dr wadd

Sorry to have to point this out, but if you want to make a point then it is helpful if you use the words that actually convey that point.

But, since you want to switch definitions mid-flow, if we are to go purely by numerical superiority, the majority of people do not have, and this is but one example, Down`s Syndrome. Do you want to treat those individuals as second class citizens?[/QUOTE]


I can find you plenty of examples of cultures where it has been acceptable to use young boys for sexual pleasure. You were the one arguing that we should adopt the example of history as a reason for the banning of gay marriage. You are using historic examples as your benchmark. Further, you are arguing that the weight of history lends it a certain degree of credibility. I can provide historic examples of the acceptability of buggering young boys, so following your argument, it must still be acceptable now.

Or could this be another example of citing an argument that is entirely dependent on you picking and choosing which aspects are valid purely on the grounds of whether they support your opinion or not?
__________________

But there were people using the same argument for mixed race marriages. Those people look pretty damn stupid now, dare I say even bigotted. It must be comforting to have such confidence in the veracity of your statements, or is it merely proving the case that ignorance is indeed bliss?