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

[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....o.

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.


Your response was that that was not true, because not all Fathers stay.


I pointed out that an institution does not have to be 100% to be worthy.


YOu dismissed that and restated your disagreement.


So, I thought, let's compare Marriage Fathers, to non Married fathers" and see if Marriage makes a difference.


The study I found was focused on other issues, but the data looks pretty bad for men sticking around without Marriage.


It is one thing for you to disagree with me. But please disagree with what I actually say. Don't even restate my position in other words. You libs SUCK at that.

 

[G.T.]

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....o.

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.


Your response was that that was not true, because not all Fathers stay.


I pointed out that an institution does not have to be 100% to be worthy.


YOu dismissed that and restated your disagreement.


So, I thought, let's compare Marriage Fathers, to non Married fathers" and see if Marriage makes a difference.


The study I found was focused on other issues, but the data looks pretty bad for men sticking around without Marriage.


It is one thing for you to disagree with me. But please disagree with what I actually say. Don't even restate my position in other words. You libs SUCK at that.

You're off on a tangent from providing a compelling reason to prevent gays from Marrying, and too downright fucking stupid to understand why it's a tangent. Thats not my fault, Correll. Its because you're bottom tier.

Fathers staying is not a compelling reason, or even a correlative at all, to preventing gays from marrying one another.

You've failed to make a case to prevent Liberty.

That's the scoreboard, Correll. Back to the bottom tier you go, I tried man but your stupidity and inability to follow or provide a case isn't for me.

Have a great day, dude. Or dudette.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.


View attachment 271310

Invalidated by Windsor and Obergefell

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

And of course the point of this is, that if we didn't have same sex marriage, the problem with absent fathers would some how be miraculously solved. Right? Sorry, couldn't help it.

(By the way, same sex couples have kids too, and sometimes one of them leaves. )

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.

How are gays irrelevant? You do know that they have children, right??

My apologies once again. I had said good by, but I have to jump in when I see something this idiotic

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Invalidated by Windsor and Obergefell

Illegally, by a court that had no authority whatsoever to do so.

i assert that marriage is established by a higher authority than any mortal government, in accordance with unalterable biological facts; and that no mortal government has the power or authority to redefine it as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

But if the authority did exist within our government, to so radically change one of our most basic and essential institutions, that authority could only be found in the Legislative branch. Congress would have to pass a bill to implement this change,and the President would have to sign it into law.

For such a change to be attempted or implemented by the judicial branch is an act of corruption and usurpation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How are gays irrelevant? You do know that they have children, right??

As an unalterable biological fact, it takes a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child. It also takes a father and a mother to properly raise that child.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How are gays irrelevant? You do know that they have children, right??

As an unalterable biological fact, it takes a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child. It also takes a father and a mother to properly raise that child.

They come to have children in their care by a variety of means. They are parents. How is it possible that you did not understand what I meant?!!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What horseshit. The Constitution does not "grant" rights to individuals. It grants limited rights to the government. The right to marry is granted by God. And he said you can't marry another man. But being a mindless heathen animal, of course you have no idea about this. That's why you come on here and attack religious people and call anyone who doesn't agree with your idiotic claptrap a bigot. Don't insult us by saying homosexuals can get married. They simply cannot. Whatever arrangements they're in may amount to a domestic contract, but it is certainly not a marriage. Like I said before. Just go back in your little faggot hate-closet and please leave the Christians alone. You will never be accepted as "normal", no matter what that fool Kennedy says.

One of God's first commandments to Mankind was to “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth…”.

He established marriage as the framework in which this was to be done, on which families were to be built, and as the foundation for human society as a whole.

Left Wrong-wing attacks on marriage are ultimately, attacks on the stability and viability of the whole of human society.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As an unalterable biological fact, it takes a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child. It also takes a father and a mother to properly raise that child.

They come to have children in their care by a variety of means. They are parents. How is it possible that you did not understand what I meant?!!

How do you not understand basic biology, and the terrible consequences to individuals, and to society as a whole, of trying to circumvent it, just to pander to degenerate perverts?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As an unalterable biological fact, it takes a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child. It also takes a father and a mother to properly raise that child.

They come to have children in their care by a variety of means. They are parents. How is it possible that you did not understand what I meant?!!

How do you not understand basic biology, and the terrible consequences to individuals, and to society as a whole, of trying to circumvent it, just to pander to degenerate perverts?

 

[Correll]

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....o.

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.


Your response was that that was not true, because not all Fathers stay.


I pointed out that an institution does not have to be 100% to be worthy.


YOu dismissed that and restated your disagreement.


So, I thought, let's compare Marriage Fathers, to non Married fathers" and see if Marriage makes a difference.


The study I found was focused on other issues, but the data looks pretty bad for men sticking around without Marriage.


It is one thing for you to disagree with me. But please disagree with what I actually say. Don't even restate my position in other words. You libs SUCK at that.

You're off on a tangent from providing a compelling reason to prevent gays from Marrying, and too downright fucking stupid to understand why it's a tangent. Thats not my fault, Correll. Its because you're bottom tier.

Fathers staying is not a compelling reason, or even a correlative at all, to preventing gays from marrying one another.

You've failed to make a case to prevent Liberty.

That's the scoreboard, Correll. Back to the bottom tier you go, I tried man but your stupidity and inability to follow or provide a case isn't for me.

Have a great day, dude. Or dudette.

Your position is based on the idea that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary and thus discrimination.


Discussing the ACTUAL REAL REASONS for the structure of Marriages, is obviously relevant.


Calling it a "tangent" is just you running away like a little girl.


Bye bye.

 

[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.

And of course the point of this is, that if we didn't have same sex marriage, the problem with absent fathers would some how be miraculously solved. Right? Sorry, couldn't help it.

(By the way, same sex couples have kids too, and sometimes one of them leaves. )

No, the point is, that if you people keep attacking the idea that Marriage is about keeping that man around to be a Father, than it make sense to look and see the impact that Marriage actually has.



It is very telling that I had to explain that to you. You obviously don't have a clue how the concept of Debate actually works, or even the concept of REASON. or LOGIC.


And from the article I found, it looks like the impact of Marriage is FUCKING HUGE.

 

[Correll]

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.

How are gays irrelevant? You do know that they have children, right??

My apologies once again. I had said good by, but I have to jump in when I see something this idiotic

The institution is about getting the man to stay and be a Father.

Explain how you imagine that Gays are relevant to that?

 

[G.T.]

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....o.

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.


Your response was that that was not true, because not all Fathers stay.


I pointed out that an institution does not have to be 100% to be worthy.


YOu dismissed that and restated your disagreement.


So, I thought, let's compare Marriage Fathers, to non Married fathers" and see if Marriage makes a difference.


The study I found was focused on other issues, but the data looks pretty bad for men sticking around without Marriage.


It is one thing for you to disagree with me. But please disagree with what I actually say. Don't even restate my position in other words. You libs SUCK at that.

You're off on a tangent from providing a compelling reason to prevent gays from Marrying, and too downright fucking stupid to understand why it's a tangent. Thats not my fault, Correll. Its because you're bottom tier.

Fathers staying is not a compelling reason, or even a correlative at all, to preventing gays from marrying one another.

You've failed to make a case to prevent Liberty.

That's the scoreboard, Correll. Back to the bottom tier you go, I tried man but your stupidity and inability to follow or provide a case isn't for me.

Have a great day, dude. Or dudette.

Your position is based on the idea that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary and thus discrimination.


Discussing the ACTUAL REAL REASONS for the structure of Marriages, is obviously relevant.


Calling it a "tangent" is just you running away like a little girl.


Bye bye.

My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.

 

[Correll]

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....o.

No, I said that Marriage was developed to get the man to stay and be a Father, and that gays were irrelevant to that.


Your response was that that was not true, because not all Fathers stay.


I pointed out that an institution does not have to be 100% to be worthy.


YOu dismissed that and restated your disagreement.


So, I thought, let's compare Marriage Fathers, to non Married fathers" and see if Marriage makes a difference.


The study I found was focused on other issues, but the data looks pretty bad for men sticking around without Marriage.


It is one thing for you to disagree with me. But please disagree with what I actually say. Don't even restate my position in other words. You libs SUCK at that.

You're off on a tangent from providing a compelling reason to prevent gays from Marrying, and too downright fucking stupid to understand why it's a tangent. Thats not my fault, Correll. Its because you're bottom tier.

Fathers staying is not a compelling reason, or even a correlative at all, to preventing gays from marrying one another.

You've failed to make a case to prevent Liberty.

That's the scoreboard, Correll. Back to the bottom tier you go, I tried man but your stupidity and inability to follow or provide a case isn't for me.

Have a great day, dude. Or dudette.

Your position is based on the idea that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary and thus discrimination.


Discussing the ACTUAL REAL REASONS for the structure of Marriages, is obviously relevant.


Calling it a "tangent" is just you running away like a little girl.


Bye bye.

My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.

NO, you wanted to change Marriage from what it was, ie One man, One woman, to something new, and you successfully and falsely framed it, as a rights issue, based on the idea that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary and thus discrimination.



Dude. Think.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, the point is, that if you people keep attacking the idea that Marriage is about keeping that man around to be a Father, than it make sense to look and see the impact that Marriage actually has.

I know exactly the impact of marriage and I have not attacked the idea that it is important. I'm not denying that it is important. But the fact is that gay men are also husbands and fathers, and as with opposite sex couples , marriage provides stability to a relationship. If you really gave a crap about those children without fathers in their lives you would acknowledge that. Citing the importance of hetero marriage is a dumb ass argument against gay marriage. As we have been trying to get across to you, the only issue is the justification for excluding gays from marriage and you have nothing as always

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

t is very telling that I had to explain that to you. You obviously don't have a clue how the concept of Debate actually works, or even the concept of REASON. or LOGIC.

 

[Correll]

No, the point is, that if you people keep attacking the idea that Marriage is about keeping that man around to be a Father, than it make sense to look and see the impact that Marriage actually has.

I know exactly the impact of marriage and I have not attacked the idea that it is important. I'm not denying that it is important. But the fact is that gay men are also husbands and fathers, and as with opposite sex couples , marriage provides stability to a relationship. If you really gave a crap about those children without fathers in their lives you would acknowledge that. Citing the importance of hetero marriage is a dumb ass argument against gay marriage

Your dishonesty is getting tiresome.


Your position is that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary.


Demonstrating that Marriage works as it was designed to, is obviously a relevant response to that.


If it works, then it is silly to call it arbitrary.


But, you CAN'T drop that argument, because it is the crux of the argument that got you here.

 

[Correll]

t is very telling that I had to explain that to you. You obviously don't have a clue how the concept of Debate actually works, or even the concept of REASON. or LOGIC.

Dude. YOu keep making comments that call into question the reasons for the structure of Marriage, and then are act surprised, if not shocked, that my response addresses the reasons of the structure of Marriage.


Seriously. What is wrong with you? I mean it. Are you ok?