when no one thinks for a second they are.

Slippery slope indeed. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
Sexual deviance.

I remember a thread where I was told I was an idiot for relating it altogether.

Unless I am mistaken you made reference in this thread to previous thread where you presented a slippery slope argument which was criticized by myself for being based upon commonality rather causation, and it is that point I take issue with and not any points that are unrelated to that argument.

What you need to wrap your head around is the difference between things being related and things having something in common, for example the only thing apples have in common with chicken is that they are both food but that does not mean they are related, for example chickens don't hatch out of apples.....so commonality is not causality and thus can not form the basis for an acceptable slippery slope argument.

Now the reason I believe you brought up the objection to the way you related things together in that thread is because you saw an example of those two things together in this one and thought it supported the slippery slope argument you made in that thread, even though I previously raised that point with you asking how you can compare sexual orientation to behavior that is additional to sexual orientation......like, how do you relate homosexuality to pedophilia when a pedophile can be either a homosexual or a heterosexual?

Using your apples and chicken analogy we could demonstrate that with the aid of a blender we can combine the two foods but that does not mean that chicken is an ingredient used to make apple juice......just as the acceptance of homosexuals will not lead to the acceptance of any sick shit that occurs in addition to any sexual orientation.

If you want to forget all about your original slippery slope argument and move on that's cool with me......you can just take the position that there is a bunch of shit you find repulsive.....I mean I don't want to see two dudes kissing each other or some chick taking a dump in some other chicks mouth because I find that shit repulsive but I wouldn't go so far as to put forward a fallacious slippery slope argument to coerce people into agreeing with my position, ya dig? like even if I have the same general opinion as you on a subject and you say something blatantly wrong to support that position I will still point that shit out, and I hold myself to the same standard, if I realize I have said something wrong I will admit it right away, there is no shame in being wrong compared to being deliberately dishonest in order to appear to be right. Being wrong doesn't make a person dishonest or stupid.
 
Last edited:
^^^Without realizing it, you just "related" 2 men kissing to a woman taking a shyt in someone's mouth.

The point I've been trying to make is that you keep insisting that I'm "overrelating" things when I'm doing no more than you just did.

If i were you, I'd take this time to say "what does 2 dudes kissing have to do with a woman shytting in another woman's mouth". That's exactly what you've done to me since discovering google and repeatedly(I almost believe purposely for sake of arguement) misinterpereting my statements as a slipperly slope fallacy.

"1 can be related to 10 Billion, they're both numbers." There's no reason for you to go into all the reasons theyu don't relate to try to make that statement false, because regardless of what they don't have in common, that statement will always factually be TRUE.

Same can be said for chickens and apples.

Same can be said for polygamy, homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, straight oral/anal and any other deviated form of a sexual relationship or practice.

And you're again putting words in my mouth. I never said I was disgusted by any of this stuff. That's your business til you put it out there. All I've said is I WILL JUDGE YOU BY THE BUSINESS YOU PUT OUT THERE.

You telling me you're gay will change how I feel about you like a chick telling me she got a train ran on her or a dude telling me he and some friends ran a train on a chick. I think you eating your wife's shyt would repulse me more than any of those, lol.

My only point has been we have gotten ourselves to the point where in some people's minds, it's not morally wrong to eat chicken, but it somehow is to eat apples, and in their minds it doesn't make sense.

THIS IS THE ONLY STATEMENT I'VE MADE THAT RUBBED YOU WRONG...

If you f**k dogs, kids, 2 wives, whatever and think f**kin other dudes is repulsive, you will see their rights as immoral while you have none for what you believe to be "natural". You'll wonder why their lifestyle is acceptable and yours isn't. You will fight for rights with a foundation of validity based on restructured laws to make same sex marriages acceptable. It's going on as we speak, 100% FACT.

I'm not the one with the slippery slope arguement, because IT IS FACTUALLY HAPPENING AS WE SPEAK!!!!

I've never said what I do and don't agree with beyond thinking anyone who would touch a kid should be dealt with with a shotgun(and my opinion on that is biased because I have kids I'm overprotective of). All I've presented was the question of once that foundation of law that made weddings exclusive to one man and woman has been altered, there's only but so long before it's further altered. history has proven that with everything from civil rights to the war on drugs. See? I can even RELATE those to the discussion.

Now you've confused that with my statements in this thread that if you're 50 and f**k 18 year olds, you're as good as a pedo, because you would f**k a 16 year old if you can get away with it(which apparently has come to light in the case of elmo's puppeteer with all these new accusations). I said that in the other thread as well, but all you remembered was the homo stuff so you pushed that agenda where it wasn't needed. My gripe with homosexuality in direction to this thread was "NO ONE SEES A PROBLEM WITH THIS 50 YEAR OLD F**KING 18 YEAR OLD BOYS WHILE BEING SURROUNDED BY KIDS?" I'll take responsibility for that comment, because IMO that's pretty f**kin creepy.

If he was in a relationship with a man his age, I wouldn't have made that statement or judged his occupational positioning because someone else put his biz out there. If it had been a 18 year old woman I woulda said the same without emphasis on BOYS. The problem is he works around kids with an infactuation with...kids. Where is the line drawn? He could be doing anything under that table while little billy OR SARAH is talking to the Elmo puppet.

I've repeated that throughout this thread, but you're too busy defending Homos to think about KIDS. Homos are the ones that need protecting? Grown azz men and women who for the most part act like men(stereotypical? nope, STATISTICAL).
 
Last edited:
take it to pm guys, please this is so far away from the original thread it is not funny anymore......
 
Do you believe that the social acceptance of homosexuality will lead to the social acceptance of bestiality, yes or no?

Simple answer...NO.

NOT DIRECTLY.

I believe for every action there's a reaction, and while I don't beleive RACE has much of anything to do with sexual preference I, a black man, beleive the civil rights movement influenced the gay rights movement(can't say they have nothing in common, we've already established everything can be related).

I know for a fact out of desparation for something to relate to, people persuing gay rights have related their struggle to the rights of minorities in this country. They've used cases of racial discrimination where laws have been established to determine it's wrong as a foundation for their own agenda.

So to say a polygamist, incestor(?), Beastist(?), or even a pedophile doesn't have more of a point in relating their rights to homosexuality is obsurb, and the FACT remains that cases of just that happening are popping up all over the place as we speak. It won't be long before another battle is won, then another. Then comes more "acceptance".

So to throw your own slippery slope arguement back in your face, do you really think the rights of gays to marry and parade their lifestyle in public in this country(US) is more comparable to the rights of a race(black, hispanic, asian, whatever, pick one), or more comparable to the rights of a polygamist who just wants to marry multiple wives and parade their beleifs around?

Checkmate. :cheers:

---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

take it to pm guys, please this is so far away from the original thread it is not funny anymore......

I apologize if I offended in any way. I feel like I'm wrongfully being put in a category I don't belong in because of making logical observations. Even if I was gay I'd have the same stance I do. Proof? I'm not up here telling you all every detail of what I enjoy in the bedroom with my wife and shoving it in your faces as if it should be acceptable behavior outside of my bedroom.

I never said I find anything wrong with homosexuality, I never said they don't deserve rights. All i've said is when laws are altered for one individual, others will manipulate the system based on the documented changed. Anyone who's taken a course on the U.S. legal system is aware there's no "slippery slope" to that, it's 100% Fact. It's 100% factually happening as we speak.

I won't reply on this anymore and again, hope I didn't offend anyone. I'm a black man and can admit that laws put in place to give people of any race rights were manipulated(FACTUALLY)to get state laws changed to accept gay couples as legally married. In no way am I saying we shouldn't have laws to give all humans rights. In no way am I saying gay marriage is bad. I'm saying laws are put in place for a reason. Ethics and codes are there for a reason. When we begin to deter from all of that, it's not long before people are asking "how can you be a black man/interracial couple/gay couple and not support polygamy/incest/pedophilia" not because I personally can't draw the line, but because millions of others won't and dumb laws get passed daily.

I love weed to death and say the same of states slowly legalizing it when we should be making more shyt found out there(salvia, spice, BATHSALTS)ILLEGAL.

I don't wanna give anyone the idea I'm saying more than that, so my last official statement...I have no more of a problem with homosexuals than i have with weed. I made the mistake of implying that because Elmo was gay people evaded looking at there being a problem with him f**king dudes 1/3 his age as long as they were legal even though he was on a kid show. The problem was 1/3age(legal or not) and KID SHOW. If he was the Hugh Hefner of Naked Men's Magazines I'd have no issue at all with him f**king dudes 1/3 his age. People evade all that because we can't say nothing bad about anyone gay. Bet if he was doing 18 year old girls while puppeting a kids show people woulda seen it in a different light because they wouldn't have to fear being categorized as closed minded. Especially if it was 18 year old White girls(being that above everything else...he's still black)...but that's another day. :cheers:

No beef with anyone, just discussion.
 
Last edited:
Not so much offensive as just so far off the orignal thread title the current discussion has no bearing or insight into he original issues (the voice of elmo being homosexual and hitting on young men)
 
Sexual deviance.

I remember a thread where I was told I was an idiot for relating it altogether.

Even if the kid was an adult(18), that dude was 47 or so messin with him? Just as bad as being 45 messin with a 16 year old. It'll all be legal soon though, notice the only thing wrong here is the GUY may have been underage...

Patraeus on the other hand had an ugly out of shape wife while practically running the world and got in a buncha headline news and trouble for getting some side poon from a woman who's more up to his speed than his wife coulda ever been. Tell me WTF's wrong.

16 to 18 is a difference in maturity to a solid degree. 45 to 47 is very insignificant.

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 AM ----------



^^^^
When you read that Elmo was a homosexual and a pedophile you mistakenly believed that it supported your prior slippery slope argument....that the social acceptance of homosexuality would lead to the social acceptance of shit like bestiality and pedophilia......you mistakenly felt vindicated and brought that shit up even though that Elmo shit does not support your original slippery slope argument at all.

In order for that Elmo the gay pedo shit to support your original slippery slope argument you must demonstrate that because people are willing to accept a gay puppeteer that means they will accept the same puppeteer if he turns out to be a pedophile......and I just don't see that shit happening.

You can categorize a whole bunch of shit together if you like but when you imply there is a slippery slope from one thing to another you had better demonstrate cause and effect, otherwise your argument does not hold water.


pedophilia means kids, there is a different term for teenagers. It's a different thing actualy. 16 year old = teen. After all a 9 year old boy and a 16 year old are very very different
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pedophilia means kids, there is a different term for teenagers. It's a different thing actualy. 16 year old = teen. After all a 9 year old boy and a 16 year old are very very different

Doesn't make it right and it is still illegal in many parts of the world.........whether the partner is 20 or 50, the law is the same: you cannot have consensual (or otherwise) sex with minors (those under the legal age).......
 
Simple answer...NO.

It appears as though we no longer disagree.

NOT DIRECTLY.

Huston we have a problem.

I believe for every action there's a reaction, and while I don't beleive RACE has much of anything to do with sexual preference I, a black man, beleive the civil rights movement influenced the gay rights movement(can't say they have nothing in common, we've already established everything can be related).

Obviously you are correct to believe that race doesn't have much of anything to do with sexual preference and it's perfectly acceptable to state that the black civil rights movement has something in common with the gay civil rights movement, as they are both civil rights movements, it is also not unreasonable to assume that the gay civil rights movement has been influenced by the black civil rights movement in terms of organization and opposition to discrimination, it could even be said that because both groups are discriminated against they share something in common, however the nature of discrimination is quite different as to are the rights being sought so there is no action and reaction (causality) between discrimination or acceptance based on race and discrimination or acceptance based on sexual preference, so any argument based on establishing imaginary causal links between race and sexual preference would be wrong.

I know for a fact out of desparation for something to relate to, people persuing gay rights have related their struggle to the rights of minorities in this country. They've used cases of racial discrimination where laws have been established to determine it's wrong as a foundation for their own agenda.

People can make any comparative argument they like but their arguments must be based on a valid comparison otherwise it's just nonsense, for example comparing the issue of gay marriage to laws that made interracial marriage illegal is quite unreasonable because those seeking interracial marriage did not propose altering the institution of marriage, only that people should not be excluded from that established institution based on race.

So to say a polygamist, incestor(?), Beastist(?), or even a pedophile doesn't have more of a point in relating their rights to homosexuality is obsurb, and the FACT remains that cases of just that happening are popping up all over the place as we speak. It won't be long before another battle is won, then another. Then comes more "acceptance".

Here is your problem, you are not just proposing that rights gained by one group will inspire some other group to also seek equality for their right to do something completely unrelated (which is not an unreasonable proposition given that people are prone to making such illogical comparisons to support their own agenda) it's that you validate the legitimacy of such comparisons to form the links of inference of your slippery slope argument ---> "It won't be long before another battle is won, then another. Then comes more acceptance".

Having established that people relate the gay movement to the civil rights movement would it have been reasonable to deny black people their rights in order to prevent gay people from wanting their rights too?......hell no. Obviously you believe as I do that race and sexual preference are not related at all.....unless someone needs them to be because it suits their agenda, like it could be argued that both gay people and black people have something in common because they are both discriminated against, but it's not really the same kind of discrimination is it? and therefor the rights being sought are quite different and each group is judged on it's own merits and not on the merits of irrelevant comparisons, same goes for any other group that feels discriminated against and wants rights, if they are seeking different rights to the group they are comparing themselves to then the comparison is irrelevant to whether or not their demand for equality is acceptable to society or not.

So to throw your own slippery slope arguement back in your face, do you really think the rights of gays to marry and parade their lifestyle in public in this country(US) is more comparable to the rights of a race(black, hispanic, asian, whatever, pick one), or more comparable to the rights of a polygamist who just wants to marry multiple wives and parade their beleifs around?

Your question does not present me with a slippery slope argument at all, it only asks if I think gay marriage rights are more comparable to polygamist marriage rights than they are to racial rights, and that's kind of like asking if a grey elephant is more comparable to a grey battleship than it is to a orange, yes the elephant and the battleship both have the color grey in common but apart from that they have just as much in common with each other as they do with the orange....that is to say not much at all.

Checkmate.

You sank my battle ship.

I think I will resign from this discussion now as there is not much more I can say other than, "thanks for sharing you opinion".
 
Back
Top