[kahljorn]

Didn't you argue earlier that divorce ought to be illegal? How can I debate you when you aren't consistent?

No. I didn't argue anything ;/ Actually what I said was smething like, "I a gree, but then you could ask w hat would be worse for the family" and then I went on to mention that there is a difference between divorced families and families without two parents. All in the same paragraph. It's on this page, scroll up and read.

But why does your arguement that interracial marriage devalues marriage even between people of the opposite sex not apply to these other racially-mixed institutions?

Well, for one, because race is irrelevant to this entire issue (which I pointed out in my first p ost but you guys kept arguing over) and like 80% of the shit I said about racial marriages was an obvious joke that idiots like yo u and dimnos couldn't pick up on and continued to argue over because you knew you couldn't counter any of the other arguments.

and I'm sure if I thought about it a while I could figure out why they are different. I could probably just point out that they are different institutions which serve different purposes, and that education isn't as much of an umbrella institution as marriage.. Or I could point out that there wasn't any long-term effect on school attendance (even though I'm sure there was one at some point). Or that there was still a lot of segregation. Or that black people aren't fucking white people with books. I don't know.

And I might have been able to find it if you didn't write such convoluted prose.

Yea, ok. That post I made in response to you was like two paragraphs. If you had bothered to read it rather than skim it for crap your stock arguments applied to you would've noticed it.

At least I have the gumption and intelligence to argue something I've never argued before or even read arguments about. You on the other hand argue things everybody has heard probably ten thousand times.

I shouldn't have to refute something as stupid as your arguement that racial marriage devalues the institution of marriage. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, you haven't once revealed your real views on these issues. How can I be expected to duel you blindfolded?

Ok. ITS JUST TWO STOPID. you're a jackass. Go chase your tail elsewhere. Besides begging the question, what are you appealing to here?

Nobody here would argue against gay marriage. Just like nobody here would really argue for that whole futurism thing. All y ou're doing is representing the cliche, and your arguments are so mainstream right now ;/ This thread wouldn't have gotten past page two without me arguing something I don't even really believe in.

I don't have to believe in my counter-arguments for them to be relevant criticisms.

and actually I did state my views (or a view anyway) on this issue a couple of times and you ignored them like a jackass because it wasn't something you could throw your stock arguments out at. I've only mentioned this in like 30 posts in this thread but apparantly you're too much of a dipshit to realize it.
Go fuck yourself.
If you're going to argue, argue, but fuck this crap. I'm not going to sit around and justify myself to you any further.

And you're not arguing blind folded

and don't tell me you are arguing your view, that's ridiculous ;/ Nothing you have said is new or novel. You are adopting a view just as much as I am.