I said one could argue you're implying you're a homophobe. Not that you said you were.
No, what you actually said was this:
By your logic, you would be a homophobe.
You didn't say anything about implying.
If I said those things it would be reasonable to infer that I was racist.
I don't think that's a reasonable inference at all. In fact, it is ridiculously short sighted.
Not everyone is a racist just because they offer an opinion against the politically correct way of doing things where race is involved.
In the same way that it is reasonable to infer that you don't like gay people or that mike is developmentally challenged.
Your first statements weren't reasonable inferences to begin with, and now you're jumping off the deep end of completely ridiculous. Maybe you should stick to reading what someone says and not inferring anything.
I wonder how many people who are against SSM are also right to lifers? Conversely I wonder how many people who are for SSM are pro-choice? Probably a heck of a lot of over lap there. I guess some people are just into controlling others.
I would suggest very few people are "into controlling others". Those who are pro-life or anti-SSM are merely defending their personal beliefs, the same as those who are of the opposite point of view.
Try to think of it from the perspective of the other side. I think of it like this: Are you against murder? I would guess you are. Well, many "pro-life" advocates think abortion is the same as murder. To them, wanting abortion to be illegal isn't any more of an attempt to "control others" than wanting murder to be illegal - it's just a logical decision. Would you argue that those who want murder to be illegal are trying to "control others"? Probably not.
The difference is, by withholding SSM, we're controlling how others live their lives. By allowing SSM, nobody is controlling how you live your life.
By withholding marriage to a bridge or a tree, you're controlling how others live their lives.
society is better when people have the right to do things that they want to do when what they want to do does not directly hurt others, especially when they simply want to do things that are legal for the majority of the population.
Drinking is legal for the majority of the population. So is smoking. Should we lift the age restrictions and let children freely purchase those products as well?
Society changes, and our institutions should be able to change with them.
Yes, and I think we should also let people marry a bridge or a tree. Where are your advocates for that? Oh, right, they don't exist because they only care about the homosexual agenda.