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

[Correll]

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Well, you could ignore me, except that some little voice, deep down, keeps telling you, "his argument is so wrong, destroy him" but then you CAN'T.


And at another level, you know why you can't.

 

[Correll]

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

 

[G.T.]

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.




I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.


You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.


View attachment 271234



It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?


YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.




I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

 

[Correll]

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

 

[G.T.]

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

 

[Correll]

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

 

[G.T.]

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.

You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.

That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.

Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.

 

[Correll]

Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.

You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.

That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.

Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.

You just said what I said, with different wording.


YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.

That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.


ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.

 

[G.T.]

1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.

2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.

3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.

That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.

Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.

 

[G.T.]

It does make sense, you just neener about it.

There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.

You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.

That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.

Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.

You just said what I said, with different wording.


YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.

That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.


ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.

^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.

No value.

No substance.

Empty bloviation.


Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.

 

[G.T.]

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.




I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.


You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.


View attachment 271234



It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?


YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.




I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.

You destroyed yourself. Perhaps the defining moment was when you invoked the ridiculous specter of starving Lesbians and their stunted growth children because they don't have a man to protect and provide for them as an argument against same sex marriage. Have a good day

you quoted the wrong guyyyy

hey noww

 

[Correll]

1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.

Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?

2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.

And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.


LOL!!

3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.

What was the last, previous change, in your mind?

That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.

Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.

And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Well, you could ignore me, except that some little voice, deep down, keeps telling you, "his argument is so wrong, destroy him" but then you CAN'T.


And at another level, you know why you can't.

You destroyed yourself. Perhaps the defining moment was when you invoked the ridiculous specter of starving Lesbians and their stunted growth children because they don't have a man to protect and provide for them as an argument against same sex marriage. Have a good day

 

[Correll]

His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.


BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.


If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.


ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.

He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.

You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.

That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.

Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.

You just said what I said, with different wording.


YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.

That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.


ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.

^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.

No value.

No substance.

Empty bloviation.


Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.

Said the loser that still has not addressed either of my points, I made to you, when you entered the thread.

 

[G.T.]

1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.

Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?

2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.

And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.


LOL!!

3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.

What was the last, previous change, in your mind?

That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.

Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.

And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.

The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.

You missed that?

Wow!

And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.

 

[G.T.]

Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.

You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.

That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.

Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.

You just said what I said, with different wording.


YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.

That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.


ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.

^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.

No value.

No substance.

Empty bloviation.


Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.

Said the loser that still has not addressed either of my points, I made to you, when you entered the thread.

You didnt make a point. You failed to compel anyone from blocking gays from the civil institution of Marriage.

Keep failing!

 

[Correll]

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.




I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.


You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.


View attachment 271234



It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?


YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.




I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Well, you could ignore me, except that some little voice, deep down, keeps telling you, "his argument is so wrong, destroy him" but then you CAN'T.


And at another level, you know why you can't.

You destroyed yourself. Perhaps the defining moment was when you invoked the ridiculous specter of starving Lesbians and their stunted growth children because they don't have a man to protect and provide for them as an argument against same sex marriage. Have a good day

THe topic is an Institution that has existed for literally thousands of years.


Your confusion about why we are discussing the past, was funny, the first couple of times.


Now, it is kind of sad.



Why do you think that even today, thousands are years, after marriage was developed, middle and upper class women, still try to marry UPWARDS, economically speaking?

 

[G.T.]

Correll to random guy hes never met on the internet: Lib. lib...lib...lib....(name name name name)

Correll, same post: you call names!

what a cuck

 

[Correll]

1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.

Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?

2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.

And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.


LOL!!

3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.

What was the last, previous change, in your mind?

That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.

Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.

And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.

The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.

You missed that?

Wow!

And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.

If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.


YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.

 

[Correll]

Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.


Makes sense.


NOT!

And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.

That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.

You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.

That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.

Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.

You just said what I said, with different wording.


YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.

That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.


ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.

^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.

No value.

No substance.

Empty bloviation.


Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.

Said the loser that still has not addressed either of my points, I made to you, when you entered the thread.

You didnt make a point. You failed to compel anyone from blocking gays from the civil institution of Marriage.

Keep failing!

I made two points, and you have not addressed either. Because you can't.


YOu can make a lot of assertions and employ various logical fallacies, but you can't even address my points.