Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is this gibberish supposed to be a response to what I just posted? Your references to the structure of marriage are getting tiresome. I did not say that the structure was arbitrary. I said that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were arbitrary. Yes it works "the way it was designed to work" and it works for same sex couples too!!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 marriageNo, 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.
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.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.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.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.
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.
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.
When was the last time you had man take you?Is this gibberish supposed to be a response to what I just posted?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 marriageNo, 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.
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.
Invalidated by Windsor and ObergefellReligious 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
Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyInvalidated by Windsor and ObergefellReligious 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
Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
When was the last time that you had something relevant and intelligent to contribute smiley ?When was the last time you had man take you?Is this gibberish supposed to be a response to what I just posted?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 marriageNo, 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.
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.
Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyInvalidated by Windsor and ObergefellReligious 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
Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Is this gibberish supposed to be a response to what I just posted? Your references to the structure of marriage are getting tiresome. I did not say that the structure was arbitrary. I said that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were arbitrary. Yes it works "the way it was designed to work" and it works for same sex couples too!!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 marriageNo, 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.
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.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.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.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.
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.
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.
Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyInvalidated by Windsor and ObergefellReligious 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
Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Think what you want, you ain't married.
Marriage doesnt have some mandate/dictate to be any damn thing, you rube - we have the liberty as a free society to define what it is... and when it was revisited, it was upgraded to include gays because the reasons to exclude them are not compelling.Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.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.
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.
When you state that the state has no reason to black gays from marriage, you are assuming as a premise, your conclusion that marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults not the more traditional and true one man, one woman.
I'm not trying to dictate your position.
I am not allowing you to define your conclusion as a starting premise for our discussion.
My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.
Why do you have earrings ?Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyInvalidated by Windsor and ObergefellYet it is our fav meatwhistle who keeps bringing it up!
FROM OUR OWN US CODE. The LEGAL DEFINITION of marriage.
View attachment 271310
Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Think what you want, you ain't married.
Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyInvalidated by Windsor and ObergefellYet it is our fav meatwhistle who keeps bringing it up!
FROM OUR OWN US CODE. The LEGAL DEFINITION of marriage.
View attachment 271310
Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Think what you want, you ain't married.
Marriage doesnt have some mandate/dictate to be any damn thing, you rube - we have the liberty as a free society to define what it is... and when it was revisited, it was upgraded to include gays because the reasons to exclude them are not compelling.Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.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.
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.
When you state that the state has no reason to black gays from marriage, you are assuming as a premise, your conclusion that marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults not the more traditional and true one man, one woman.
I'm not trying to dictate your position.
I am not allowing you to define your conclusion as a starting premise for our discussion.
Youve failed. Society isnt looking at you, its looking past you.
Stupid fucking question! I don't give a shit what anyone thinks that I am and it no body's fucking business. To confirm or deny anything about my sexuality is jut feeding and validating the bigotry of the likes of you or that smiling jackass,Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyInvalidated by Windsor and Obergefell
Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Think what you want, you ain't married.
YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
Stupid fucking question! I don't give a shit what anyone thinks that I am and it no body's fucking business. To confirm or deny anything about my sexuality is jut feeding and validating the bigotry of the likes of you or that smiling jackass,Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacyUnless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Think what you want, you ain't married.
YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
Dude. I hate to tell you this...but your whole entire premise is disrespectful to logic itself and contrived bullshit based on an insecurity of whatever sort.Marriage doesnt have some mandate/dictate to be any damn thing, you rube - we have the liberty as a free society to define what it is... and when it was revisited, it was upgraded to include gays because the reasons to exclude them are not compelling.Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.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.
When you state that the state has no reason to black gays from marriage, you are assuming as a premise, your conclusion that marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults not the more traditional and true one man, one woman.
I'm not trying to dictate your position.
I am not allowing you to define your conclusion as a starting premise for our discussion.
Youve failed. Society isnt looking at you, its looking past you.
I never claimed that society does not have the right to change institutions, if they want.
My point was that you dont' get to have your conclusion accepted as the premise for purposes of discussion.
That is what you are doing, when you keep arguing that Marriage "excluded" gays. And when you do that, you invite discussion of the time period when Marriage was developed.
I'm not afraid to discuss any of this. I just want you to be honest about your position, and not play games like that.
But the conclusion that I am reaching, that you are prog are demonstrating is,
that you libs have NOTHING BUT dishonest games, for an argument.
Indeed, the concept of honestly making the case for your position, seems completely alien to you.
Dude. I hate to tell you this...but your whole entire premise is disrespectful to logic itself and contrived bullshit based on an insecurity of whatever sort.Marriage doesnt have some mandate/dictate to be any damn thing, you rube - we have the liberty as a free society to define what it is... and when it was revisited, it was upgraded to include gays because the reasons to exclude them are not compelling.Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.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.
When you state that the state has no reason to black gays from marriage, you are assuming as a premise, your conclusion that marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults not the more traditional and true one man, one woman.
I'm not trying to dictate your position.
I am not allowing you to define your conclusion as a starting premise for our discussion.
Youve failed. Society isnt looking at you, its looking past you.
I never claimed that society does not have the right to change institutions, if they want.
My point was that you dont' get to have your conclusion accepted as the premise for purposes of discussion.
That is what you are doing, when you keep arguing that Marriage "excluded" gays. And when you do that, you invite discussion of the time period when Marriage was developed.
I'm not afraid to discuss any of this. I just want you to be honest about your position, and not play games like that.
But the conclusion that I am reaching, that you are prog are demonstrating is,
that you libs have NOTHING BUT dishonest games, for an argument.
Indeed, the concept of honestly making the case for your position, seems completely alien to you.
Youve still not provided a compelling reason to deny a liberty.
Youve conceded that we ARENT prevented from redefining civil institutions. In this VERY POST!!
You have lost your shit. Take a seat.
You're emotional now?Dude. I hate to tell you this...but your whole entire premise is disrespectful to logic itself and contrived bullshit based on an insecurity of whatever sort.Marriage doesnt have some mandate/dictate to be any damn thing, you rube - we have the liberty as a free society to define what it is... and when it was revisited, it was upgraded to include gays because the reasons to exclude them are not compelling.Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.
When you state that the state has no reason to black gays from marriage, you are assuming as a premise, your conclusion that marriage is a relationship between two consenting adults not the more traditional and true one man, one woman.
I'm not trying to dictate your position.
I am not allowing you to define your conclusion as a starting premise for our discussion.
Youve failed. Society isnt looking at you, its looking past you.
I never claimed that society does not have the right to change institutions, if they want.
My point was that you dont' get to have your conclusion accepted as the premise for purposes of discussion.
That is what you are doing, when you keep arguing that Marriage "excluded" gays. And when you do that, you invite discussion of the time period when Marriage was developed.
I'm not afraid to discuss any of this. I just want you to be honest about your position, and not play games like that.
But the conclusion that I am reaching, that you are prog are demonstrating is,
that you libs have NOTHING BUT dishonest games, for an argument.
Indeed, the concept of honestly making the case for your position, seems completely alien to you.
Youve still not provided a compelling reason to deny a liberty.
Youve conceded that we ARENT prevented from redefining civil institutions. In this VERY POST!!
You have lost your shit. Take a seat.
You libs keep stating the structure of Marriage, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
I'm just trying to address that claim.
You guys refuse to do that.
You want your conclusion accepted as a premise, and then you're willing to debate.
Insanely dishonest and cowardly of you.
AND exactly how you won.
That bit, where you keep attacking me, for wanting to discuss the issue? That is you being not a nice person. Just saying.
