Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage-Get a Life!

[G.T.]

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...

and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..

then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."

Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.


That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.

Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.

I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.

The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.

That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.

Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.

The Cake has been tasty.

 

[G.T.]

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.

You're obfuscating, yet again.

The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.

No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.

You're unable to refute that.

If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.

They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.

NEXT!

uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.

Wow you're recklessly obtuse.

You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".


They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.

That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.

All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.

Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.

#winning4liberty

Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.

This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.

The opponents of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do

At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.

Game over

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

....al.

And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.


Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?

Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust

Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.


Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.

Game over

 

[Correll]

Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.

The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....

The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.


That is all you have here.


And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.

AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.

No, thats a mere reading for comprehension issue, and yet ANOTHER concession and failure to address the issue, on your part. Back to your corner. dont melt down, now

Exclude: deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.

definition exclude - Google Search

Nope. Looks like my reading comprehension is just fine. When you use the word, "exclude" you are assuming the premise that a same sex couple is only barred from Marriage due to the action of someone, not due to the form and purpose of the institution not fitting them.



My example about the football club, still stands.

I think you're chasing your tail, Correll. Its "revisit to include" if there's "no compelling reason to exclude."

You're forgetting the first part in the quotations, there.

How derp are you if this is seriously how desperate you are to avoid the issue...merely to hide that you're just a fuckin bigot?

What the fuck Logic...lets try this...forget the State, Laws...forget all that shit youre getting your ass beat on and tell me YOUR, PERSONAL argument for not reframing civil marriage to include gays.

Maybe your fucking honesty might come and play.

Let's not forget gays are fathers & that gay couples are families before you hurr dee durr your previously failed commentary on fatherhood.

Yeah, you try to sound like you're up for a serious discussion,


but this gives it away.


"merely to hide that you're just a fucking bigot?"


Merely NOT agreeing immediately, is characterized as being a bigot. And that only works, if you are working with your conclusion as the premise.



This policy was not decided on by consensus, or debate, or even legal tactics.


The primary process was a con.

 

[Correll]

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...

and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..

then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."

Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.


That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.

Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.

I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.

The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.

That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.

Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.

The Cake has been tasty.

You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.

 

[Correll]

If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.

They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.

NEXT!

uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.

Wow you're recklessly obtuse.

You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".


They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.

That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.

All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.

Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.

#winning4liberty

Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.

This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.

The opponents of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do

At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.

Game over

I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).


This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.

 

[Correll]

And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.


Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?

Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust

Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.


Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.

Game over

Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".


That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.


Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.



The basis of this policy, was a con.

 

[G.T.]

If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...

and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..

then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."

Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.


That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.

Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.

I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.

The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.

That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.

Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.

The Cake has been tasty.

You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.

You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's actually an argument.

For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.

You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?

Here, let me demonstrate:

Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.

Correll: <We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >

premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.

Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.

That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.

Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:

GT:

P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.




Correll's response:

nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.







"Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.

Wow you're recklessly obtuse.

You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".


They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.

That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.

All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.

Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.

#winning4liberty

Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.

This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.

The opponents of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do

At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.

Game over

I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).


This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.

Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!

 

[G.T.]

Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust

Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.


Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.

Game over

Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".


That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.


Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.



The basis of this policy, was a con.

Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.

It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.

Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.

Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".

An admission? It was a statement of fact. The restrictions were arbitrary and the courts agreed

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.

You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story

 

[G.T.]

That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.

You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story

We are on post #1, 274 - the mud is concrete.

 

[Correll]

Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.


That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.

Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.

I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.

The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.

That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.

Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.

The Cake has been tasty.

You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.

You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's actually an argument.

For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.

You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?

Here, let me demonstrate:

Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.

Correll: <We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >

premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.

Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.

That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.

Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:

GT:

P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.




Correll's response:

nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.







"Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.

Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.

 

[G.T.]

Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.

I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.

The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.

That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.

Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.

The Cake has been tasty.

You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.

You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's actually an argument.

For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.

You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?

Here, let me demonstrate:

Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.

Correll: <We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >

premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.

Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.

That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.

Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:

GT:

P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.




Correll's response:

nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.







"Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.

Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.

How is bigotry not assumed your motive when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason to disallow the re-structure of the institution?

Beuller? Beuller?

Sit down already, you goof. If you had an argument and weren't just a goober hiding his bigotry, you'd fucking present it. Grow up.

 

[Correll]

You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".


They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.

That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.

All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.

Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.

#winning4liberty

Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.

This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.

The opponents of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do

At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.

Game over

I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).


This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.

Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!

Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?


Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking". You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.

 

[G.T.]

That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.

All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.

Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.

#winning4liberty

Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.

This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.

The opponents of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do

At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.

Game over

I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).


This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.

Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!

Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?


Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking". You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.

^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion

 

[Correll]

Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.


Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.

Game over

Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".


That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.


Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.



The basis of this policy, was a con.

Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.

It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.

Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.

Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.

It is on the person wanting change to make the case for the change.


Your side's primary tactic for this, was the con of insisting that your conclusion be the premise for the discussion. And you succeeded.


That invalidates the result.

 

[G.T.]

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably

True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.

Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.

Game over

Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".


That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.


Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.



The basis of this policy, was a con.

Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.

It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.

Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.


Try again, kiddy corner:

P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.