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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy

Think what you want, you ain't married.

Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!

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,

Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.


I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.

Good! Be pissed off. You're really pissed off because we have exposed your bullshit for what it is. You have run out of lies, logical fallacies and bizarre theories about marriage and the law. So now you have to have a hissy fit and make it about my sexuality like a 3rd grade special ed. bully.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're emotional now?

Calm down and address these points...

Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Society: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: Heyyy!!!! We cant just change institutions like datttt for no reason!!!!!

Society:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted.

Correll, on the internetzz: nuh uhhhh!!! liberalll!!!! duhhduhhhduhhh tradition thooooo!


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

 

[Correll]

Think what you want, you ain't married.

Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!

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,

Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.


I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.

Good! Be pissed off. You're really pissed off because we have exposed your bullshit for what it is. You have run out of lies, logical fallacies and bizarre theories about marriage and the law. So now you have to have a hissy fit and make it about my sexuality like a 3rd grade special ed. bully.

1. I did not say that i was upset. Your reading comprehension really is shit. Seriously, you need to work on that.

2. No, just having a little bit of push back, for all the times you spent calling me names, in this thread.

3. To be clear, the insult I am doing here, is not implying you are gay, but implying that you are homophobic.

4. Which you clearly are, as shown by your obvious anger at the hint of being thought gay.


5. You are the bully. YOu demonstrate it by your actions in this thread. Do you understand that?

 

[toobfreak]

Think what you want, you ain't married.

Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!

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,

Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.


I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.

Good! Be pissed off. You're really pissed off because we have exposed your bullshit for what it is. You have run out of lies, logical fallacies and bizarre theories about marriage and the law. So now you have to have a hissy fit and make it about my sexuality like a 3rd grade special ed. bully.

I see the Gaybo Patriot is still obsessing about marriage while claiming the Right Wing and not him is! Better go get some head pats from your illegal life partner to calm you down.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

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.

You're emotional now?

Calm down and address these points...

Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Society: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: Heyyy!!!! We cant just change institutions like datttt for no reason!!!!!

Society:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted.

Correll, on the internetzz: nuh uhhhh!!! liberalll!!!! duhhduhhhduhhh tradition thooooo!


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."

Reverting back to the "original" definition of the institution...as your argument... is not an argument, since YOU'VE already conceded we're free to change institutions....therefore, dipshit, YOU'VE refuted the "definitional argument" YOURSELF!!!

SO...it's up to YOU to refute the reason for the change...the reason YOU claim wasn't provided which WAS: THERE'S NO COMPELLING REASON FOR THE STATE TO PREVENT GAYS FROM MARRIAGE TO ONE ANOTHER.

The floor would be yours at that point, counselor...and that's where your knees buckle and you start to play this pitty patty pussy shit of shouting "liberal" as though it means something. It doesn't. You're just a blockhead with no compelling reason to prevent gays from Marriage, therefore losing the argument over and over and over and over and looking like a moron that just shouts "liberal" when his panties are wet.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

You're emotional now?

Calm down and address these points...

Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Society: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: Heyyy!!!! We cant just change institutions like datttt for no reason!!!!!

Society:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted.

Correll, on the internetzz: nuh uhhhh!!! liberalll!!!! duhhduhhhduhhh tradition thooooo!


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."
.....

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

 

[G.T.]

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.

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.

You're emotional now?

Calm down and address these points...

Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Society: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: Heyyy!!!! We cant just change institutions like datttt for no reason!!!!!

Society:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted.

Correll, on the internetzz: nuh uhhhh!!! liberalll!!!! duhhduhhhduhhh tradition thooooo!


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."
.....

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

 

[Correll]

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.

You're emotional now?

Calm down and address these points...

Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Society: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: Heyyy!!!! We cant just change institutions like datttt for no reason!!!!!

Society:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted.

Correll, on the internetzz: nuh uhhhh!!! liberalll!!!! duhhduhhhduhhh tradition thooooo!


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."
.....

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

 

[G.T.]

You're emotional now?

Calm down and address these points...

Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Society: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: Heyyy!!!! We cant just change institutions like datttt for no reason!!!!!

Society:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted.

Correll, on the internetzz: nuh uhhhh!!! liberalll!!!! duhhduhhhduhhh tradition thooooo!


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."
.....

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

You also self-refuted, AGAIN!! LOLLLLL

"society is free to revisit and change institutions"

correll, in the internet

correll on the internet's argument against the change:

"its just the way it's always been."

 

[Correll]

1. Nothing in my post to suggest I'm "emotional" so save that spin for the tourists.

2 and it is more like this.




Correll, on the internet: I never claimed society does not have the right to change institutions.

Libs: Heyyy..is there any compelling reason we are preventing gays from civil marriage with one another?? Hmm, we dont think so. So..lets make the change.

Correll, on the internetzz: You want a change? So, what is your reason for the change?

Libs:Hi, Correll...umm. the reason is that theres no compelling reason to prevent them from marrying. Thata a reaaon, and one you havent refuted. And it is discrimination and bigotry to not do as we say.

Correll, on the internetzz: Discrimination? That seems harsh. And unfair. Can we talk about that?


Lefties: No. Give us what we want, or we call you names, and try to use this to destroy you.





3. Oh, and you don't just get to define yourself as society. Your position was quite unpopular, before a solid decade of propaganda from media and pop culture.

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."
.....

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

 

[G.T.]

You're just an idiot, Correll.

I'm really sorry to have to keep reiterating this...actually, what the fuck's the point.

You haven't said the phrase: "discrimination? Can we talk about that?"

In fact, you've shut down any possibility of discussing that... by refusing to address it head-on when challenged to present a compelling reason TO prevent(discriminate) them from access to the institution...which would...dipshit...become a refutation that it's discrimination if you had one...you don't, which means it's YOU refusing to "talk about that."
.....

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.

Sorry that you don't like or understand words, and how they're used.

We've elevated as a society, morally, for correcting our over sight. You've yet to refute that it's an oversight by, again, dipping...ducking...and dodging the arguing for a single compelling reason for preventing them from the civil institution.

Raise your paw if you cant do arguments like a big boy, Correll.

 

[Correll]

And right there you do it again.


You try to set the framework of the discussion so that your conclusion is the premise.


It is an effective technique. But dishonest in the extreme.

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

 

[G.T.]

Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - and since we're supposed to base our Institutions on Liberty...let's see if there's any compelling reason that we should be preventing this and if not, revisit and change the institution to add them to it.

Premise 2: There's been no compelling reason presented, in Court or otherwise, to prevent them from Civil Marriage.

Conclusion: Sure, in the interest of Liberty - let's then change it.

Correll: But but but but traditional definitions!! And...and...and...what about all the reasons for preventing them which i haven't provided!!! you havent addressed those!! except the father one which you've summarily dismissed by teaching my dumbass that gays are fathers as well, so my argument for marriage compelling fathers to STAY would compel gay fathers as well, so gays should marry for fatherhood as well, and someone's gay marriage doesnt dissolve MY marriage and therefore doesnt pertain to my fatherhood at all...so thanks for teaching me why my reason was not very compelling g.t.!! cough spit...liberalll!

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!

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,

Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.


I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.

Good! Be pissed off. You're really pissed off because we have exposed your bullshit for what it is. You have run out of lies, logical fallacies and bizarre theories about marriage and the law. So now you have to have a hissy fit and make it about my sexuality like a 3rd grade special ed. bully.

I see the Gaybo Patriot is still obsessing about marriage while claiming the Right Wing and not him is! Better go get some head pats from your illegal life partner to calm you down.

 

[Correll]

Premise one. Gays have expressed the right to change the structure of Marriage to include Same Sex Marriage.


Society. Err, why?


Liberals. You are a bigot if you support discrimination.


Society: We never thought of it as discrimination, just the way it has always been.


Liberals. You're a bigot, if you don't support our policy.




That is the way it went, and that is what you guys are doing in this thread.

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

 

[G.T.]

You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Marriage is not merely about fatherhood, Correll, let-alone does how *you define marriage.. and what it was about... make it a necessity that said definition is permanent. You've conceded this like 10 or so posts ago, when you said that society is free to revisit institutions.

This one was revisited, and it was found that there's no compelling reason for the exclusion any longer - and your beef is the inquiry at all... which fails to address the fact that it is CORRECT, that you've no compelling reason not to include Gays into the Civil institution of Marriage.

I understand that you don't appreciate Liberty, and how it works - but we don't use tax dollars to prevent anyone's Liberty without pretty good fucking reason to do so - lest we become a fascist state which is always a moving target. Not sure why you'd seek to contribute to fascism and lesser liberty, and for NO compelling reasoning no less, but it's rather pig-headed which is to say: disgusting. You're not fooling anybody in your attempts to dress it up as an actual "argument," which has been a realllllllly laughable endeavor to read, be honest.

It's sort of beyond the pale that it's been this many pages and you've failed this hard - but...in your defense, so did the Lawyers who are probably thrice your worth and quadruple your education...so it's nothing to be ashamed of that you've been so inept at getting to the core of the issue which is why you'd use tax dollars to maintain an institution which excludes an accepted sect of society with no compelling rationale to do so.

 

[toobfreak]

Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

 

[G.T.]

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

The Court doesn't give a crap about your definition - Gay Marriage is legal and recognized, and you screaming about definitions is the final throws of a weaselly perspective on minding your own fucking business.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM is the definition of discrimination.
....l.

But is it really "exclusion"?

The primary point of Marriage is to get the biological father to stick around and provide for his biological children and their biological mother.


Gays have always been a part of that. (Do you need this point supported? Or are you aware?)


Your request wasn't just to let them do that, but to change the institution so that it would fit their sexuality better.

Yes, it is exclusion because Gays don't prevent anyone from sticking around as a father and can also be said fathers - and to that effect, it would be exclusion to deny them the right to Marry their gay partner on that basis.

Not only that, but you're merely asserting that that's the "primary point" of Marriage, anyhow. That's just an opinion, and as you've conceded and are thus refuted - we are free to change these institutions anyhow and you're not providing compelling arguments NOT TO.

If Marriage is structured that a Man marries a Woman, then yes that does not serve the purposes of gay couples.


But is that the fault of the institution of Marriage? Or just a function of it's purpose?


If I wanted to join a Football fan club, and when I went there, I was wearing my t-shirt that said, Football is stupid,


would it really be "Discrimination" for the club to not let me join?


Is it their fault, or do I just not fit their model?

Tell us again what the rational basis or compelling government/societal interest is in excluding same sex couples from marriage. I think that got buried in all the blather here.

Did you already forget, Dick Gayson? US Code DEFINES marriage as I already showed as one man and one woman. Marriage is understood to be a hetero couple joining in matrimony with ideally, the express goal of hopefully producing offspring to perpetuate the species within a wholesome family unit with a moral upbringing. That leaves you out.

What's the Difference Between Matrimony and Marriage?

Learn it. Live it. Love it.