This has nothing to do with civil rights or anti-gay laws and if you equate it to that then I continue my battle.
The equivalence is just *whooosh* straight over your head, isn't it?
Why do you think homosexuality eventually became accepted? Because it harms no one. Whether or not its a choice or something people are born with is pretty irrelevant - its all about the benefit/harm, and by making it illegal and demonising homosexuality, so much unnecessary harm has been done.
EXACT same thing with weed being illegal. All this unnecessary harm has been done to many people across a massive span of time. If a government makes a law that seems arbitrary, going against what actual science says, causing harm when there can be so much benefit; this is a violation of people's fundamental freedom.
This isn't just basic humanity and empathy but basic logic.
You seem to be lacking all 3.
For some reason that you have YET to articulate; you find the concept of respecting the personal freedoms of other people to be laughable.
See, I actually think that basically,
people should be able to do whatever they WANT, as long as they are causing no harm, and that if a government restricts this without valid justification (for example, being able to demonstrate what the harm is in the action) then that government is wrong on that issue and that anyone who respects freedom - the basic, personal freedom underlined above - ought to support changing this policy so that the basic freedoms of people ARE respected and isn't simply arbitrarily abused.
Thought experiment:
The government has banned people from listening to Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan's been banned for many years now. The ban has been justified with stereotypes and massive exaggerations, sometimes even lies, about the effects of listening to Bob Dylan (may be a gateway to drugs, for example, with no actual evidence to back such statements). Despite this being illegal, maybe even partly to spite this restriction, many millions of people break this law. Many people have went to prison for non-violent offences, effectively ruining any prospects of decent work, good people are treated like criminals. Many people who break this law feel it is is their right; that they ought to have the personal freedom to listen to Bob Dylan as they are harming no one by doing so.
There's a word for what kind of government does that.
Imagine the alternate-world version of YOU, that gloats over people being put in prison for such a silly, arbitrary law, and ad hominems the people that celebrate and line up at the music shops when Bob Dylan becomes legal. There's a word, for that person that gloats and seems to lack empathy, or any respect for the personal freedoms of others.
The fact that, APPARENTLY, this sort of analogy hasn't occurred to you, the ramifications of laughing off the freedoms of other people hasn't occurred to you, speaks volumes on your inability to reason.
Everyone can have an opinion and so can I. I can state mine on here. Some people probably think queuing at Comiccon overnight is stupid. That has nothing to do with the topic. Weed isn't even in the same league as seeing a panel at Hall H or a man not being able to marry his boyfriend in most states. Grasping at those straws....
What straws? What are you talking about? You've been utterly unable to articulate your opinion and you show no understanding that this opinion of yours is entirely subjective. The basic logic and equivalence of these issues has went over your head.
Weed isn't even in the same league...
That's subjective. It's in no way factual. Note the difference - I'm actually able to articulate a benefit/harm equivalence in respect to people's freedoms regarding these issues. You just... state these silly subjective views of yours as though they were fact, and expect the rest of us to just take it on face value, as though what you're saying should be obvious without you even having to explain what you mean. It's obvious to you alone. I earlier exposed a glaring hole in your black and white view of following the law; you were not able to actually address this glaring contradiction in your own view. You need to actually explain why it is you think harmless personal freedoms should not be respected. If the issues I have brought up to expose the contradiction in your view aren't equivalent, explain why, if you want your view to be taken seriously back it up with something other than 'its my opinion'. And at the very least, show SOME understanding that your statements are subjective.
I've determined that perhaps you really aren't trolling. For whatever reason, you don't take the time to engage with reasoning and critical thinking and just fire out your biases without any sort of self-reflection which ends with these really embarrassing (you should be embarrassed) posts.