Definitely better online. For several reasons. One big reason being that no one can interrupt you. You say what you have to say in one message, send it, they read it ALL, and fight back. The communication is just overall better online rather in person, as soon as you know someone is going to say something you don't agree with, you'll refuse to listen to the whole thing and start attacking.
Hey, that's not nice. So what if someone doesn't have a social life? I don't have a social life and I'm happier than the average person. I think the internet offers more than the average human being ever will to me. And, it's more fulfilling.
Hahaha, ya, that's right! Debating in person is just a recipe for disaster these days. Or a recipe of dust -listens to crickets-. A couple years ago when I was dating an ex and we didn't communicate well at all (but got along), I would get frustrated with talking to him in person and just be like, "I'll chat with you tonight when I get home." Hehe. I'm just willing to throw all communication onto the internet. But there's still that missing element of seeing their non-verbal language that's quite integral most of the time.
I think you should define "lots." Because, I mean, 6 hours on a computer, no problem, but ALL day, that would be a problem. Also, I see problems with sitting at a computer consecutively for hours; that is just not right. I'm on my computer pretty much between 8am and 9pm everyday (unless I'm not home, of course), but I'm pretty much always getting up and doing stuff at the same time. So, I overall don't see a problem, but it depends how "long" you're seriously on it and what you're doing on it. So, I'll say yes.
It's not much as frightening as it is disappointing because it's one other topic showing how the government has no integrity. It's like a straight up lie, really; "you have the right to marry, but if the majority public doesn't want you (same sex couples) to marry, then you shall not." Wonderful. The government may as well just disappear since they have no balls to make sure the actual "rights" are being upheld.
I'm with the Democrats more than the Republicans for the very reason that they're more open to change. Life changes, and they're willing to change the laws with it. I'll never understand the Republican stand to keep everything as if it's still 1776.
In my head, the question isn't "should we stop" it's "could we stop." And the answer is a huge no. We're too advanced and too many people develop technology that there's no way to possibly stop advancing it if it was declared we should. Should we though? Maybe in some areas, like with warfare. But it just won't happen.
I don't believe gay marriage hurts anyone. The only people truly making it such a mad case is religious people. Sure, marriage is somewhat an act out of religion, but like others said, what is it if someone unreligious gets married? If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Being against gay marriage really comes down to what people that follow the bible say the bible says. Which makes gay marriage against the bible, right? But then again, every single person on this planet is doing lots of stuff against the bible. So, really, what gives these religious people the right to say someone can't do something they disapprove of? Otherwise, I'd like to meet a non-religious person, or even a person acquainted with gay's, who is against gay marriage. (Just because it proves my case otherwise that it's all about religious bitching and it has not one thing to do with them personally). So, really, gay marriage is hurting those that let it hurt them for no rightful reason.
