Women's suffrage, many, many years ago, would have been in the same boat that gay rights are now. Go back many years before that, and slavery would be similarly as controversial. Do you not understand that?

Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous. Those issues have had decades to pass from controversial to relatively settled to settled.

Age of an issue does not dictate importance.

> Saying that gay rights aren't as fundamental of an issue because it's not as cut and dry today as women's suffrage and slavery are today is patently ridiculous.

That's really not what I wrote at all, though.

"Just because you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage does not mean that, as a political issue, gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage."

That's exactly what that part of your sentence says, unless I am reading this incorrectly.

I think you're reading it incorrectly. You're interpreting it backwards from what I intended.

X = "you believe that gay rights are as fundamental as women's suffrage"

Y = "gay rights are as decided nationwide as women's suffrage"

All I wrote is that X does not imply Y. You seen to be interpreting it, though, as (not Y) implies (not X), the contrapositive of which is X does imply Y, which is basically the opposite of what I meant.