Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 6:32 PM
LearningCommunity, a tangent here, but reading through all of your comments, I note that you state your positions with civility and don't rise to personal attacks against you. Well done.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 6:23 PM
No, I'm not forgetting anything. The fact that a person is inside another person's body and dependent on them does not negate their personhood. But the "pro-choice" side has to engage in all manner of intellectual gymnastics in order to deny the personhood of the unborn.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 6:07 PM
Because although they claimed the name of Christ, their hearts were far from him. Duh.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 6:04 PM
Like the words "life" and "death," the definition of marriage has not changed. Marriage has been a civil and/or spiritual union between a man and a woman from its inception eons ago. At what point did this union between a man and woman become wrong? Never has. Slavery has always been wrong. False equivalence.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:56 PM
LOL, sure, we can substitute the words "powers" and "sovereignty" for "rights" if you want to.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:54 PM
Haha, If you want to falsely cite Godwins Law, we can always substitute "Rwandan genocide" and "Tutsi" for "Holocaust" and "Jew."
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:46 PM
It has everything to do with guns and light bulbs. If you restrict the choices you'll allow other people to have to that of abortion, you're really not about choice at all. You simply condone the culture of death and wrap it in terminology like "choice." Choice isn't something you really believe in, it's just a rhetorical fig leaf.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:42 PM
True, Hawkins shouldn't use "God's definition" with people who do not share the presupposition of God's existence. But he could have replaced "God's" with "the" and the question would be equally valid. You dismiss polygamy and incest as red herrings and say they can be debated, but don't debate them. If you can take marriage, which has always meant the same thing since its inception, and change it to something else, i.e., to include people of the same sex, by what logic or morality do you limit it to two people of the same sex? Why not more? Who are you to tell more than two people who love each other that they can't enjoy the benefits of marriage?
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:35 PM
More logical fallacy from JetLaces. The concept of states' rights was used, invalidly, as an argument protecting illegal discrimination, ergo, states' rights = bigotry. That's like saying that because of the Spanish Inquisition, adherence to the teachings of Christ = torture and murder. Are you in high school? The Fourteenth Amendment does not invalidate the idea of Federalism.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:31 PM
Ah, it's the "Don't like abortions, don't have one" non-argument. Akin to "Don't like the Holocaust, don't kill a Jew." Guess what? A market for hellholes like Gosnell's don't require laws against abortion. They exist in their absence. What creates that market is the mentality that an unborn life is no life at all. The view that condones abortion is not distinct from the view that condones infanticide. It's just a matter of degree.
In response to:

20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

Huguenot Wrote: Apr 20, 2013 5:27 PM
So it's okay for a child inside an orphanage and living off its system, to be killed? It's the choice of the orphanage, right?
Previous 11 - 20 Next