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

[G.T.]

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - ....

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

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.

 

[Correll]

As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - ....

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

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.

 

[G.T.]

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - ....

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

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.

At least you abandoned the horseshit about the premise being the conclusion

 

[Correll]

Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineptitude in addressing the compelling reasons to exclude them - it's yet another concession, and absent a compelling reason to exclude them it then BECOMES a case for discrimination, and of your own doing in refusing to give any compelling reason to exclude them.

Is it because you know "theyre icky" is too obvious?

More icing. More winning.

 

[Correll]

THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.


For you.

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.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

"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."


it IS discrimination.

and greed
and unfair
and immoral

It is WRONG to deny gays the right to marry.

What words can I use that won't piss a conservative off?


you want to feel GOOD about denying people rights so you spin the discussion as though LIBERALS are BAD because they "deny you your right to discriminate against and punish gays without anyone daring to call it discrimination"

gays deserve the right to marry.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

"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."


it IS discrimination.

and greed
and unfair
and immoral

It is WRONG to deny gays the right to marry.

What words can I use that won't piss a conservative off?


you want to feel GOOD about denying people rights so you spin the discussion as though LIBERALS are BAD because they "deny you your right to discriminate against and punish gays without anyone daring to call it discrimination"

gays deserve the right to marry.

You're jumping in pretty late. Go back about 50 pages, and read it. We covered this issue very well. Trump me, Prog did as well as any lib could have done.



It is not his fault that he lost so badly.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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."

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

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.

I see.
you DEMAND that liberals discuss the issue the way YOU frame it!

by accusing THEM of discussing it THEIR WAY!

very tricky of you....

cleverly forcing liberals to discuss the issue the way you frame it by accusing them of your own crimes!


tricky evil conservatives......

why don't you just admit that you want to feel GOOD about denying gays rights.


admit it.

don't be PC.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

I see.
you DEMAND that liberals discuss the issue the way YOU frame it!

by accusing THEM of discussing it THEIR WAY!

very tricky of you....

cleverly forcing liberals to discuss the issue the way you frame it by accusing them of your own crimes!


tricky evil conservatives......

why don't you just admit that you want to feel GOOD about denying gays rights.


admit it.

don't be PC.

Aside from your lumping in all conservatives...you're about right ... Correll is failing quite miserably and also has no nuts to adequatly express his real bone to pick.

 

[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.

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.

I see.
you DEMAND that liberals discuss the issue the way YOU frame it!

by accusing THEM of discussing it THEIR WAY!

very tricky of you....

cleverly forcing liberals to discuss the issue the way you frame it by accusing them of your own crimes!


tricky evil conservatives......

why don't you just admit that you want to feel GOOD about denying gays rights.


admit it.

don't be PC.

What is my assumption that I am asking them to accept before discussion?

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.