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