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

[Correll]

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

The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated.


Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy.


We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.


And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying.



Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.

 

[Correll]

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

IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.


To bad we didn't have one.

 

[G.T.]

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

The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated.


Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy.


We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.


And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying.



Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.

That's a misapprehension of the argument.

The reasons not to change marriage in the eyes of the state are what's arbitrary, and you've failed to address it. More deflection, more obfuscation, more crying "liberal."

Vacuous.

 

[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

IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.


To bad we didn't have one.

too*

Of course you aren't.

You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.

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.

 

[Correll]

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.

Your inability to not assume ill motives of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,


is your issue, not mine.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Your inability to not assume ill motives of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,


is your issue, not mine.

When you're inept @ addressing arguments head-on, and instead spend over 1, 000 posts misapprehending the (very basic) nature of the arguments...and then whining about your straw-man misapprehension as opposed to addressing why gay marriage should be prevented...it's logical to assume you're a dyed in the wool, cowardly bigot. Raise your paw

 

[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.

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

I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.

That is not avoidance.

 

[G.T.]

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

I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.

That is not avoidance.

It is avoidance.

You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.

Deflect to your corner, bigot.

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.

 

[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.

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.

They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.

your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.

 

[G.T.]

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.

They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.

your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.

Which premise are you having trouble with?

Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...

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.

 

[Correll]

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

The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated.


Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy.


We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.


And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying.



Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.

That's a misapprehension of the argument.

The reasons not to change marriage in the eyes of the state are what's arbitrary, and you've failed to address it. More deflection, more obfuscation, more crying "liberal."

Vacuous.

The person requesting the change, has to make the case for the change. In a real policy debate.

 

[Correll]

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

IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.


To bad we didn't have one.

too*

Of course you aren't.

You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.

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.

I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised.

For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.

 

[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

IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.


To bad we didn't have one.

too*

Of course you aren't.

You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.

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.

I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised.

For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.

Which premise? Sorry, all I've see you do is whine. You're a bigot, I don't respect you as a result and I'm not naive enough to presume that somebody in 2019 arguing against gay marriage is NOT a bigot, let alone have you presented a single fucking reason to prevent it with any meat on it (pun intended) whatsoever.

You're becoming a meme.

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.

 

[Correll]

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.

Your inability to not assume ill motives of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,


is your issue, not mine.

When you're inept @ addressing arguments head-on, and instead spend over 1, 000 posts misapprehending the (very basic) nature of the arguments...and then whining about your straw-man misapprehension as opposed to addressing why gay marriage should be prevented...it's logical to assume you're a dyed in the wool, cowardly bigot. Raise your paw

No, I think I spent a lot of time seriously and honestly discussing the issue with Prog, and managed to weed though the chaff, to find the crux of the matter.


That your response to me, discussing your inability to assume ill motives (specifically bigotry) of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,


is to just accuse me of being a bigot,


sort of sums it all up.

 

[Correll]

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

I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.

That is not avoidance.

It is avoidance.

You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.

Deflect to your corner, bigot.

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.

You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.


AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.


You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.

 

[Correll]

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.

They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.

your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.

Which premise are you having trouble with?

Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...

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.

Better, you managed to not call me a bigot, FOR ONE WHOLE POST IN A ROW!!!


Good for you.


Now, the issue is, that your presentation of the debate is false, because such as debate would never have been taken to the courts, it would have taken place in the legislatures.


To take it to the courts, you have to assume as a premise, that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary, and thus discrimination.


The very venue your side choose, based the discussion on a false premise, ie your conclusion.

 

[G.T.]

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

I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.

That is not avoidance.

It is avoidance.

You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.

Deflect to your corner, bigot.

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.

You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.


AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.


You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.

More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.

It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.

Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:

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.

 

[Correll]

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

IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.


To bad we didn't have one.

too*

Of course you aren't.

You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.

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.

I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised.

For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.

Which premise? Sorry, all I've see you do is whine. You're a bigot, I don't respect you as a result and I'm not naive enough to presume that somebody in 2019 arguing against gay marriage is NOT a bigot, let alone have you presented a single fucking reason to prevent it with any meat on it (pun intended) whatsoever.

You're becoming a meme.

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.

you could save time typing, by just saying "BIGOT".


Cause that is all you have.

 

[Correll]

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

I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.

That is not avoidance.

It is avoidance.

You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.

Deflect to your corner, bigot.

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.

You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.


AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.


You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.

More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.

It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.

Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:

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.

You don't get to try to pretend to be reasonable., when you open a debate with defining opposition to you, as bigotry.


That corrupts and invalidates the process.

 

[G.T.]

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.

They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.

your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.

Which premise are you having trouble with?

Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...

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.

Better, you managed to not call me a bigot, FOR ONE WHOLE POST IN A ROW!!!


Good for you.


Now, the issue is, that your presentation of the debate is false, because such as debate would never have been taken to the courts, it would have taken place in the legislatures.


To take it to the courts, you have to assume as a premise, that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary, and thus discrimination.


The very venue your side choose, based the discussion on a false premise, ie your conclusion.

That's an assertion, not an argument. The lack of reasoning behind the continued exclusion when there's a represented segment of society presenting it - is a case. You're unable to address it as one, nevertheless. That's because instead of advising why you're personally against gay marriage, all you're doing is whining about how it was presented in the 1st place. You've provided no argument against changing marriage.