The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Ezpz

smart countries have stipulated in the constitution that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. so that degenerates are not allowed.

Rewind 100 years.

OP: "I believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote because voting is what a man does at the ballot. If we allow women to vote, it's essentially rewriting the English language's definition of the word."

If you post a thread to start a debate, and your opening statement is already entirely based on semantics, you've lost already.

I don't care if you think I have lost or that it was pure semantics. I do notice that you made a false analogy and thought you made an argument.

I did not make an argument. I did make a valid analogy though.

I'd have posed a counter-argument if your original post had offered a substantial argument to begin with.

This post was edited by Leevee on Aug 14 2022 04:39pm

ah yes my "favourite" "asian" "female" stormfront "contributor"

This post was edited by 18nomaUSEast on Aug 14 2022 04:42pm

Correct.



It's not. It was a false analogy.



There is an argument. You just call it semantics so you can wave it away.

You still read my threads even though you can't handle me.

The analogy was correct, and yes, it was purely semantics.

If you insist that your argument is valid, then please go ahead and share an example of a proposed law change which has been rejected based on the reasoning that a pre-existing legal term would no longer have abided by the English definition of a certain word. Call this a precedent, if you will.

Unless you are able to do that, your "argument" (I scoff at the usage of that word to describe your narrative) is bogus.

This post was edited by Leevee on Aug 14 2022 04:45pm

I don't give a shit whether you think my argument is bogus or it's purely semantics. I do notice that you have made no argument, which you yourself admitted to.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Aug 14 2022 04:50pm