Judge Strikes Down Indiana Ban on Gay Marriage (attorney, military, education)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess you can't read very well, maybe that is why you only respond to one line of each post. I am against government marriage 100%, but AS LONG AS IT EXISTS, it should not be reserved for a certain group of people.
Harrier can read just fine, he is multi-tasking as he discusses this topic, and he has to be somewhere in half an hour.
He doesn't have time to respond to each of your separate lines, especially when you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
You cannot be 100% against government marriage and simultaneously want to expand government intrusion into marriage.
Harrier can read just fine, he is multi-tasking as he discusses this topic, and he has to be somewhere in half an hour.
So he chooses to be intellectually dishonest and cherry pick. He chooses to be a horrid debater, check.
Quote:
He doesn't have time to respond to each of your separate lines, especially when you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
And he doesn't know the meaning of the words inconsistent or hypocritical, he only understands black and white. This is called ignorance.
Quote:
You cannot be 100% against government marriage and simultaneously want to expand government intrusion into marriage.
Making the government stop discrimination is not increasing government intrusion, it is making them be fair about the CURRENT LEVEL OF INTRUSION. It is a start towards more equality.
Quote:
So make up your mind.
I already did, you are just too dense to understand it. You don't get it, and that is not my problem.
Quote:
Which is it?
Look who doesn't know what a "false dichotomy" is... the fact that you are trying to shove me into a false dichotomy just shows your dishonesty and ignorance on the subject. Any well-informed, skilled, debater knows to stay away from those.
Thank you, it is obvious he hasn't taken a debate class, so this is low-hanging fruit for me... But hey, call me Gallager, I have no problem crushing low-hanging fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
You got that backwards - Harrier is crushing Xanders.
Funny, because you are the only person who thinks that. We have limited input from an outside view, and it says 100% that I am crushing you.
Quote:
At least Harrier is consistent - Xanders is all over the map and doesn't even know what his stance really is.
No, Harrier just keeps proving he doesn't know what the word consistent means.... this contributes to this merciless cush-fest.
Quote:
Xanders would make a perfect Democrat politician.
Yeah, seeing how I am anti-tax, anti-welfare, etc...
This just further proves that YOU do not understand my position, trying to paint me as a democrat, ha ha. It also proves you are stuck in the two party duopoly, which is not known for well-educated free thinkers.
You have cited the politically correct, redefinition of marriage.
A word does not mean something because some people wrote a book and decided that is the definition.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Period.
Really, you don't appear to have any principles which you will defend: you let other people define words just because they happened to write a book, you claim to want to get government out of the marriage business yet you also want to expand government involvement in it, and you call others hypocrites while being a hypocrite yourself.
Draw a line and hold it, man.
You sound like John Kerry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.