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

[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.

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.

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

 

[G.T.]

Correll loses, again. Im out, off to the Track for this $$

 

[Correll]

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

The point is that you libs, call names as an attack on a person, to discredit them and/or to distract from your utter failure to make a valid argument or defense of your position.


When I call you a name, it is, generally, to show you the same level of disrespect that you have shown me.


Big difference and fuck you.

 

[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.

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

 

[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.

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.

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

 

[Correll]

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



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!!


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


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.

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

 

[G.T.]

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.

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

 

[Correll]

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.

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

 

[G.T.]

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

 

[Correll]

Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.


You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE. COMPLETELY.


Thanks.

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

1. My first reason was fine. THat Marriage is not prefect in getting men to stay, does not invalidate my point that Marriage was developed to get men to stay and be Fathers.


2. And considering the effects of other recent "Evolutions" to Marriage, in the context of ANOTHER proposed change, is completely reasonable.

 

[G.T.]

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.

You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.

You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

1. My first reason was fine. THat Marriage is not prefect in getting men to stay, does not invalidate my point that Marriage was developed to get men to stay and be Fathers.


2. And considering the effects of other recent "Evolutions" to Marriage, in the context of ANOTHER proposed change, is completely reasonable.

No, your first reason was not "fine," it failed. It doesnt fulfil its intent because it doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and it also doesnt pertain to gays and fatherhood whatsoever. If you think that reason was compelling, or even a reason at all since gays are also fathers...its no WONDER you sit your ass on the internet thinking youre winning arguments. Being oblivious is no excuse to place your dogshit excuse for debate in my presence...get the fuck outta here!

Considering the effects of other "changes" to marriage is an irrelevant non sequitur, and also a slippery slope fallacy. Arguments are handled on their own merit, not because "look over there at that change that is not this change...but still bro...it was bad!"
Its fuckin' inept, it's dopey even.

No wonder you desperate cucks were laughed out of Court.

No compelling reason for your bigotry, Liberty won.

Perhaps you dont understand what "compelling" means...here let me assist:

It does NOT mean...logic full of holes.

It DOES mean...saying something to which a standard/reasonable would reflect on and say, "heh, good point."

Straight Marriage doesnt stop dads from leaving...gay marriage doesnt cause dads to leave. So..theres no "heh, good point" there, poindexter.

 

[Correll]

Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.


If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.


Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

1. My first reason was fine. THat Marriage is not prefect in getting men to stay, does not invalidate my point that Marriage was developed to get men to stay and be Fathers.


2. And considering the effects of other recent "Evolutions" to Marriage, in the context of ANOTHER proposed change, is completely reasonable.

No, your first reason was not "fine," it failed. It doesnt fulfil its intent because it doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and it also doesnt pertain to gays and fatherhood whatsoever. If you think that reason was compelling, or even a reason at all since gays are also fathers...its no WONDER you sit your ass on the internet thinking youre winning arguments. Being oblivious is no excuse to place your dogshit excuse for debate in my presence...get the fuck outta here!

Considering the effects of other "changes" to marriage is an irrelevant non sequitur, and also a slippery slope fallacy. Arguments are handled on their own merit, not because "look over there at that change that is not this change...but still bro...it was bad!"
Its fuckin' inept, it's dopey even.

No wonder you desperate cucks were laughed out of Court.

No compelling reason for your bigotry, Liberty won.

We can compare married people today, to single mothers. How many single moms have the man staying around to be a Father?


How Unmarried Fathers Support Their Children: A Study Of Unmarried Parents | Child and Family Research Partnership | The University of Texas at Austin


"Whether parents provide informal support, formal child support, or nothing at all is largely a function of the parents’ relationship. Nearly all cohabiting fathers provide support through informal arrangements, regardless of whether the child is 3 months old or 3 years old [Figure 1]. Parents who are dating also rely primarily on informal arrangements, with a clear majority actively providing informal support at both time periods. Among parents in no relationship, however, informal support is less common and subject to evaporate over time; between similar fathers of 3-month-olds and 3-year-olds, the fraction providing informal support falls in half while the proportion in the formal child support system surges from 16 to 53 percent "


HOWEVER,

"Despite turning to the formal child support system for help, many mothers do not regularly receive the child support they are owed. Three years after the birth of their child, only 46 percent of AOP-signing mothers in the child support system receive the full amount of their obligation each month—a median payment of $322. For the remaining 54 percent of mothers, child support payments come in dribs and drabs. Though the median mother in this group is owed $286 per month in child support, she actually receives nothing ($0) in a typical month."




For thousands of years, Marriage was the answer. Now we are trying to reinvent the Wheel.

 

[G.T.]

Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.

I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

1. My first reason was fine. THat Marriage is not prefect in getting men to stay, does not invalidate my point that Marriage was developed to get men to stay and be Fathers.


2. And considering the effects of other recent "Evolutions" to Marriage, in the context of ANOTHER proposed change, is completely reasonable.

No, your first reason was not "fine," it failed. It doesnt fulfil its intent because it doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and it also doesnt pertain to gays and fatherhood whatsoever. If you think that reason was compelling, or even a reason at all since gays are also fathers...its no WONDER you sit your ass on the internet thinking youre winning arguments. Being oblivious is no excuse to place your dogshit excuse for debate in my presence...get the fuck outta here!

Considering the effects of other "changes" to marriage is an irrelevant non sequitur, and also a slippery slope fallacy. Arguments are handled on their own merit, not because "look over there at that change that is not this change...but still bro...it was bad!"
Its fuckin' inept, it's dopey even.

No wonder you desperate cucks were laughed out of Court.

No compelling reason for your bigotry, Liberty won.

We can compare married people today, to single mothers. How many single moms have the man staying around to be a Father?


How Unmarried Fathers Support Their Children: A Study Of Unmarried Parents | Child and Family Research Partnership | The University of Texas at Austin


"Whether parents provide informal support, formal child support, or nothing at all is largely a function of the parents’ relationship. Nearly all cohabiting fathers provide support through informal arrangements, regardless of whether the child is 3 months old or 3 years old [Figure 1]. Parents who are dating also rely primarily on informal arrangements, with a clear majority actively providing informal support at both time periods. Among parents in no relationship, however, informal support is less common and subject to evaporate over time; between similar fathers of 3-month-olds and 3-year-olds, the fraction providing informal support falls in half while the proportion in the formal child support system surges from 16 to 53 percent "


HOWEVER,

"Despite turning to the formal child support system for help, many mothers do not regularly receive the child support they are owed. Three years after the birth of their child, only 46 percent of AOP-signing mothers in the child support system receive the full amount of their obligation each month—a median payment of $322. For the remaining 54 percent of mothers, child support payments come in dribs and drabs. Though the median mother in this group is owed $286 per month in child support, she actually receives nothing ($0) in a typical month."




For thousands of years, Marriage was the answer. Now we are trying to reinvent the Wheel.

What the fuck? Gay marriage has nothing to do with straight fathers staying or leaving. Are you dense? On what earth does a mother being single pertain to a gay being married..

You seriously are THIS inept, cognitively? Holy shit.

Do you need to look up "non sequitur?"

 

[mdk]

I am sorry that my marriage to a dude made your dad leave your mother for his side cooze.

 

[G.T.]

I am sorry that my marriage to a dude made your dad leave your mother for his side cooze.

Someone alert Ding and give this old coot his logic training wheels.

 

[mdk]

I am sorry that my marriage to a dude made your dad leave your mother for his side cooze.

Someone alert Ding and give this old coot his logic training wheels.

You would have to pry his hands from his neighbor's window jambs first. These busybodies thrive on being up in everyone's business.

 

[G.T.]

I am sorry that my marriage to a dude made your dad leave your mother for his side cooze.

Someone alert Ding and give this old coot his logic training wheels.

You would have to pry his hands from his neighbor's window jambs first. These busybodies thrive on being up in everyone's business.

Thia makes my mind feel so radically free.

What we're seeing is the result of choosing a pre-existing Partisan dogma to follow..like a lemming.

His dogma about Liberty is being crossed with his dogma about "but but but but tradition" and the synapses don't know what to do...therefore, he must shout "Liberal."

Not a single Politically-charged person could ever fuck with my level of free-thought. And yours, MDK. Double high 5

 

[toobfreak]

Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage

Yet it is our fav meatwhistle who keeps bringing it up!

FROM OUR OWN US CODE. The LEGAL DEFINITION of marriage.

 

[Correll]

Marriage was the best answer we came up for that problem, for thousands of years.


The results of the games we've been playing with it, over the last 50 or 60 years, has been pretty shitty.


To a reasonable observer, it should be on the person wanting to make MORE changes, to make the case.

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

1. My first reason was fine. THat Marriage is not prefect in getting men to stay, does not invalidate my point that Marriage was developed to get men to stay and be Fathers.


2. And considering the effects of other recent "Evolutions" to Marriage, in the context of ANOTHER proposed change, is completely reasonable.

No, your first reason was not "fine," it failed. It doesnt fulfil its intent because it doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and it also doesnt pertain to gays and fatherhood whatsoever. If you think that reason was compelling, or even a reason at all since gays are also fathers...its no WONDER you sit your ass on the internet thinking youre winning arguments. Being oblivious is no excuse to place your dogshit excuse for debate in my presence...get the fuck outta here!

Considering the effects of other "changes" to marriage is an irrelevant non sequitur, and also a slippery slope fallacy. Arguments are handled on their own merit, not because "look over there at that change that is not this change...but still bro...it was bad!"
Its fuckin' inept, it's dopey even.

No wonder you desperate cucks were laughed out of Court.

No compelling reason for your bigotry, Liberty won.

We can compare married people today, to single mothers. How many single moms have the man staying around to be a Father?


How Unmarried Fathers Support Their Children: A Study Of Unmarried Parents | Child and Family Research Partnership | The University of Texas at Austin


"Whether parents provide informal support, formal child support, or nothing at all is largely a function of the parents’ relationship. Nearly all cohabiting fathers provide support through informal arrangements, regardless of whether the child is 3 months old or 3 years old [Figure 1]. Parents who are dating also rely primarily on informal arrangements, with a clear majority actively providing informal support at both time periods. Among parents in no relationship, however, informal support is less common and subject to evaporate over time; between similar fathers of 3-month-olds and 3-year-olds, the fraction providing informal support falls in half while the proportion in the formal child support system surges from 16 to 53 percent "


HOWEVER,

"Despite turning to the formal child support system for help, many mothers do not regularly receive the child support they are owed. Three years after the birth of their child, only 46 percent of AOP-signing mothers in the child support system receive the full amount of their obligation each month—a median payment of $322. For the remaining 54 percent of mothers, child support payments come in dribs and drabs. Though the median mother in this group is owed $286 per month in child support, she actually receives nothing ($0) in a typical month."




For thousands of years, Marriage was the answer. Now we are trying to reinvent the Wheel.

What the fuck? Gay marriage has nothing to do with straight fathers staying or leaving. Are you dense? On what earth does a mother being single pertain to a gay being married..

You seriously are THIS inept, cognitively? Holy shit.

Do you need to look up "non sequitur?"

Dude. YOu challenged the idea that Marriage gets men to stay and be Fathers.


Don't you even pay attention to the shit you post?



So, let's compare Marriage to not marriage. Doesn't look good for your side.

 

[G.T.]

That was bloviating,( "should,") and not a logical argument for preventing a Liberty and one, to be quite frank, that was used as a means to manipulate the State into a subjugation based on nothing but bigotry.

You need to do better than that with my tax dollars - your 1st reason was logically flawed. Marriage doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and gay marriage has no effect on fathers staying. A "reasonable observer"(your words) doesnt use flawed logic to prevent liberty in my Country.

And the last 50-60 years of "changes" argument youve proposed is a mere slippery slope fallacy, and doesnt engage the topic of compelling reasons to prevent consenting, tax-paying adults from a tax benefit..i.e. State restrictions on their Liberty.

If you or I thought your argument for restricted Liberties wasn't just bigotry-based..we'd be talking about all those "compelling" arguments you must have for restricting gays from marriage.

Instead, youre bloviating about "shoulds," non-sequiturs, slippery slope fallacies and "durr liberal" crappola that doesnt even pertain to me.

You are bottom tier, Correll.

1. My first reason was fine. THat Marriage is not prefect in getting men to stay, does not invalidate my point that Marriage was developed to get men to stay and be Fathers.


2. And considering the effects of other recent "Evolutions" to Marriage, in the context of ANOTHER proposed change, is completely reasonable.

No, your first reason was not "fine," it failed. It doesnt fulfil its intent because it doesnt prevent fathers from leaving, and it also doesnt pertain to gays and fatherhood whatsoever. If you think that reason was compelling, or even a reason at all since gays are also fathers...its no WONDER you sit your ass on the internet thinking youre winning arguments. Being oblivious is no excuse to place your dogshit excuse for debate in my presence...get the fuck outta here!

Considering the effects of other "changes" to marriage is an irrelevant non sequitur, and also a slippery slope fallacy. Arguments are handled on their own merit, not because "look over there at that change that is not this change...but still bro...it was bad!"
Its fuckin' inept, it's dopey even.

No wonder you desperate cucks were laughed out of Court.

No compelling reason for your bigotry, Liberty won.

We can compare married people today, to single mothers. How many single moms have the man staying around to be a Father?


How Unmarried Fathers Support Their Children: A Study Of Unmarried Parents | Child and Family Research Partnership | The University of Texas at Austin


"Whether parents provide informal support, formal child support, or nothing at all is largely a function of the parents’ relationship. Nearly all cohabiting fathers provide support through informal arrangements, regardless of whether the child is 3 months old or 3 years old [Figure 1]. Parents who are dating also rely primarily on informal arrangements, with a clear majority actively providing informal support at both time periods. Among parents in no relationship, however, informal support is less common and subject to evaporate over time; between similar fathers of 3-month-olds and 3-year-olds, the fraction providing informal support falls in half while the proportion in the formal child support system surges from 16 to 53 percent "


HOWEVER,

"Despite turning to the formal child support system for help, many mothers do not regularly receive the child support they are owed. Three years after the birth of their child, only 46 percent of AOP-signing mothers in the child support system receive the full amount of their obligation each month—a median payment of $322. For the remaining 54 percent of mothers, child support payments come in dribs and drabs. Though the median mother in this group is owed $286 per month in child support, she actually receives nothing ($0) in a typical month."




For thousands of years, Marriage was the answer. Now we are trying to reinvent the Wheel.

What the fuck? Gay marriage has nothing to do with straight fathers staying or leaving. Are you dense? On what earth does a mother being single pertain to a gay being married..

You seriously are THIS inept, cognitively? Holy shit.

Do you need to look up "non sequitur?"

Dude. YOu challenged the idea that Marriage gets men to stay and be Fathers.


Don't you even pay attention to the shit you post?



So, let's compare Marriage to not marriage. Doesn't look good for your side.

Wow, here come the training wheels, then.

I said youve no compelling reason to prevent gays from marriage.

You said fathers staying.

I told you that gay marriage doesnt somehow magically make fathers leave...and straight marriage doesnt magically make them stay.

You proceed by telling me you wanna compare married to non married fathers staying...when I never even argued that married fathers are any more or less common than non married fathers...I merely provided you with the hole that makes it an uncompelling reason to prevent liberty. It ACTUALLY only pertains to Marriage itself gay or straight, too...and not just straight marriage because gays are also fathers you dipshit. Also, WHAT ABOUT marriage do you presume makes fathers stay...that will make them magically not stay if gays across the street got married? You are severely lacking here.

I sincerely think you're a fuggin dunce...but I dont blame you, Correll. Humans are pack animals, and youve identified with a tribe and dont have the freedom of thought to see past its lore.

Its not your fault, its mere biology and what you're personally predisposed to do.