then fine yo can pay taxes to support these married leches, while I prefer to keep my money for myself.
i do not force you to keep your money for yourself and you should not force me to give my money to someone i do not support.
You don't get to arbitrarily decide that you should get to keep all your money for yourself. The taxes you pay are part of your obligation for living in your country, and you don't have the right to not pay those taxes simply because you don't agree with certain things the government spends that money on. If you really cannot stand paying for married 'leeches', then I suggest you find a country which doesn't give that kind of benefit to married people, or else become a political activist to try to change things in your country.
So, assuming situation where slave is supporting slavery but wants so get personal freedom you will support that slave so that he could become slave master?
i definitely do not agree with that. if you are slave and you think slavery is right then be slave until you develop single standard for everyone.
That isn't even remotely analogous to what you're talking about here. Find a better example.
not exactly so.
as i said on other post it is same as helping for slave to get freedom when that slave is supporting slavery and wants to become slave master himself.
That has nothing at all to do with this subject, and it is a remarkably senseless argument to use in the first place. We aren't talking about slaves, and you can't possibly come up with an argument good enough to prove a connection between equal rights for various groups and slavery.
and whats wrong with that?
If you think nothing is wrong with it, then by all means give up all your own rights that are not shared by every group. Then you can find out for yourself just what's wrong with your attitude here.
you are assuming that all these people are acting their fantasies in reality. nobody demands to let necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses in public.
also i can equally demand you to prove that i wont give job for gay unless you prove that no one of gays ever raped another man.
and finally whats wrong with using a depiction of a real child as a sex object? does that mean you also forbid people masturbate by looking at the images of corpses?
why is that ever important if they are not harming anyone?
No, what's ridiculous is the distinctions you're trying to parse. You're the one trying to say that these people should have the legal right to indulge in their fetishes
. Except that you're not actually talking about the full-blown fetish itself, you're talking about a 'harmless' version of it, like masturbating to the picture of a corpse or the likeness of a child ("nobody demands to let necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses in public"...well, nobody's demanding that gay people should have sex in public either; apples and oranges). And then you're trying to compare it to the legal right for gay people to marry. And that's nonsense, plain and simple. Get your argument straight before you make it look even worse than it already is.
Your statement about giving, or not giving, gay people jobs is equally nonsensical. I could just as easily ask you about whether it's appropriate to give any straight person a job unless one can prove that no straight person has ever committed rape, and it would make just as much sense...which is to say, no sense at all. What it looks like you're saying is that gay people have to be held to the much higher standard that nobody who is gay has ever committed a crime, and that's a ludicrous way of looking at it.
As far as using the depiction of a real child as a sex object, I was referring more to using a depiction of a child having sex for that purpose. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
then what objective criteria you are going to use for qualification?
What you don't get is that you aren't suggesting "objective criteria" in any way, shape, or form. You're simply saying that nothing is 'okay' unless everything is 'okay', and that's not being objective. That's being extremist. Objective criteria would be things like, "does doing this risk hurting someone? If so, has the person in question shown that they are responsible enough to be trusted doing this?" And so on.
maybe we should say that all perversions that start with letters H are good ones and ones that start with P are forbidden?
Maybe you should refrain from making comments such as this. They don't do anything but put egg on your face.