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

[G.T.]

^ 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.

I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.

 

[Correll]

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......

1. NO, there is an argument there. It is one me and prog went over many, many times. Look closer.

2. ANd boom. You claim "exclusion", that assumes your conclusion as the premise.



hypothetical example. I show up at a football club, wearing my "football is stupid" t-shirt. They don't accept my membership, because it is club for football fans, and I am not a football fan.

I don't fit the purpose of the institution.


NOw, If I go and sue, and I win, it is no longer a club for Football fans. It is just a social club, that has been forced by the power of the state, to give up it's purpose.

 

[Correll]

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.

I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.

You are a blind man, outraged that the bird watching club, doesn't have a spot for him.

 

[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......

1. NO, there is an argument there. It is one me and prog went over many, many times. Look closer.

2. ANd boom. You claim "exclusion", that assumes your conclusion as the premise.



hypothetical example. I show up at a football club, wearing my "football is stupid" t-shirt. They don't accept my membership, because it is club for football fans, and I am not a football fan.

I don't fit the purpose of the institution.


NOw, If I go and sue, and I win, it is no longer a club for Football fans. It is just a social club, that has been forced by the power of the state, to give up it's purpose.

No, my conclusion is to change Marriage as a civil institution and my premises, none of the 3 of them(take a peek), state that conclusion as a premise. You have really hard reading comprehension problems, bigot. Here it is again for you...

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.

You are a blind man, outraged that the bird watching club, doesn't have a spot for him.

What are you, 90 with that "joke?"

You can't logic.
You can't joke.
You can't comprehend.

What CAN you do, kiddie corner?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

The side that is constantly shouting down the other is you.. We have presented extensive and detailed information on how the law works. I have posted documentation on the fact that gay folks make just as good parents as others. I have discussed the fact that children benefit from having married parents and pointed out that gay people are fathers and mothers and form families and that same sex couples are the same as everyone else except perhaps what they have between their respective legs

You have not countered any of that, but rather ignore all of the evidence that shows there is no rational reason to keep gays from marrying and that there is, in fact some very good reasons to allow it. Rather, all that you seem to do is to repeat the same crap about traditional marriage as an ancient institution and place blame for excluding gays from marriage on these shadowy figures instead of taking responsibility for your own bigotry

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Same shit different post

 

[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

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.

 

[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

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.

Actually they did by filing law suits against the states that had restricted marriage to a man and a woman. But there is a difference between requesting change and the burden of proof

It was up to the states to defend against those suits by establishing a rational basis for the restriction. They failed . End of story

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

That is all that you are

 

[Correll]

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.

I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.

You are a blind man, outraged that the bird watching club, doesn't have a spot for him.

What are you, 90 with that "joke?"

You can't logic.
You can't joke.
You can't comprehend.

What CAN you do, kiddie corner?

Just trying to find a way past your barriers to communication.

 

[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.

The side that is constantly shouting down the other is you.. ....

Now you're just being silly.

 

[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.

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.

Same shit different post

Agreed. We are pretty much done here. YOu should request the thread to be closed.

 

[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.

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.

Same shit different post

Agreed. We are pretty much done here. YOu should request the thread to be closed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Even when it has nothing to do with religion…

Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…

Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…

TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a “Religious Right Wing Bigot”.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Even when it has nothing to do with religion…

Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…

Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…

TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a “Religious Right Wing Bigot”.

 

[Blues Man]

Even when it has nothing to do with religion…

Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…

Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…

TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a “Religious Right Wing Bigot”.

Funny how I have known many homosexual people and they seemed more decent than most straight people

 

[G.T.]

Even when it has nothing to do with religion…

Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…

Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…

TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a “Religious Right Wing Bigot”.

decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, like a fuckin lunatic?

My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Funny how I have known many homosexual people and they seemed more decent than most straight people

Judging by the company that you choose to keep, you certainly don't seem like one to credibly speak of decency.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, like a fuckin lunatic?

My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple

Your vulgar lack of appreciation for the beauty that I shared there is about you, not about me.