As I've said before, picking at semantics is an idiot's way of debating in an argument.
Also there really is no point to address your post because you literally vomited out the same shit that has been addressed multiple times before if you weren't getting so stupidly hung up on "Ohhhh, it's not exactly the saaaaame as gay marriage!!!"
Seriously, do you guys have anything new and interesting to add to the table or is it all going to be dumb semantic nonsense and I might as well lock the thread?
If I wanted to debate semantics, I would debate semantics. If I say "it's a terrible analogy," I mean "it's a terrible analogy." I'll try to be less polite about it next time so people don't get confused. I really ought to get it into my head that some people get confused by having an opposing point presented to them without insults. My whole point was the the similarities are entirely superficial; you'd think that would come across when I listed all the things that are why it is wrong to oppose gay marriage and how none of them apply to this situation, or when I said the analogy is just as apt for a blatantly idiotic cause I made up on the spot, or when I said how important I think gay marriage rights are followed by an entire paragraph about why the situation could be just as bad in a perfectly legal way and nobody would think it fair to oppose it. If I didn't know better I'd think nobody read what I said.
But, by all means, if we're disallowing disagreeing with any analogy as long as somebody can give the slightest justification, by all means tell me. I'd be happy to make the point that killing a topic while I'm typing in it is just like Nazis gassing Jews.