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

[Correll]

This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal. If you don't like it you can leave".

Prog is the one that brought it up. He is the one flipping out, because he can't defend his position, not me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal. If you don't like it you can leave".

Prog is the one that brought it up. He is the one flipping out, because he can't defend his position, not me.

You are so fucking delusional!! Not hardly flipping out. I'm having fun toying with your dumb ass.

 

[Correll]

I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO

POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?


lol!!!!



I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts and the principal of judiciary review.

All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity

Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.

I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!

I am not pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".

Brilliant fucking retort! Just brilliant! Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap but lack the self awareness to know it.

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

 

[Correll]

Your point about traditions evolving.

It was a very good point. I had a good response.


Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.


So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.


We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.

Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling

I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights.

YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.

You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.

Your support for that, was a collection of assertions supported primarily by your willful obtuseness when presented with the massive, millennium long development of Marriage, with tons of well supported reasons.

What the fuck are you talking about? That is just word salad ! It is not hardly a legal argument and yet another appeal to tradition which does not trump the constitution. What are those "tons of well supported reasons" again? You continue to display your pathetic inability to engage in a rational debate using facts and logic.

They are the reasons we went over, again and again.


There is no reason to rehash them. I presented documentation of the evolution of marriage, and you just sort of dismissed it, and reasserted your original claim(s).


You want to do that again, go ahead, you don't really need me for it. Just reread my old posts and write up "replies".

What??! You presented documentation of the evolution of marriage? You presented your opinion that marriage came about as a means of getting the male to provide for the family and be a father to the children that they will have. You also expressed your view that it should still be that way and that gay couples should not be able to marry because they don't "reproduce" However, your hypocrisy was exposed when you slipped up and stated that it's ok for opposite sex couples who cannot have children to marry because reproducing is not a requirement for marriage! Remember?

Now, getting back to the history of marriage, the nature of which you seem to think has always been the same. This is what a documented history looks like.

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

It clearly has been evolving almost constantly and same sex marriage can be seen as a logical next step.

.....as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

Continue reading History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

1. Yes. I presented a nice summary of the conventional wisdom on the topic and invited you to ask for further clarification if you doubted anything specific. I don't recall anything of merit in your response.


2. THe ideal of a father and a stay at home mother, is, imo, the best model.

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.

4. Correct. Producing children has almost never been a requirement of marriage. That does not undermine that fact that Marriage is an institution designed to get the to stay and provide. Your obtuseness here does not reflect well on you. You are unable to even explain why you think this is an issue.


5. You got a point to make about the history of marriage, make it. A link does not cut it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO

POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?


lol!!!!



I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts and the principal of judiciary review.

All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity

Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.

I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!

I am not pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".

Brilliant fucking retort! Just brilliant! Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap but lack the self awareness to know it.

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

 

[Correll]

You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.

I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?

THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.


Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.


So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

 

[Correll]

This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal. If you don't like it you can leave".

Prog is the one that brought it up. He is the one flipping out, because he can't defend his position, not me.

You are so fucking delusional!! Not hardly flipping out. I'm having fun toying with your dumb ass.

Your hysterical reaction is clear to anyone reading your posts.

 

[Correll]

POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?


lol!!!!



I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts and the principal of judiciary review.

All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity

Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.

I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!

I am not pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".

Brilliant fucking retort! Just brilliant! Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap but lack the self awareness to know it.

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.

I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?

THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.


Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.


So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts and the principal of judiciary review.

All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity

Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.

I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!

I am not pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".

Brilliant fucking retort! Just brilliant! Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap but lack the self awareness to know it.

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.

Oh really?? You didn’t post this quote in # 636??

Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.

The Evolution of Marriage

At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

And....

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay Heritage Foundation who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children

And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position

No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".

You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.

In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles - while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!! As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy


I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote regarding the Heritage piece:

One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."

Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!

 

[Correll]

You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.

I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?

THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.


Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.


So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?

THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.


Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.


So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

 

[K9Buck]

My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent. I want to keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion

Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?

 

[Correll]

Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".

Brilliant fucking retort! Just brilliant! Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap but lack the self awareness to know it.

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

 

[Correll]

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.

Oh really?? You didn’t post this quote in # 636??

Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.

The Evolution of Marriage

At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

And....

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay Heritage Foundation who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children

And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position

No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".

You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.

In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles - while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!! As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy


I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote regarding the Heritage piece:

One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."

Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!

1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.


Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.



2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).


I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.


Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?




3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.

 

[Correll]

THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.


Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.


So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent. I want to keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion

Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. People are entitled to their opinions. But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group - just because you have some religious or moral bug up your ass. I hope that answers you question.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Brilliant fucking retort! Just brilliant! Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap but lack the self awareness to know it.

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.

Oh really?? You didn’t post this quote in # 636??

Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.

The Evolution of Marriage

At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

And....

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay Heritage Foundation who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children

And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position

No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".

You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.

In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles - while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!! As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy


I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote regarding the Heritage piece:

One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."

Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!

1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.


Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.



2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).


I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.


Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?




3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.

Is this load of horseshit somehow supposed to be a response to the fact that I exposed you hypocrisy and bigotry by showing that you think that gays should not marry because they can't reproduce, but have not problems with straight couples who can't have a child naturally getting married.?

And you ask:

Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?

I told you -I never said that!! It is not something that I believe. You are creating a strawman and grossly misrepresenting me!

And you state:

3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone

Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency!! And stupid! Are you saying that gays being part of "the marriage club" do not serve that interest of marriage? Another admission of bigotry!