Almalieque wrote:
What is your definition of "tangent", because we obviously have two different definitions. If I give an example of a scenario to support my claim, that isn't a tangent. It becomes a tangent when you all counter my scenario arguing an unrelated point. When I counter your argument to the unrelated point, that is when I support the tangent.
For example, I argue "go down south and make a right" and you argue that "go down south and make a left". I counter to say, I'm sure you make a right at the red house. You counter to say "That's not red, its Fusia!" Then I say, "no it's red, look at the definition of red". That's how we get on a tangent.
Call it whatever you want. Whether or not they're "tangents" isn't really the crux of my point, Alma.
Quote:
1. Separate but Equal: No one has shown how the law is different or changes for different individuals. Unless you can show that, then you haven't proven anything. Even if you did find a law that did so, my initial point was that the only reason why "Separate but Equal" didn't work was because it wasn't equal, i.e. the school facilities. I'm arguing on the concept of Separate but Equal. So you would have to show how being an equal but segregated schools are really not equal. Just like how there are all girl schools and all boy schools
Actually, I don't have to show that, so I won't.
Since you just tuned out my points back when I derided your use of that fair/equal business before, I doubt you'll get it now, but here we go anyway:
They don't have an
equal opportunity to marry the person that they love/want. That is an inequality. I can't make it simpler than that. And before you go on with "No, that's unfair, not unequal": That is a correct and accurate usage of the word "equal." Therefore it stands to reason. I don't care how
you want to define the words.
Quote:
2. Constitution: That document, which has been amended throughout it's creation, is evident that country has changed laws that the people felt were violating citizen rights. Are you denying that? If you aren't, which I assume you aren't, then you can't use "tradition" as the reason why SSM is banned. It's banned because of the current people.
Who argued that "tradition is the reason why SSM is banned"? Where did you get that? You brought up the Constitution, remember? The burden is still on you to show evidence proving your point about that. You conveniently ignored Joph's rebuttal back then asking you to provide it. I think you should go back and read that segment of the thread again.
Quote:
So no, you haven't proven anything.
To you, no. Of course not. And I don't expect to, because you're thick as a brick. This is an exercise in futility.
