Get a life? I am doing homework while I write this. I just happen to be at my computer, so this what I do for fun. I like to be engaged in politics. I suppose that probably explains my current lack of a girlfriend (although I'm sure my defense of gays would give people other ideas).
Ahh, the classic youth argument. You don't attack my ideas, you just attack my ideas. I see how it is. You are studying for your masters, and I am just a lowly undergraduate. This is the sort of thing that makes professors into gods of liberalism, spouting out their tripe to impressionable undergrads. If you have a problem with my opinions, or even my phrasings, attack those. Please don't try and use my age against me. Oh, and I'm actually studying psychology and political science here at OSU, and I plan on attending law school to specialize in Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Describing insulting names as stupid is not an ad hominem attack. It's merely using the adjective I believe most aptly describes those little tidbits of crap that seem to be thrown about so much these days by the right and the left. I believe strongly in calling a spade a spade. Let's hear your defense of "Hitlery" or "Dummocraps". I'm sure it will be very profound and intelligent-sounding.
I love the use of the word sophist. It subtly reinforces your superiority to me, and somewhat accurately describes my (very real) enjoyment of debate. Although I'd of course debate whether my reasoning is actually poor, I'm amused greatly.
None of this changes these facts:
1) The Texas law before the US supreme court bans anal sex between homosexual males but not between anyone else.
2) The 14th amendment to the US Constitution requires states apply their laws equally across all citizens.
3) The Texas law is therefore unconstitutional.
I love my syllogisms. They make things so clear.
And master-debater is a term of honor in my book.
Although I'd of course debate whether my reasoning is actually poor, I'm amused greatly.Well at least you are honest about sophistry. It also points to the root of my passion in this debate; A total hatred argueing for sport. I've seen it go bad too many times. That interests me more than this issue.
You don't attack my ideas, you just attack my ideas. You're right...I guess, if I can infer that you mean personal rather than ideas twice. I was trying to cut to the chase, but it is poor form. I am sorry.
I will take your 1st of 3 items as true, and say then that they are valid. While I seriously doubt the law refers to homosexuals by name, the larger point here is Santorum's right to make the comparison that overturning this issue, not for reasons you list but because of a bedroom-zone of Right To Privacy is a far more dangerous precedent Constitutionally than any fear that leaving it creates a "bedroom cop." You argued earlier about the importance of precedent and the Constitution. While I disagree passionately, I will say that there are many who would agree with law is based on precedent, and that makes this case all the more important.
I've noticed you hit on the Prof aspect a few times, that does make people more arguementative, being shovel fed that tripe. Take heart, this is the last time in your life, as long as you live, that those fools have any power over you and you can spank them in any debate once you graduate. Liberalism is dead in the real world
And master-debater is a term of honor in my book Don't say that! Say it out loud real quick 3 times and you'll get the silly joke referring to an earlier topic on here. (Most people don't, feel free to slip that into debates)