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



## TheProgressivePatriot

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:



> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”




 So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .


*An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited*


Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
just know
it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
going too far by getting involved with government.
That crosses the line for them.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
Click to expand...

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

emilynghiem said:


> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.


I remember talking with a LGBTQQXYZ1234 thing(cant use gender identity) and told them that homosexuality isnt normal because 2 men or 2 women cant be natural.  The things response was "Dogs do it too".  Just think that homosexuals are like dogs, have to hump anything that moves, and NOT use their intelligence to realize how unnatural it really is.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
Click to expand...

Non religious liberal Bigots Still Obsessing About Christians-Get a Life!


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
Click to expand...



I still dont care if two flaming fags get married or not 

WHY DO I HAVE TO give a rats ass either way ?
get married be well WHO CARES

Stop dancing naked in front of children in the streets ya fucked up ass backwards retards


----------



## emilynghiem

andaronjim said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember talking with a LGBTQQXYZ1234 thing(cant use gender identity) and told them that homosexuality isnt normal because 2 men or 2 women cant be natural.  The things response was "Dogs do it too".  Just think that homosexuals are like dogs, have to hump anything that moves, and NOT use their intelligence to realize how unnatural it really is.
Click to expand...


Dear andaronjim 
Whatever these beliefs consist of,
*by RECOGNIZING LGBT beliefs as FAITH BASED*
then BOTH SIDES are protected from establishment by Govt
and from discrimination against free exercise and expression of these beliefs.

The First Amendment protects both sides from each other.
All we need to do is AGREE to recognize LGBT and Christian beliefs
as equally FAITH BASED and they should be treated equally as creeds
and not discriminate against either one. Either include both or exclude both.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.



More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
_"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? _To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality. 

My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion


----------



## Death Angel

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage


NOBODY has denied you the right to marry.

Rock Hudson married.

Even homos can have a ceremony and PRETEND its marriage (but we all know not).

Since the left likes to drag Jesus into these debates, here is how HE defined marriage.

*For this reason (marriage) shall a man leave his father and his mother and be united with his WIFE, and the two shall become one.*

Two guys living in sin is NOT marriage


----------



## emilynghiem

Deplorable Yankee said:


> I still dont care if two flaming fags get married or not
> 
> WHY DO I HAVE TO give a rats ass either way ?
> get married be well WHO CARES
> 
> Stop dancing naked in front of children in the streets ya fucked up ass backwards retards



Dear Deplorable Yankee
WHICH people are doing this?
File a complaint and police it.

If you live in a city like I do where certain districts
WANT to keep their transgender storytelling in the library,
then ask for EQUAL SUPPORT for ALL DISTRICTS to vote
in if they want Christian prayer and education
taught in their schools and libraries.

If taxpayers support these programs, let them pay for that.
If they don't, remove them all. Let's be fair and keep
this DEMOCRATIC. Let districts vote and police their own policies.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
> _"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? _To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality.
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
Click to expand...


Keeping beliefs out of govt would solve both problems
TheProgressivePatriot


----------



## mdk

I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to all those whose marriages were lessened and/or destroyed as a result of mine.


----------



## emilynghiem

mdk said:


> I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to all those whose marriages were lessened and/or destroyed as a result of mine.



mdk 
What about all the people who suffered from Crosses on public property?
Prayers in public schools?

Who is going to apologize for all that establishment of religion?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.


----------



## Death Angel

emilynghiem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
> _"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? _To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality.
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keeping beliefs out of govt would solve both problems
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

ALL LAW is based on someone's "beliefs"/morality


----------



## night_son

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Despite what the moral relativists have led you to believe, marriage* is* a sacred union between a  biological man and a biological woman. Come after perhaps the most ancient and hallowed institution in human history you might tarnish it some but in the end, look out! There'll be quite a price to pay sooner or later.


----------



## Pilot1

Yes, but who keeps starting the GAY threads?  Someone IS obsessed.


----------



## Votto

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Why is the government even involved in marriage?

I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?

Makes no sense.


----------



## Death Angel

Votto said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.

The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with ....]




You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
> _"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? _To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality.
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
Click to expand...

So it is okay for Homosexuality to be in government, wow, talk about a fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

mdk said:


> I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to all those whose marriages were lessened and/or destroyed as a result of mine.


Just glad as hell that your gene pool ends with you.


----------



## mdk

andaronjim said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to all those whose marriages were lessened and/or destroyed as a result of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Just glad as hell that your gene pool ends with you.
Click to expand...


I am glad I can give you glimpse of happiness b/c Lord knows you desperately need it.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:



I think most people overall are past the gay marriage debate and accept the fact that it's here to stay.  It's a minority of extremists, mostly religious zealots, who are still fighting this losing battle.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people overall are past the gay marriage debate and accept the fact that it's here to stay.  It's a minority of extremists, mostly religious zealots, who are still fighting this losing battle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wait till the US goes full Islam as Ilham Omar wants.  Liberals are just stupid as hell, wanting people like that living here.  Oh well, I have yet to see a liberal do the right thing...if you know what I mean.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY has denied you the right to marry.
> 
> Rock Hudson married.
> 
> Even homos can have a ceremony and PRETEND its marriage (but we all know not).
> 
> Since the left likes to drag Jesus into these debates, here is how HE defined marriage.
> 
> *For this reason (marriage) shall a man leave his father and his mother and be united with his WIFE, and the two shall become one.*
> 
> Two guys living in sin is NOT marriage
Click to expand...

Fuck Jesus'  definition of marriage. This is a secular constitutional republic. The issue is government recognition of marriage and the legal and financial benefits that go with that. It's about the equal treatment of two groups who- in the language of the courts- are similarly  situated. It's about due process and equal protection under the law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people overall are past the gay marriage debate and accept the fact that it's here to stay.  It's a minority of extremists, mostly religious zealots, who are still fighting this losing battle.
Click to expand...

Thank you but obviously not everyone is.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

andaronjim said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people overall are past the gay marriage debate and accept the fact that it's here to stay.  It's a minority of extremists, mostly religious zealots, who are still fighting this losing battle.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, wait till the US goes full Islam as Ilham Omar wants.  Liberals are just stupid as hell, wanting people like that living here.  Oh well, I have yet to see a liberal do the right thing...if you know what I mean.
Click to expand...


Muslims make up 1% of the American population.  Where is this threat of full Islam you're wetting your pants over?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BuckToothMoron said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
Click to expand...

_*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry! 

  When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*

*Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

*APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*

*Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

*It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


*We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY has denied you the right to marry.
> 
> Rock Hudson married.
> 
> Even homos can have a ceremony and PRETEND its marriage (but we all know not).
> 
> Since the left likes to drag Jesus into these debates, here is how HE defined marriage.
> 
> *For this reason (marriage) shall a man leave his father and his mother and be united with his WIFE, and the two shall become one.*
> 
> Two guys living in sin is NOT marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck Jesus'  definition of marriage. This is a secular constitutional republic. The issue is government recognition of marriage and the legal and financial benefits that go with that. It's about the equal treatment of two groups who- in the language of the courts- are similarly  situated. It's about due process and equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

You wish this was a secular constitutional republic, that is what the Marxist want, but this has been a Judeo-Christian country since its founding, but you queers cant have that be, because then your whole liberal argument is up the ass.  But you fucking sorry ass liberals, have so bastardized this country that every Christian who says anything against homosexuality and you are there trying to shut(shout) them down.
 Fuck you all, I have been around since the beginning of the coming out, and if all that money hadn't gone into queer government coffers, homosexuality would still be a mental case.  Yeah, I know, a man looking at another man's ass and wanting to put his dick in it is so normal.

Proof That America Was Founded As A Christian Nation – International Cops for Christ 



Cultural Marxism and the War on the Family - CultureWatch


> Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
> -Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.
> -Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
> -Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
> -Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”





> -Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
> -Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
> -Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
> -Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

night_son said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite what the moral relativists have led you to believe, marriage* is* a sacred union between a  biological man and a biological woman. Come after perhaps the most ancient and hallowed institution in human history you might tarnish it some but in the end, look out! There'll be quite a price to pay sooner or later.
Click to expand...

We have had same sex marriage for a while now. Do tell, what price have we paid? An appeal to tradition and  appeal to fear and ignorance logical fallacy does not make your case.


----------



## Unkotare

In other news, the divorce rate in the United States for the younger generation is falling steadily. Seems like a good thing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with ....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Death Angel said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
Click to expand...

Same sex couples have children and are families


----------



## Death Angel

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
Click to expand...

They do not "have children"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not "have children"
Click to expand...

Really? How fucking ignorant is that ? They come to be in the care of children in a variety of ways , just like heterosexuals. They are parents. They have families!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with ....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
Click to expand...



You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.


That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with ....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with ....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
Click to expand...



Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.



Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.


It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite. 


That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with ....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
Click to expand...

A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
Click to expand...

When Prop 8 was voted for in California, the majority of the voters said that it should pass and not allow homosexuals to be married, why was it a judge that overruled the will of the people, when "supposedly" you are for Democracy?  yeah, you guys really love the Democracy when you get your way, when you dont, you whine and then want the judges to overturn the will of the people. This again is why we hate you fuckers...

Prop 8 OVERTURNED: Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down In California | HuffPost


----------



## Mike Dwight

Well. I was just curious how come the blinded do not participate in salic primogeniture in Greek Orthodoxy?


----------



## TomParks

Hopefully Mike Pence becomes president someday and the court overturns Obama’s gay marriage.....it should be decided by the states


----------



## Mike Dwight

Hm? This pleases Lord Cthulhu. Lord Cthulhu participates in the ceremony. One Cthulhu and seven weaklings. Murrhage


----------



## Mike Dwight

Westminster Confession application to Presbyterian and PCUSA Marriage! AHA! Ha ha that's funny.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TomParks said:


> Hopefully Mike Pence becomes president someday and the court overturns Obama’s gay marriage.....it should be decided by the states



How will A Pence Presidency overturn marriage equality? Should the states have decided interracial mariage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike Dwight

The Garden of Eden Denim. Theres some Adams and some Eves man. Theres some Knowledge Trees and some Life Trees, man...


----------



## Death Angel

200 years from now (when you're a rotting corpse) the Scriptures are still gonna say that


----------



## Mike Dwight

This is why people always fail at this though! Na na na. Boo boo on you. Scriptures say. Who was going to go to a Civil Union in which Church and thinking they're doing God a favor, or do we sing for amusement too. 

Nuns don't even sing do they? Show me a singing Nun. Really?


----------



## Mike Dwight

Have you guys considered Singing in Church Psalm 96 from the Scottish Psalter, in God's Vulgar Tongue of Backwards Vietnamese? Its his favorite. The Metrical Arranging of a Troo Bonnie Scotchmun! Haggis!


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

emilynghiem said:


> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still dont care if two flaming fags get married or not
> 
> WHY DO I HAVE TO give a rats ass either way ?
> get married be well WHO CARES
> 
> Stop dancing naked in front of children in the streets ya fucked up ass backwards retards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Deplorable Yankee
> WHICH people are doing this?
> File a complaint and police it.
> 
> If you live in a city like I do where certain districts
> WANT to keep their transgender storytelling in the library,
> then ask for EQUAL SUPPORT for ALL DISTRICTS to vote
> in if they want Christian prayer and education
> taught in their schools and libraries.
> 
> If taxpayers support these programs, let them pay for that.
> If they don't, remove them all. Let's be fair and keep
> this DEMOCRATIC. Let districts vote and police their own policies.
Click to expand...



Listen if you stuck a pride sticker on your forehead , started dancing naked ,and chanting leftist slogans  in front of a school they'd come and arrest you .....RIGHT ?
Whats the difference at a pride festival ? WHY is THAT OK ?

Japan and Lisbon pride festivals Are G rated ...funny i have absolutely no problem with that .Ive spent summers on fire island and wound up in the lesbian and gay towns ..
Which was anything but g rated .....bu t in the straight towns families would have their kids tucked in bed with a baby sitter ....and the adults would come out to play at night 
I wasnt hanging out with the lip stickers for nothing..... some nights theyd want to share a guy .

Clean Immaculate private beaches, no cars allowed on the entire island ,and plenty of beautiful freaky broads to screw whats not to like ....bars and restaurants ...swim sun drink fuck ....i lost someone very dear to me so i was in a dark place and i thought debauchery would stop the "i dont wanna live anymore" ....nah it didnt really help 

AND that would be real females DERP ..i dont swing the other way but if someone else does it doesnt bother me ...and if gods really pissed at you for it well thats between you and him ....MY names paul thats between y'all
ANyway 

Its usually single mothers who expose thier children to this shit and they're no better then the twats who force their little girls onto these beauty pageant stages 
Its pure sugar coated  exploitation and THE LEFTY GAY NAZI S  mask IT AS promoting tolerance and understanding .

what complete and utter horse shit 
Children  shouldnt be told they're gender confused in the 3rd grade by any "parent" or "caring school employee" or "shrink "'''''''''''  or how to put on a condom 
or told about anal sex ...or have a bunch of retards in dresses read to them in libraries .

AND doctors who give hormones to teens ARE the biggest asswipes on the planet

We all grew up fast ......My generation was completely out of control ...Ive been banging away since im a young teen but at least we had people around us to say HEY! whats your rush kid ?slow down! NOT encouraging it   ..AND WE fuckin figured out the whole condom thing BY OURSELVES no problem derp .....
Some of our parents got knocked up at 16 and 17 , 18 but they got married and dads went to work and night school and did what they had to do .....consequences and personal responsibility OH MY 

Our grandparents were even wilder..... the greatest generation we're not friggin saints ...
When it comes to sexuality Human nature is what it is ......theirs no getting around puberty ,,,and schools should do some kind of sex ed when they hit that age .
SUre then  tell em about stds ,condoms , science says anal sex not all that healthy for both of any gender blah blah blah 
Children should be kept innocent for as long as possible. Theirs plenty of time for the degenerate adult shit later ...what the problem with that is I have NO IDEA !

The state ,activist groups , and public libraries shouldn't be pushing any of this shit on children


----------



## Mike Dwight

If I may summarize, above poster adopted both a Cockney accent and possibly orc outfit, and started shouting filthy obscenity. Aye well luv wouldn't I spear a pig with my toe guvnor?!
Why are Orcs/Orks/Uruks always Cockney? - Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor - Giant Bomb


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

this was on gab this morning WTF IS THIS


This is not ok..its not Halloween everyday 

I gotta say it Its not ok


just like this

this is a google image search ...right up front





Its not ok Im sorry

when it comes to kids They ll never get me to say its all about tolerance and understanding ....why? cause it isnt
to me its pure plain and simple exploitation of the innocent


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


  He's right, of course.

  By definition, marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman.  No law, court ruling, nor any other act of any mortal government can change this, any more than any such act can cause two plus two to equal anything other than four.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Click to expand...


I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Mike Dwight said:


> If I may summarize, above poster adopted both a Cockney accent and possibly orc outfit, and started shouting filthy obscenity. Aye well luv wouldn't I spear a pig with my toe guvnor?!
> Why are Orcs/Orks/Uruks always Cockney? - Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor - Giant Bomb


Please go fuck your mother ya dumb NAzi hick 

Cockneys pffft ...eurtotrash 
Sargon picks up on a USA today survey and asks some questions
Interesting INDEED
The Thinkery
First published at 22:11 UTC on June 24th, 2019.
THE YOUTH BACKLASH TO THE LGBT MOVEMENT


----------



## 22lcidw

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

There is no reason for heteros to get married anymore. Marriage has been weakened and the payouts to high. The growth of single parent families is enormous. Half the millenial males are not even considering marriage.  Whatever you consider things, cultures need to survive with raising children at the cheapest price. And we are way off the rails on that. You'll see if you are young enough.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

andaronjim said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember talking with a LGBTQQXYZ1234 thing(cant use gender identity) and told them that homosexuality isnt normal because 2 men or 2 women cant be natural.  The things response was "Dogs do it too".  Just think that homosexuals are like dogs, have to hump anything that moves, and NOT use their intelligence to realize how unnatural it really is.
Click to expand...

Dogs do not do it too.  There is no homosexuality among animals simply because animals have no such thing as a romantic attraction.  They don't make love.  They mate by instinct which is governed by scent and the season.

Animals may exhibit homosexual behavior when deprived of an appropriate mate.  The animal ceases the behavior as soon as a mate appears.

Gays would do themselves well to just leave others alone.  Stop demanding that you and your degenerate lifestyle be accepted.


----------



## Lysistrata

Arguing over marriage is absurd. The Supreme Court just freed people to get married under CIVIL law. A couple may also have a religious ceremony, if they wish. Civil law is very different than the rules of the various religions, so religion-based arguments don't hold any weight. Religions differ. 

It is ridiculous for people to expect that the general public will adhere to any one particular religion, yet posters on this thread are dragging out pence and osteen, who are representatives only of their particular religions. From what I have read, Buttigieg was married in his faith tradition, which is different from their's.


----------



## SweetSue92

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Deplorable Yankee
I'm not saying it's okay.
I'm saying there's something called DUE PROCESS.
You can't just punish a WHOLE GROUP because of the violations or abuses of SOME people "associated" with that GROUP.

You have to specifically address the INDIVIDUALS who have violated laws and put those people through DUE PROCESS
before issuing penalty by law that would "DEPRIVE" them of liberty.

SEE Amendments 5 and 14 below which both state this principle:

AMENDMENT 5.
*No person shall be* held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be *deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT 14 Section 1:
… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*

In order to protect your rights and mine under these SAME laws
these must be enforced for ALL people to ensure "equal protection of the laws."

Ever hear the saying you cannot break the laws you are trying to enforce?

Especially Deplorable Yankee if you don't want members of the LGBT community
to violate laws and rights for by imposing THEIR beliefs on the public through Govt
(in violation of Amendment 1 and Civil Rights laws against Discrimination by Creed)
then we CONSISTENTLY should enforce Constitutional laws so this gives
leverage and authority to hold OTHERS to uphold the same!



Deplorable Yankee said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deplorable Yankee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still dont care if two flaming fags get married or not
> 
> WHY DO I HAVE TO give a rats ass either way ?
> get married be well WHO CARES
> 
> Stop dancing naked in front of children in the streets ya fucked up ass backwards retards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Deplorable Yankee
> WHICH people are doing this?
> File a complaint and police it.
> 
> If you live in a city like I do where certain districts
> WANT to keep their transgender storytelling in the library,
> then ask for EQUAL SUPPORT for ALL DISTRICTS to vote
> in if they want Christian prayer and education
> taught in their schools and libraries.
> 
> If taxpayers support these programs, let them pay for that.
> If they don't, remove them all. Let's be fair and keep
> this DEMOCRATIC. Let districts vote and police their own policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Listen if you stuck a pride sticker on your forehead , started dancing naked ,and chanting leftist slogans  in front of a school they'd come and arrest you .....RIGHT ?
> Whats the difference at a pride festival ? WHY is THAT OK ?
> 
> Japan and Lisbon pride festivals Are G rated ...funny i have absolutely no problem with that .Ive spent summers on fire island and wound up in the lesbian and gay towns ..
> Which was anything but g rated .....bu t in the straight towns families would have their kids tucked in bed with a baby sitter ....and the adults would come out to play at night
> I wasnt hanging out with the lip stickers for nothing..... some nights theyd want to share a guy .
> 
> Clean Immaculate private beaches, no cars allowed on the entire island ,and plenty of beautiful freaky broads to screw whats not to like ....bars and restaurants ...swim sun drink fuck ....i lost someone very dear to me so i was in a dark place and i thought debauchery would stop the "i dont wanna live anymore" ....nah it didnt really help
> 
> AND that would be real females DERP ..i dont swing the other way but if someone else does it doesnt bother me ...and if gods really pissed at you for it well thats between you and him ....MY names paul thats between y'all
> ANyway
> 
> Its usually single mothers who expose thier children to this shit and they're no better then the twats who force their little girls onto these beauty pageant stages
> Its pure sugar coated  exploitation and THE LEFTY GAY NAZI S  mask IT AS promoting tolerance and understanding .
> 
> what complete and utter horse shit
> Children  shouldnt be told they're gender confused in the 3rd grade by any "parent" or "caring school employee" or "shrink "'''''''''''  or how to put on a condom
> or told about anal sex ...or have a bunch of retards in dresses read to them in libraries .
> 
> AND doctors who give hormones to teens ARE the biggest asswipes on the planet
> 
> We all grew up fast ......My generation was completely out of control ...Ive been banging away since im a young teen but at least we had people around us to say HEY! whats your rush kid ?slow down! NOT encouraging it   ..AND WE fuckin figured out the whole condom thing BY OURSELVES no problem derp .....
> Some of our parents got knocked up at 16 and 17 , 18 but they got married and dads went to work and night school and did what they had to do .....consequences and personal responsibility OH MY
> 
> Our grandparents were even wilder..... the greatest generation we're not friggin saints ...
> When it comes to sexuality Human nature is what it is ......theirs no getting around puberty ,,,and schools should do some kind of sex ed when they hit that age .
> SUre then  tell em about stds ,condoms , science says anal sex not all that healthy for both of any gender blah blah blah
> Children should be kept innocent for as long as possible. Theirs plenty of time for the degenerate adult shit later ...what the problem with that is I have NO IDEA !
> 
> The state ,activist groups , and public libraries shouldn't be pushing any of this shit on children
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys never stopped. For you to smear someone else for not stopping, is utter hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
Click to expand...




Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.


ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BuckToothMoron said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
Click to expand...

That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never stopped what.? Defending the civil rights of LGBT people? Why the fuck should we stop. ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never stopped pushing your agenda despite getting slapped down, and it being settled law.
> 
> 
> That you smear them for doing the same, is just utter hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
Click to expand...




Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised. 

My response was appropriate. 


Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that. 

Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully Mike Pence becomes president someday and the court overturns Obama’s gay marriage.....it should be decided by the states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will A Pence Presidency overturn marriage equality? Should the states have decided interracial mariage
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, each state should have their own laws , since the marriage certs are for each state.  If a state doesnt recognize that the cert is valid, then the faggots can leave and find a state accommodating.  Why is it a valid concealed carry license is valid in Utah and 38 other states, but in NY it isnt.  Are we supposed to have equal opportunity clause?  Only when it is for you sorry ass liberals and the rest be damned, again this is why we hate you fuckers.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SweetSue92 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
Click to expand...

Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
Click to expand...

We have thought, and we have grown very angry with your ilk constantly shoving your immorality in our faces, attacking law abiding businesses, and using courts to overturn the Democratic process of the people.


----------



## rightwinger

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
Click to expand...

LOL

Those Islamic points sound a lot like Conservatives


----------



## SweetSue92

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
Click to expand...


What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity. 

That's first.

Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
Click to expand...


I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got slapped down really? They are doing the same? WTF? Gays and their advocates are defending against aggressors who are trying to take away rights. How the fuck is that the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
Click to expand...

Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.

The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.

Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice


----------



## Dick Foster

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Since faggots  can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd,  unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SweetSue92 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.
> 
> That's first.
> 
> Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.
Click to expand...

What policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BuckToothMoron said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.
Click to expand...

And you have the fucking nerve to call me angry!!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dick Foster said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since faggots  can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
> If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd,  unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.
Click to expand...

That is just too moronic on so many levels to even respond to.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

BuckToothMoron said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.
Click to expand...



I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dogmaphobe said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dick Foster said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since faggots  can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
> If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd,  unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dogmaphobe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. ?*_Complete and utter stupidity and bigotry!
> 
> When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
> 
> In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. *It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.*
> 
> *Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. *Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
> 
> One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
> 
> *APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)*
> 
> *Kitchen V. Herbert **http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage*
> 
> 
> On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that *“[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” *Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).
> 
> 
> Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring *The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)
> 
> Windsor is the other case referred to above
> 
> DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)
> 
> *It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:*
> 
> The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)
> 
> 
> *We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”*
> 
> We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59
> 
> 
> A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
> In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no self-awareness in that tiny little pea brain of yours, now, do you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dogmaphobe said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no self-awareness in that tiny little pea brain of yours, now, do you?
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your spin for your fellow lefties at your next circle jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you lefteis got slapped down often, and you kept coming back, until you found a lefty enough judge to give you want you wanted.
> 
> 
> It is the same, and you are just being a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> That you can't see it, even when your face is rubbed in it, is because you are a blind hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
Click to expand...




1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.

2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.

3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lefty judge? Are you fucking serious. Numerous judges at all levels shot down bans on same sex marriage before it reached SCOTUS where Kennedy cast the deciding vote Do you consider Justice Anthony Kennedy a lefty. ? Thank you for demonstrating your pathetic and profound ignorance of what took place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
Click to expand...

The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

The authoritarian right will never abandon its hatred and bigotry concerning gay Americans.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

rightwinger said:


> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it



  Even in California, when it was twice put up for a vote, the voters solidly rejected the idea of recognizing an immoral homosexual mockery of marriage as being comparable to genuine marriage.  Both times, it was corrupt judges who thwarted the clearly-expressed will of the people of this state.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...




Why would the NOM close up, just because a court decision went against them?

Court decisions can be overthrown, like Plessy v Ferguson was.

Homosexuality is still a very controversial topic of public import


----------



## bodecea

mdk said:


> I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to all those whose marriages were lessened and/or destroyed as a result of mine.


I also wish to offer my sincerest apologies.   No wonder so many CRC marriages end in divorce.   Because the gays.


----------



## bodecea

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY has denied you the right to marry.
> 
> Rock Hudson married.
> 
> Even homos can have a ceremony and PRETEND its marriage (but we all know not).
> 
> Since the left likes to drag Jesus into these debates, here is how HE defined marriage.
> 
> *For this reason (marriage) shall a man leave his father and his mother and be united with his WIFE, and the two shall become one.*
> 
> Two guys living in sin is NOT marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck Jesus'  definition of marriage. This is a secular constitutional republic. The issue is government recognition of marriage and the legal and financial benefits that go with that. It's about the equal treatment of two groups who- in the language of the courts- are similarly  situated. It's about due process and equal protection under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wish this was a secular constitutional republic, that is what the Marxist want, but this has been a Judeo-Christian country since its founding, but you queers cant have that be, because then your whole liberal argument is up the ass.  But you fucking sorry ass liberals, have so bastardized this country that every Christian who says anything against homosexuality and you are there trying to shut(shout) them down.
> Fuck you all, I have been around since the beginning of the coming out, and if all that money hadn't gone into queer government coffers, homosexuality would still be a mental case.  Yeah, I know, a man looking at another man's ass and wanting to put his dick in it is so normal.
> 
> Proof That America Was Founded As A Christian Nation – International Cops for Christ
> 
> 
> 
> Cultural Marxism and the War on the Family - CultureWatch
> 
> 
> 
> Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
> -Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.
> -Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
> -Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
> -Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
> -Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
> -Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
> -Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 266235
Click to expand...

So...chalk up another CRC supporter of christian sharia law.


----------



## bodecea

Death Angel said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not "have children"
Click to expand...

Sure we do.


----------



## bodecea

Death Angel said:


> 200 years from now (when you're a rotting corpse) the Scriptures are still gonna say that


Joel Osteen?       Explains SO MUCH!


----------



## bodecea

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have thought, and we have grown very angry with your ilk constantly shoving your immorality in our faces, attacking law abiding businesses, and using courts to overturn the Democratic process of the people.
Click to expand...

One must wonder why someone gets so gosh darn angry over other people getting married......just so gosh darn angry.   What's up with that?


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Those Islamic points sound a lot like Conservatives
Click to expand...

Two sides of the same fundie coin.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The authoritarian right will never abandon its hatred and bigotry concerning gay Americans.
Click to expand...


good thing morons like you create more haters
Otherwise yads be out of business 


 


Beside some of you  being this retarded 
 
It FINALLY dawned on me what   some men and women truly have in common........ Mustaches 


Some more than others ladies WOT 
ANd the entire left should absolutely keep demonizing white males ..oh yeah thats gonna keep working out real well for yas


----------



## bodecea

Dick Foster said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since faggots  can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
> If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd,  unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.
Click to expand...

Interesting.   So you don't think that wedlock is about loving a person and wanting to be with them for life.   Just offspring, eh?   What do you intend to do about those who marry who don't want kids or can't have kids?


----------



## bodecea

Dogmaphobe said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Didn’t read your retort because it was too long. You don’t want to have an exchange of ideas. You want to preach and filibuster. If you want to understand how others feel and think you must commit to listening and talking on a level playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my ideas that you are obviously not open to. You did not read it because you are afraid of being challenged  on you utterly stupid and bigoted assertion that gay people already had equality because thy, like others, could marry someone of the opposite sex. That shows me that it is you who is not interested in understanding how others feel. I did,  in fact listen to you and heard very clearly. Now, you need to listen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to listen to you, but the reality is you are a very aggressively angry person with an extraordinarily disagreeable disposition. Let’s just say you’re easy to dislike and root against. You come on here not looking for any common ground, but rather throwing your sexuality in everybody’s face. You represent everything that is wrong with the LGBT movement towards acceptance. If the other non-cisgender people I associate with were nothing like you, I’d probably be the bigot you want me to be. I really hope you die soon. The world will be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I support gay marriage, but find myself almost wanting to oppose it when he gets going on his rants. He really is everything you say about him. He is a humorless authoritarian who is everything he hates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no self-awareness in that tiny little pea brain of yours, now, do you?
Click to expand...

ad hominem


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it
Click to expand...

Ironically, judges were late also when it came to comparing civil marriage to religious marriage.   Guess which one came first.....by at least a decade....?


----------



## bodecea

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The authoritarian right will never abandon its hatred and bigotry concerning gay Americans.
Click to expand...

Many have not even given up their hate and bigotry over inter-racial marriage.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the NOM close up, just because a court decision went against them?
> 
> Court decisions can be overthrown, like Plessy v Ferguson was.
> 
> Homosexuality is still a very controversial topic of public import
Click to expand...

And if you resist, you will be called names...those liberal pussies always resort to name calling.


----------



## bodecea

andaronjim said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the NOM close up, just because a court decision went against them?
> 
> Court decisions can be overthrown, like Plessy v Ferguson was.
> 
> Homosexuality is still a very controversial topic of public import
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you resist, _you will be called names._.._those liberal pussies_ always resort to name calling.
Click to expand...


I see what you did there.....


----------



## Votto

Death Angel said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
Click to expand...


Then reward successful families.  Reward families who have children and stay together and don't abuse the hell out of each other.

Then if they fail, if they divorce or abuse each other, demand the money back.

Why would I give two adults government money who have no children?   Why would I also hold money back from polygamists who have children?

If taking care of children is the key, then withhold the money from those who have an abortion.

Moreover, if perks for marriage is child based, then it should be called something else.


----------



## bodecea

Help build the anti-gay marriage umbrella:


----------



## Meathead

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
Click to expand...

Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> . Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.


You don't seem to understand how things work .You can go shopping for judges like you can in order to find a doctor who will give you an opiate. The judge is pick by the assignment judge in the jurisdiction where the case is filed. If you don't like the outcome, you don't just ask for a do over with a different judge.  You can appeal it of course and again, you have no say in which judges will hear it. The most that you can do at that level-if you don't like the outcome- is to request that the full circuit hear it. Most cases that got to the appellate level were decided in favor of same sex marriage . It was not until one appeals court  ruled in favor of bigotry and set up a circuit split did SCOTUS take up the matter but that took years to happen because SCOTUS saw what was happening and hoped that they would not have to get involved.


----------



## SweetSue92

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.
> 
> That's first.
> 
> Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?
Click to expand...


What do you mean "policy"? The gov't has already ruled it lawful. I think it is sinful, but many things that are sinful are lawful. Greed is lawful. Lust is lawful. Etc, etc, etc.

As I said, the biggest question for me now is: must I be forced, by the US gov't, to *participate* in that sinful activity because I opened a business? I think the answer is no, and again I believe that is ethically correct. I'm not looking to dissolve what the gov't has ruled lawful at this point. I seek the right not to PARTICIPATE in it. And if you can be fair minded, I think you'll agree that this is just.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.


That is idiotic .I never said or implied that ANYONE can or should be able to marry  any one who they wish. Do you actually believe that  I thing that a straight person could grab someone on the street who they like and marry them. ?

The issue is the ability to marry someone with whom you have a mutual romantic and sexual attraction to. I will say again-to claim that a gay person had equal rights to marry some one of the opposite sex is not only stupid, but it degrades the individual who you either don't think deserves the same kind of relationships that you enjoy, or you don't believe that they marry for romance and love. It also degrades the institution of marriage -that you claim to want to save-by reducing it to a business arrangement.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
Click to expand...

Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.


What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

bodecea said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since faggots  can't procreate, why do they need to get married. The whole concept of wedlock is about kids and the prevention of inner breeding.
> If you're trying to appear to be normal you're not and never will be. The best you can be is a freak of nature. Homosexuals are called queer for a reason. Queer meaning odd,  unusual or other than normal. And no you're not exactly gay either. That's just a word you stole. Gay means happy and care free. You can be queer and it's okay with me but stop trying to appear normal when you're not. If you're so damn happy being queer then own it and be queer and everything that entails. Then sit down and STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.   So you don't think that wedlock is about loving a person and wanting to be with them for life.   Just offspring, eh?   What do you intend to do about those who marry who don't want kids or can't have kids?
Click to expand...

I have asked that question of these people many times and never a rational or reasonable answer. NEVER


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

bodecea said:


> Help build the anti-gay marriage umbrella:


Brought to you by the folks who gave us Refer Madness!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

bodecea said:


> Help build the anti-gay marriage umbrella:


Too fucking funny!!


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Well, don't give up on trying to shed the pounds anyway. Better to be a normal woman than a fat one when it comes to whining, right?


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

emilynghiem said:


> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.


Yeah..that makes sense. 
Of course, marriage is a legal contract as well. Then there are all the spousal benefits and deductions.
Govt. has to play a part.

Cultural acceptance is a different thing. It won't surprise anyone to learn that the 20-somethings and younger do not see same sex marriage as an issue. They accept it as a given.


_*Support for same-sex marriage is highest among Millennials (74%) – as has generally been the case for nearly a decade. A majority of Gen Xers (58%) support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, as do about half of Boomers (51%) and 45% of the Silent Generation.*_
_*Among religious groups, majorities of Catholics (61%), white mainline Protestants (66%) and the religiously unaffiliated (79%) say they support same-sex marriage. By contrast, just  29% of white evangelical Protestants favor same-sex marriage, while about twice as many (63%) are opposed.*_

Majority of Public Favors Same-Sex Marriage, but Divisions Persist
Most young Americans overwhelmingly support gay marriage - The Boston Globe


----------



## emilynghiem

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..that makes sense.
> Of course, marriage is a legal contract as well. Then there are all the spousal benefits and deductions.
> Govt. has to play a part.
> 
> Cultural acceptance is a different thing. It won't surprise anyone to learn that the 20-somethings and younger do not see same sex marriage as an issue. They accept it as a given.
> 
> 
> _*Support for same-sex marriage is highest among Millennials (74%) – as has generally been the case for nearly a decade. A majority of Gen Xers (58%) support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, as do about half of Boomers (51%) and 45% of the Silent Generation.*_
> _*Among religious groups, majorities of Catholics (61%), white mainline Protestants (66%) and the religiously unaffiliated (79%) say they support same-sex marriage. By contrast, just  29% of white evangelical Protestants favor same-sex marriage, while about twice as many (63%) are opposed.*_
> 
> Majority of Public Favors Same-Sex Marriage, but Divisions Persist
> Most young Americans overwhelmingly support gay marriage - The Boston Globe
Click to expand...


Thank you EvilEyeFleegle for a very informative post.

You can believe in and support gay/same sex marriage, but not believe in endorsing/implementing it through the STATE.
You can believe in and support Christian prayer and healing, but not believe in incorporating it through PUBLIC POLICY.

Not all people get this.

Too many people especially on the left think if you don't support
health care or marriage rights "through govt" then you don't want people to have it.

That's not the same.
ESTABLISHING something *through Govt* is a different process and proposal
than just having equal rights to marriage, health care, etc.

I hope we figure this out soon.
Otherwise, it seems people "talk past each other" and politicize "what they
think people mean" instead of really listening to what the issues are.
People keep hearing what they THINK the other side is saying,
and that causes ADDITIONAL conflicts (on top of the original issues).

Thanks EEE and I hope your contributions
leads to more enlightenment and better
insights and direction in solving problems.


----------



## Meathead

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..that makes sense.
> Of course, marriage is a legal contract as well. Then there are all the spousal benefits and deductions.
> Govt. has to play a part.
> 
> Cultural acceptance is a different thing. It won't surprise anyone to learn that the 20-somethings and younger do not see same sex marriage as an issue. They accept it as a given.
> 
> 
> _*Support for same-sex marriage is highest among Millennials (74%) – as has generally been the case for nearly a decade. A majority of Gen Xers (58%) support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, as do about half of Boomers (51%) and 45% of the Silent Generation.*_
> _*Among religious groups, majorities of Catholics (61%), white mainline Protestants (66%) and the religiously unaffiliated (79%) say they support same-sex marriage. By contrast, just  29% of white evangelical Protestants favor same-sex marriage, while about twice as many (63%) are opposed.*_
> 
> Majority of Public Favors Same-Sex Marriage, but Divisions Persist
> Most young Americans overwhelmingly support gay marriage - The Boston Globe
Click to expand...

You can marry your fucking parot for all anyone cares.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

andaronjim said:


> We have thought, and we have grown very angry with your ilk constantly shoving your immorality in our faces, attacking law abiding businesses, and using courts to overturn the Democratic process of the people.



  I can remember when the cry of his degenerate ilk was _“Don't force your morality on us!”_

  All they wanted, or so they claimed, was to be able to practice their sick perversions in peace and privacy.  Foolishly, as a society, we believed them, and we gave in that much, and now, we've reached the point where they force their immorality and their madness on everyone else, even on children.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos [sic] rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice



  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that supports treating insane and immoral sexual perversions as civil rights, nor is there anything in the Constitution that supports treating a sick homosexual mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to genuine marriage.

  There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that supports the abuse of government force to compel sane and decent people to play along with any of this immoral, insane crap.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for dropping that bit about pretending that not giving up is different when you do it.
> 
> 
> ANd anyone that would accept the silly argument that gay marriage was a rights issue, is a fucking lefty.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it
Click to expand...



Then run dems *,honestly,* on the issue, and pass legislation.


Funny, you didn't do that.


----------



## Terri4Trump

Homosexuals engage is sicked filthy acts of perversion. That is not something to bless with the name _Marriage_.

Marriage is a Sacrament from God. Homosexual sex is an abominable evil.

End of discussion.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> …judges were late also when it came to comparing civil marriage to religious marriage.   Guess which one came first.....by at least a decade....?



  Not decades.  Centuries, at least.  Probably millennia.

Genesis 2:18,21-25.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> 
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
Click to expand...


  Not one recognized meaning of that TLA that makes any sense in the context of bodecea's repeated use of it.

CRC - Wikipedia


----------



## Death Angel

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Cultural acceptance is a different thing. It won't surprise anyone to learn that the 20-somethings and younger do not see same sex marriage as an issue. They accept it as a given


Of course. Children are ignorant. Teaching has been abandoned by most parents and turned over to secular Godvernment.

CHILDREN will accept whatever crap you pour into their skulls full of mush.

But in the end, GOD wins, and Mankind returns to the dust. But long before that, Europe and America will cease to exist unless we, as a culture restore what we all once accepted.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions [sic]. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.



  The institution of marriage, by definition, always has, and always will be, between a man and a woman.

  There is nothing _“arbitrary”_ about excluding, from that institution, those who do not wish to join in an actual marriage between a man and a woman.  You want to participate in this institution, then you need to participate in it in the form that it includes.  There is no civil right to distort such an institution in the manner that you demand, to include degenerate mockeries of it.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

rightwinger said:


> Those Islamic points sound a lot like Conservatives


Yet, you always defend Islam while attacking Christianity.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The religious bigot wing is the largest wing of the Democratic Party's coalition of hate


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, don't give up on trying to shed the pounds anyway. Better to be a normal woman than a fat one when it comes to whining, right?
Click to expand...

I love it when CRCs get into their projection mode.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and articulate retort on why same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Clearly it was well researched and considered. Once again you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse on the USMB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then run dems *,honestly,* on the issue, and pass legislation.
> 
> 
> Funny, you didn't do that.
Click to expand...

Funny how it took the courts to legalize inter-racial marriage in this country.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Votto said:


> Why would I give two adults government money who have no children? Why would I also hold money back from polygamists who have children?


What government money is going to people who have no children?


----------



## bodecea

Terri4Trump said:


> Homosexuals engage is sicked filthy acts of perversion. That is not something to bless with the name _Marriage_.
> 
> Marriage is a Sacrament from God. Homosexual sex is an abominable evil.
> 
> End of discussion.


Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?

And if you believe it's a sacrament from god....what is you take on all those people who choose to just get civilly married?


----------



## sparky

I really don't give a rodent's rear end what _anyone_ believes.  

Just know, your_ rights_ END at the tip of _my _nose

thx


~S~


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Meathead said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
Click to expand...

Why is it that you people think more about but sex than gay people do. ? Why is it that you see gay people as nothing more than sex machines and can't see the human being?


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> 
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one recognized meaning of that TLA that makes any sense in the context of bodecea's repeated use of it.
> 
> CRC - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

CRC....con-servative republican christians.   as I had said many times.


----------



## bodecea

Death Angel said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cultural acceptance is a different thing. It won't surprise anyone to learn that the 20-somethings and younger do not see same sex marriage as an issue. They accept it as a given
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Children are ignorant. Teaching has been abandoned by most parents and turned over to secular Godvernment.
> 
> CHILDREN will accept whatever crap you pour into their skulls full of mush.
> 
> But in the end, GOD wins, and Mankind returns to the dust. But long before that, Europe and America will cease to exist unless we, as a culture restore what we all once accepted.
Click to expand...

Which god is this again?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares about you proclivities for butt sex. Get over it!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, don't give up on trying to shed the pounds anyway. Better to be a normal woman than a fat one when it comes to whining, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it when CRCs get into their projection mode.
Click to expand...

what is CRC?


----------



## bodecea

Dogmaphobe said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those Islamic points sound a lot like Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you always defend Islam while attacking Christianity.
Click to expand...

By comparing them as two sides of the same coin attacking christianity?


----------



## bodecea

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> 
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, don't give up on trying to shed the pounds anyway. Better to be a normal woman than a fat one when it comes to whining, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love it when CRCs get into their projection mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is CRC?
Click to expand...

con-servative republican christians.


----------



## Terri4Trump

bodecea said:


> Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?



Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.

Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually _embraces_ sin and is _okay_ with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.

A word to the wise.


----------



## bodecea

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The religious bigot wing is the largest wing of the Democratic Party's coalition of hate


CRCs love that feel of being persecuted.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SweetSue92 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.
> 
> That's first.
> 
> Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "policy"? The gov't has already ruled it lawful. I think it is sinful, but many things that are sinful are lawful. Greed is lawful. Lust is lawful. Etc, etc, etc.
> 
> As I said, the biggest question for me now is: must I be forced, by the US gov't, to *participate* in that sinful activity because I opened a business? I think the answer is no, and again I believe that is ethically correct. I'm not looking to dissolve what the gov't has ruled lawful at this point. I seek the right not to PARTICIPATE in it. And if you can be fair minded, I think you'll agree that this is just.
Click to expand...

If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of work


----------



## bodecea

Terri4Trump said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
> 
> Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually _embraces_ sin and is _okay_ with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
> 
> A word to the wise.
Click to expand...

Of course....the next step is to say that these churches aren't real churches.   Maybe the churches who refuse (which is their right) are the fake churches.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Terri4Trump said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
> 
> Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually _embraces_ sin and is _okay_ with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
> 
> A word to the wise.
Click to expand...

OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 1819 Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost  on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Why is it that you people think more about but sex than gay people do. ? Why is it that you see gay people as nothing more than sex machines and can't see the human being?



  Who is it that just keeps posting one homosexual thread after another, after another, after another?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of work



  Nowhere in the Constitution is there any language that even hints at any legitimate power of government to compel anyone to waive his First Amendment rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

  Your position is blatantly unconstitutional, as well as ethically and morally unjustifiable.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> [OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 181. Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost  on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.



  God's standards do not change over time.

  What was wrong in 181, what was wrong in 1919, is still wrong, and will forever be wrong.

  And someone who openly sides with degenerate immoral sexual perverts is in no position to lecture anyone else about _“human decency”_.  You are a sick, evil, degenerate, indecent piece of filth, to your very core.


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution is there any language that even hints at any legitimate power of government to compel anyone to waive his First Amendment rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.
> 
> Your position is blatantly unconstitutional, as well as ethically and morally unjustifiable.
Click to expand...

Some "suddenly discovered tho not in the bible deeply held beliefs", right?


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 181. Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost  on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's standards do not change over time.
> 
> What was wrong in 181, what was wrong in 1919, is still wrong, and will forever be wrong.
> 
> And someone who openly sides with degenerate immoral sexual perverts is in no position to lecture anyone else about _“human decency”_.  You are a sick, evil, degenerate, indecent piece of filth, to your very core.
Click to expand...

Like divorce?  Sorry, thinking people aren't buying that "deeply held beliefs" stuff anymore from CRCs.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
> 
> Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually _embraces_ sin and is _okay_ with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
> 
> A word to the wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 1819 Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost  on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.
Click to expand...




> There is something called evolving standards of human decency


 I have to laugh when someone says it is decent to put a penis in another man's ass.  You just cant get more ridiculous than that.


----------



## bodecea

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
> 
> Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually _embraces_ sin and is _okay_ with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
> 
> A word to the wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH Christ are you back, newbie? This is the year 2019. Not 1819 Not 1919. There is something called evolving standards of human decency which has apparently been lost  on you, Trump, and the rest of his moronic minions . Gay people. LGBT people are an accepted part the fabric of modern society. Get used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something called evolving standards of human decency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to laugh when someone says it is decent to put a penis in another man's ass.  You just cant get more ridiculous than that.
Click to expand...

I have to laugh when CRCs show us again and again and again that they can't stop thinking and talking about anal sex.   I know of no gays that think and talk about it half as much.


----------



## Lysistrata

Terri4Trump said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that churches (not all, mind you) were performing gay marriages decades before it became civilly legal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe fake churches were, wolves among the sheep.
> 
> Here is a little rule of thumb for you: Jesus said to "Go and sin no more." If you find a church that actually _embraces_ sin and is _okay_ with sin, then it ain't a real church. It is actually anti-Christ.
> 
> A word to the wise.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a "fake church" to the people who attend it. 

It's irrelevant to the subject at hand, anyway. The _Obergefell_ decision concerned only _civil  _law. Different religious organizations have different rules regarding religious marriage and it's up to these organizations to make and enforce these rules for their members. 

We have a dual system. It makes no sense to argue specific religious beliefs in the context of civil law. I remember a case from the 1990's that I thought was wrongly decided. The case involved the state of Georgia rescinding a job offer to an attorney because she was planning a religious ceremony to marry her girlfriend. Same-sex marriage was not legal under civil law at the time.

FindLaw's United States Eleventh Circuit case and opinions.

My objection to the ruling in the state's favor was, and is that I don't think that it should be legal to subject someone to an adverse employment action based merely on that person's choice to undergo a religious rite totally separate from employment matters.

I had an uncle who got married in the 1940s and then got divorced after having a child. It worked legally, but not in the Catholic Church. My aunt always bemoaned the fact that she could not marry her husband in a Catholic ceremony because he was divorced. I don't know if they got married in a civil ceremony or found another church.

There is a big difference between civil law and the various rules of the myriad of religious organizations, some of which go one way and some of which go the other way.


----------



## SweetSue92

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SweetSue92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us will never see a man-and-man relationship or a woman-and-woman relationship--or whatever inevitably follows, because it will--as a marriage. You can't control that any more than you can control anything else that we think. Tolerance means you have to live with us thinking that.
> 
> 
> 
> Think whatever the hell you want. Just think ! Think about how your behavior and the policies that you advocate for effect others. By all means THINK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I think does not affect my behavior. It is possible to think many things and not have them affect your behavior. This is what we try to teach our elementary children; in fact it is one of the marks of maturity.
> 
> That's first.
> 
> Second, what policies do you think I'm trying to make here? The one I'm strongly advocating for is the freedom to live by your conscience: that is, if you own a bake shop the gov't should not FORCE you to bake cakes for events you find morally objectionable. I think we're going to win that one, and I think it's wholly ethical. I do not think the gov't should force ANYONE'S service for an event they find morally objectionable. That goes for a gay baker, a black baker, a Muslim baker or any baker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What policies? The topic here is marriage. What is your policy on same sex marriage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "policy"? The gov't has already ruled it lawful. I think it is sinful, but many things that are sinful are lawful. Greed is lawful. Lust is lawful. Etc, etc, etc.
> 
> As I said, the biggest question for me now is: must I be forced, by the US gov't, to *participate* in that sinful activity because I opened a business? I think the answer is no, and again I believe that is ethically correct. I'm not looking to dissolve what the gov't has ruled lawful at this point. I seek the right not to PARTICIPATE in it. And if you can be fair minded, I think you'll agree that this is just.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where there is a law against discrimination that includes LGBT people , yes you must serve them . If you can't do that find another line of work
Click to expand...


Well, Jack of Masterpiece Bakery did not. So we shall see where this goes. Personally I like our chances with the First Amendment Freedom of Religion intact.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> Some "suddenly discovered tho not in the bible deeply held beliefs", right?



  What language is that supposed to be?  Most of the individual words appear to be English, but they do not appear to be arranged in any manner that, in English, conveys any discernible meaning.


----------



## Terri4Trump

Lysistrata said:


> There is no such thing as a "fake church" to the people who attend it.



Bullshit. If you have a church that teaches lies then its fake you moron.

If you have a Christian church that actually *promotes sin* then it is NOT Christian and is therefore fake. Any idiot can see that, except for you apparently.


----------



## rightwinger

Gays have been getting married for over a decade now

The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 
> 
> That is idiotic .I never said or implied that ANYONE can or should be able to marry  any one who they wish. Do you actually believe that  I thing that a straight person could grab someone on the street who they like and marry them. ?
> 
> The issue is the ability to marry someone with whom you have a mutual romantic and sexual attraction to. I will say again-to claim that a gay person had equal rights to marry some one of the opposite sex is not only stupid, but it degrades the individual who you either don't think deserves the same kind of relationships that you enjoy, or you don't believe that they marry for romance and love. It also degrades the institution of marriage -that you claim to want to save-by reducing it to a business arrangement.
Click to expand...



Are men and women different?


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
> 
> The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay




Actually, the institution of Gay "Marriage" has existed for more than a decade,   they were conducting these ceremonies on the Springer Program in the 20th Century-  and gay marriage was first piloted by homosexuals in the our penitentiary system even before then.

Further, there has been an exponential increase in non-binary sexuality over the past couple of decades.   Normative children really seem to be neglected.   When I was a kid, we had Duke Wayne, Lee Marvin and other normative folks to emulate.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
Click to expand...



Are men and women different?


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument was the Kennedy was not a lefty. That was the sole point you raised.
> 
> My response was appropriate.
> 
> 
> Marriage has been one man, one woman, in the US for it's entire history. If the homos wanted it expanded, they should have made the argument for doing that.
> 
> Instead they ran to the judges. That is on them, and you lefties.
> 
> 
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then run dems *,honestly,* on the issue, and pass legislation.
> 
> 
> Funny, you didn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how it took the courts to legalize inter-racial marriage in this country.
Click to expand...



Are men and women different?


----------



## Polishprince

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your response was bullshit. My assessment of Kennedy was not my only point by far. It was the only point that you wanted to hear. The main point is that numerous judges at all levels of the judiciary shot down state bans on same sex marriage.
> 
> The " marriage has always been"...…...argument is well worn and tired, nothing more than an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  And gay PEOPLE have in fact made a compelling and convincing argument for marriage equality. The fact that you don't know that only speaks to your profound and pathetic ignorance of the subject. Had you bothers to read the Obergefell decision, the decisions of the lower courts or the briefs you would knw that and maybe not come off as such a dumb ass.
> 
> Lastly, when states violate the constitution, and are unresponsive to people whos rights are being denied, it is absolutely appropriate to turn to the courts for relief  .Again, not knowing that is more clear and convincing evidence of you ignorance of the law and our system of justice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then run dems *,honestly,* on the issue, and pass legislation.
> 
> 
> Funny, you didn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how it took the courts to legalize inter-racial marriage in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
Click to expand...



That's sort of a trick question nowadays, correll.   We're in an age where a lot of people change their genders more often than they change their underwear


----------



## Correll

Polishprince said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Plenty of judges did not support your side of the argument in the past. You just kept on trying till you found judges that sided with you.
> 
> 2. Your argument on marriage equality, was based on the false idea that other than gays, that people got to marry whom they wanted. This was not true. That was my point. Your argument was weak, that is why you lost so many times, before you found lib judges.
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest.  Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> The judges were late on the issue as most Americans already had it in their state and most Americans supported it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then run dems *,honestly,* on the issue, and pass legislation.
> 
> 
> Funny, you didn't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how it took the courts to legalize inter-racial marriage in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's sort of a trick question nowadays, correll.   We're in an age where a lot of people change their genders more often than they change their underwear
Click to expand...


I understand that the concepts involved are alien to the Left.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
Click to expand...

Is that really your best shot ,Dude?


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Homosexuals cannot be married, no matter what the Supreme Court says.  That is an abomination.  Just call it a civil contract, keep your filthy perverted asses away from the churches, and stop attacking Christianity.


----------



## Cosmos

Terri4Trump said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "fake church" to the people who attend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If you have a church that teaches lies then its fake you moron.
> 
> If you have a Christian church that actually *promotes sin* then it is NOT Christian and is therefore fake. Any idiot can see that, except for you apparently.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  As you have no doubt noticed, the queers have shifted slightly from attacking Christians to trying to redefine them.  To hear them tell it, Jesus was a gay socialist.


----------



## mdk

It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.




As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.

I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.

Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.


----------



## Lysistrata

Terri4Trump said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "fake church" to the people who attend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If you have a church that teaches lies then its fake you moron.
> 
> If you have a Christian church that actually *promotes sin* then it is NOT Christian and is therefore fake. Any idiot can see that, except for you apparently.
Click to expand...


You apparently do not understand the concept of people adhering to different faiths than your's. This is why different religions, including Christianity, have so many varied groups, sects, cults. If anyone is a moron, it is you.


Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals cannot be married, no matter what the Supreme Court says.  That is an abomination.  Just call it a civil contract, keep your filthy perverted asses away from the churches, and stop attacking Christianity.
Click to expand...


Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.


----------



## Polishprince

Lysistrata said:


> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.




This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.
> 
> I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.
> 
> Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.
Click to expand...


Well if it’s true for the prison population than it must true is the general population. Perhaps you can commission an investigative report once you’re done grinding your axe.


----------



## Cosmos

Lysistrata said:


> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a "fake church" to the people who attend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. If you have a church that teaches lies then its fake you moron.
> 
> If you have a Christian church that actually *promotes sin* then it is NOT Christian and is therefore fake. Any idiot can see that, except for you apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently do not understand the concept of people adhering to different faiths than your's. This is why different religions, including Christianity, have so many varied groups, sects, cults. If anyone is a moron, it is you.
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals cannot be married, no matter what the Supreme Court says.  That is an abomination.  Just call it a civil contract, keep your filthy perverted asses away from the churches, and stop attacking Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
Click to expand...


Seriously, stupid?  You think you can just reinvent Christianity to suit yourself?  It doesn't work like that.  We'll all get along a lot better if you fags just stay away from the churches instead of trying to co-opt them.  This constant attack on our culture is going to lead to more trouble, not less.


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.
> 
> I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.
> 
> Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if it’s true for the prison population than it must true is the general population. Perhaps you can commission an investigative report once you’re done grinding your axe.
Click to expand...



The prison population has a lot more LGBTQ folks than does the free population.

But we in the free world are catching up as homosexuality continues to be glorified in the media.


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.
> 
> I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.
> 
> Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if it’s true for the prison population than it must true is the general population. Perhaps you can commission an investigative report once you’re done grinding your axe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The prison population has a lot more LGBTQ folks than does the free population.
> 
> But we in the free world are catching up as homosexuality continues to be glorified in the media.
Click to expand...


You think there are more gay people in prison than in the free population?!


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.
> 
> I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.
> 
> Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if it’s true for the prison population than it must true is the general population. Perhaps you can commission an investigative report once you’re done grinding your axe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The prison population has a lot more LGBTQ folks than does the free population.
> 
> But we in the free world are catching up as homosexuality continues to be glorified in the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think there are more gay people in prison than in the free population?!
Click to expand...



Most definitely.

Look at the crime stats.

Even though less than 1% of the population is in prison, they actually have the majority of Gay Rapes


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s been four years since gay marriage has been legal nationwide. I drink the tears of whiners and haters like a fine bourbon. They sustain me, so keep it coming crybabies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.
> 
> I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.
> 
> Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if it’s true for the prison population than it must true is the general population. Perhaps you can commission an investigative report once you’re done grinding your axe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The prison population has a lot more LGBTQ folks than does the free population.
> 
> But we in the free world are catching up as homosexuality continues to be glorified in the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think there are more gay people in prison than in the free population?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most definitely.
> 
> Look at the crime stats.
> 
> Even though less than 1% of the population is in prison, they actually have the majority of Gay Rapes
Click to expand...


Show me where there are more gay people in prison than in free society. Not some bullshit from some faggot hating blog either. Anything from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report will do nicely.


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
Click to expand...


I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bodecea said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not "have children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we do.
Click to expand...


Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you like, I just don't see Gay Marriage as the fantastic success its portrayed to be.
> 
> I'd like to see investigative journalists do a report on the new institution, and report how it is working out.
> 
> Even before 4 years ago, gay marriage was very popular in the nation's penitentiaries, and a lot of male "wives" really weren't satisfied with the institution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if it’s true for the prison population than it must true is the general population. Perhaps you can commission an investigative report once you’re done grinding your axe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The prison population has a lot more LGBTQ folks than does the free population.
> 
> But we in the free world are catching up as homosexuality continues to be glorified in the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think there are more gay people in prison than in the free population?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most definitely.
> 
> Look at the crime stats.
> 
> Even though less than 1% of the population is in prison, they actually have the majority of Gay Rapes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where there are more gay people in prison than in free society. Not some bullshit from some faggot hating blog either. Anything from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report will do nicely.
Click to expand...



I will certainly look this up for you.

But I will say this up front.   Normative men are often warned about Gay Rape when they are sent to the can. A lot of prisons show a video as part of the on-boarding process giving newbies tips on avoiding Gay Rape.   The general impression we have in our society, is that there are relatively few Gay Rapists on the streets as opposed to behind bars.


----------



## Polishprince

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
Click to expand...



That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.



The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bodecea said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh contraire!   The CRCs care....they care a great deal.   They talk about it tons.
> 
> 
> 
> Are "CRCs" fat women? Corpulent and Rotound C__ts? Something similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one recognized meaning of that TLA that makes any sense in the context of bodecea's repeated use of it.
> 
> CRC - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CRC....con-servative republican christians.   as I had said many times.
Click to expand...


So you just made it up and expect everyone to know what you mean through osmosis through the keyboard?

Thanks for proving once again that you are incapable of rational thought processes.


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a "theological fact." The only thing that a theologian can offer is an opinion.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
Click to expand...



Don't need my best shot for this.



Are men and women different?


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
> 
> The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the institution of Gay "Marriage" has existed for more than a decade,   they were conducting these ceremonies on the Springer Program in the 20th Century-  and gay marriage was first piloted by homosexuals in the our penitentiary system even before then.
> 
> Further, there has been an exponential increase in non-binary sexuality over the past couple of decades.   Normative children really seem to be neglected.   When I was a kid, we had Duke Wayne, Lee Marvin and other normative folks to emulate.
Click to expand...

Neither Duke Wayne or Lee Marvin we’re known for their family values


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
Click to expand...

Adam was a homo


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam was a homo
Click to expand...



Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
> 
> The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the institution of Gay "Marriage" has existed for more than a decade,   they were conducting these ceremonies on the Springer Program in the 20th Century-  and gay marriage was first piloted by homosexuals in the our penitentiary system even before then.
> 
> Further, there has been an exponential increase in non-binary sexuality over the past couple of decades.   Normative children really seem to be neglected.   When I was a kid, we had Duke Wayne, Lee Marvin and other normative folks to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Duke Wayne or Lee Marvin we’re known for their family values
Click to expand...


John Wayne had 3 successful interracial marriages, he was definitely committed to equal rights.


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam was a homo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.
Click to expand...


Who cares? What does some preoccupation about adam or any other human being, taking "it in the ass" have anything to do with religion? This sounds more like you have a sexual preoccupation that has something to do with how you perceive yourself as a "man," which I actually think dates back to an idea that a person who plays the "pitcher" role in sexual intercourse is better than a person who plays the "catcher" role. 

Do you want to discuss the treatment of women and our bodies now? Women's bodies being the spoils of war, or traded among families? Sold for sexual purposes? This does not have anything whatsoever to do with any belief in a Supreme Being/Universal Creator.

I don't give a rat's ass about some theologian's opinions. No one knows who the Supreme Being is or can do, assuming that such a being exists. Many, most of these theologian's' opinions have been offered by a small number of males in times when the other half of the population were both kept illiterate and excluded from religious organizations. So there has never been a voice for one-half of the population to express their thinking on this issues.

Before you can elevate someone's conclusions to "wisdom," you must account for the people who were excluded deliberately.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
> 
> The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the institution of Gay "Marriage" has existed for more than a decade,   they were conducting these ceremonies on the Springer Program in the 20th Century-  and gay marriage was first piloted by homosexuals in the our penitentiary system even before then.
> 
> Further, there has been an exponential increase in non-binary sexuality over the past couple of decades.   Normative children really seem to be neglected.   When I was a kid, we had Duke Wayne, Lee Marvin and other normative folks to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Duke Wayne or Lee Marvin we’re known for their family values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Wayne had 3 successful interracial marriages, he was definitely committed to equal rights.
Click to expand...


He was divorced twice you fucking  moron 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
> 
> The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the institution of Gay "Marriage" has existed for more than a decade,   they were conducting these ceremonies on the Springer Program in the 20th Century-  and gay marriage was first piloted by homosexuals in the our penitentiary system even before then.
> 
> Further, there has been an exponential increase in non-binary sexuality over the past couple of decades.   Normative children really seem to be neglected.   When I was a kid, we had Duke Wayne, Lee Marvin and other normative folks to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Duke Wayne or Lee Marvin we’re known for their family values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Wayne had 3 successful interracial marriages, he was definitely committed to equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was divorced twice you fucking  moron
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



So you are against divorce?

Why the sudden hyperpuritanism from liberalism- especially after so many decades of insisting on easy, no-fault divorce laws?  Sort of hypocritical, eh?


----------



## Correll

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
Click to expand...




Answer or admit that you do not know.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays have been getting married for over a decade now
> 
> The world has not ended, the institution of marriage has survived, millions of children have not been turned gay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the institution of Gay "Marriage" has existed for more than a decade,   they were conducting these ceremonies on the Springer Program in the 20th Century-  and gay marriage was first piloted by homosexuals in the our penitentiary system even before then.
> 
> Further, there has been an exponential increase in non-binary sexuality over the past couple of decades.   Normative children really seem to be neglected.   When I was a kid, we had Duke Wayne, Lee Marvin and other normative folks to emulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither Duke Wayne or Lee Marvin we’re known for their family values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Wayne had 3 successful interracial marriages, he was definitely committed to equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was divorced twice you fucking  moron
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against divorce?
> 
> Why the sudden hyperpuritanism from liberalism- especially after so many decades of insisting on easy, no-fault divorce laws?  Sort of hypocritical, eh?
Click to expand...

You said "3 successful marriages"...

surely, you understand that that's an oxymoron. If theres more than 1, surely you understand that 2 were unsuccessful...unless someone died.


----------



## Muhammed

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


There is no vast right wing conspiracy to prevent you from being a disgusting whiny fagboy.

Grow up!


----------



## G.T.

Muhammed said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no vast right wing conspiracy to prevent you from being a whiny fag.
> 
> Grow up,!
Click to expand...

Nah, youre right its just a couple old fucks left in the litter that actually think the sex you fuck is a virtue.


----------



## Lysistrata

John Wayne (Marion Morrison) was not some sort of moral hero. Neither was Ronald Reagan. (child born to Nancy and him less than nine months after their marriage). Now the same people who knock film actors also market actors as "heroes." There was a hilarious post in the last two days of someone praising John Wayne and Lee Marvin as some sort of heroes, but the poster apparently also hates "Hollywood," i.e. actors.

Personally, I like actors. I think that acting is a very cerebral endeavor, as an actor has to understand the psychology of the character whom s/he is playing in order to portray that character well. I took some writing, dialogue, and screenwriting courses. The professors always made us write out a CV for all of our characters, which did not necessarily appear in the finished story. It was just that we had to understand the characters we were creating. Example: James Bond, 007, had parents and once was ten years old. So how did he come to be 007?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer or admit that you do not know.
Click to expand...


Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer or admit that you do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant, 


or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.



OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant. 



Answer the question.


Are men and women different?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer or admit that you do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant,
> 
> 
> or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
Click to expand...

It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity. 

Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.


----------



## Unkotare

Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?


----------



## miketx

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

No one devotes their life to do anything to keep you queers apart.


----------



## Polishprince

Unkotare said:


> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?




Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.

Plessey v Ferguson wasn't the last word either


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## Unkotare

Polishprince said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
Click to expand...



What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?


----------



## Polishprince

Unkotare said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
Click to expand...



You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.


----------



## Unkotare

Polishprince said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does. ......
Click to expand...



You know if there are none in the lower courts.


----------



## Unkotare

Polishprince said:


> .... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....




That case was not about gay marriage.


----------



## Polishprince

Unkotare said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That case was not about gay marriage.
Click to expand...



Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.

The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional


----------



## Unkotare

Polishprince said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That case was not about gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is, ........
Click to expand...



It absolutely was not. Find something from the court records stating that as fact.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam was a homo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.
Click to expand...


Adam was known to patronize gay bars


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That case was not about gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.
> 
> The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Too late now


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That case was not about gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.
> 
> The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late now
Click to expand...



Its never too late to reverse injustices.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam was a homo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam was known to patronize gay bars
Click to expand...



The first known Gay Communities were established the cities of Sodom as well as in Gomorrah. Gay bars were unknown in Adam's time. The people on the plain were so enamored with butt sex that they named their city after the practice, calling their city "Sodom" because of their love of sodomy.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That case was not about gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is, the Colorado baker refused to bake a cake to celebrate Gay Marriage.
> 
> The court could easily decide that Gay Marriage is unconstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its never too late to reverse injustices.
Click to expand...


We already did, we are not going back to listening to the bigots


----------



## Erinwltr

rightwinger said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam was a homo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam was known to patronize gay bars
Click to expand...

Yeah, Adam was a little nelly queen bottom hustler.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam was a homo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your view that Adam took it in the ass is at odds with a lot of theological opinions you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam was known to patronize gay bars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The first known Gay Communities were established the cities of Sodom as well as in Gomorrah. Gay bars were unknown in Adam's time. The people on the plain were so enamored with butt sex that they named their city after the practice, calling their city "Sodom" because of their love of sodomy.
Click to expand...


Adam was known to listen to broadway musicals and wear frilly clothes
His marriage to Eve was just for show


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?


----------



## Polishprince

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
Click to expand...




The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?

Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.


----------



## Blues Man

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
Click to expand...


So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?


----------



## Polishprince

Blues Man said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
Click to expand...



If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference


----------



## Blues Man

Polishprince said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
Click to expand...


Once kids know about sex the difference is quite clear.


----------



## Polishprince

Blues Man said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once kids know about sex the difference is quite clear.
Click to expand...


Young people are pretty confused nowadays, with all the homosexuality they see on TV.

When I was a young kid, my old man gave me a ride to school when it was raining one day.   Stopped at a light, there was a guy  on the corner with a "bubble" style umbrella- my dad told me "son, that man doesn't pee standing up".

They didn't have gays on TV then, that's the first homo I ever saw.


----------



## Terri4Trump

Blues Man said:


> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?



Apples and Oranges.

I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.

Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.

America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.

But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.


----------



## Blues Man

Terri4Trump said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.
> 
> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.
> 
> America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.
> 
> But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.
Click to expand...

Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned


----------



## Terri4Trump

Blues Man said:


> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned



Fuck the state. To the billions of people of different faiths who occupy the planet marriage is much much more.

Furthermore, you cannot just change the definition of a thing. Congress cannot pass a law saying that a hamburger is pizza. Well, they could pass the law, but it would not actually make a hamburger into pizza.

Marriage is what it is, the union of a man and a woman. If you want to have the union of two gays then call it what you will, but you cannot change the definition of something else that already exists.

And I have yet to go into the fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder, and that all this should not be codified into an institution in the first place.


----------



## Blues Man

Terri4Trump said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the state. To the billions of people of different faiths who occupy the planet marriage is much much more.
> 
> Furthermore, you cannot just change the definition of a thing. Congress cannot pass a law saying that a hamburger is pizza. Well, they could pass the law, but it would not actually make a hamburger into pizza.
> 
> Marriage is what it is, the union of a man and a woman. If you want to have the union of two gays then call it what you will, but you cannot change the definition of something else that already exists.
> 
> And I have yet to go into the fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder, and that all this should not be codified into an institution in the first place.
Click to expand...


We do not live in a theocracy.

If you want to live in a theocracy I suggest you move to Iran

And you're arguing semantics.  FYI the definition of words are not static and they evolve along with the population and changes in common use


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
Click to expand...


who is "glorifying Gay Marriage"? You idiot. People are born with their sexual orientation. No one "recruits" anyone. Heterosexuals will seek out people of the opposite sex. Incidentally, PLEASE clean up heterosexuality. No more trumps or domestic abuse or child brides, rape, or disrespect.

I take it that the latest newspeak from limbaugh is "normative." Is this like "social justice warriors" or "virtue signalling"? There seems to be someone in a back room somewhere thinking this crap up and getting paid for it.


----------



## Blues Man

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who is "glorifying Gay Marriage"? You idiot. People are born with their sexual orientation. No one "recruits" anyone. Heterosexuals will seek out people of the opposite sex. Incidentally, PLEASE clean up heterosexuality. No more trumps or domestic abuse or child brides, rape, or disrespect.
> 
> I take it that the latest newspeak from limbaugh is "normative." Is this like "social justice warriors" or "virtue signalling"? There seems to be someone in a back room somewhere thinking this crap up and getting paid for it.
Click to expand...


There has always been about 10% of the population that is homosexual.

These people think it's something new when it's as old as humanity


----------



## Lysistrata

Terri4Trump said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.
> 
> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.
> 
> America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.
> 
> But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.
Click to expand...


The "institution of marriage" has a dual meaning. A marriage is a marriage if a licence is procured and the couple exchanges vows in front of a legally qualified officiant. There is no perversion.The "sacred institution of marriage" is a matter of the various religious groups who hold sacred ceremonies according to their faith.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Polishprince said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
Click to expand...

Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.


----------



## Lysistrata

andaronjim said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
Click to expand...


Exactly what are the people who think like you, who you term "the rest of US," forced to change? Who is "the rest of us"?

I'm a run-of-the-mill, normal American. I'm not being forced to be anything. I have no reason to be offending by the wording on a marriage licence/certificate.


----------



## Polishprince

andaronjim said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
Click to expand...



Really?   I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.


----------



## Polishprince

Lysistrata said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> In addition:
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly what are the people who think like you, who you term "the rest of US," forced to change? Who is "the rest of us"?
> 
> I'm a run-of-the-mill, normal American. I'm not being forced to be anything. I have no reason to be offending by the wording on a marriage licence/certificate.
Click to expand...



Would you be offended if a state used the wording "bum buddy" instead of "spouse" on a gay marriage license?

Of course you would be.   As a lib, you think it should be your way or the high way


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was divorced twice you fucking  moron
> 
> 
> 
> So you are against divorce?
> 
> Why the sudden hyperpuritanism from liberalism- especially after so many decades of insisting on easy, no-fault divorce laws?  Sort of hypocritical, eh?
Click to expand...


  Orwell called it _“Doublethink”_.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Polishprince said:


> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.



  I think the evidence is cleat and undeniable that that is a specific goal of the LGBpbi*WTF*/pedophile movement.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned



  Marriage isn't defined by the state.  It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't defined by the state.  It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.
Click to expand...

We don't live in a theocracy.
If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.

Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Blues Man said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't defined by the state.  It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't live in a theocracy.
> If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.
> 
> Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it
Click to expand...

We are supposed to live in a Democracy but every time the people vote against homosexual marriage, the men in black robes overturn the Democratic process.  Is that really the Democratic way?  Of course not, but it is the Marxist way.


----------



## Lysistrata

andaronjim said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't defined by the state.  It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't live in a theocracy.
> If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.
> 
> Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are supposed to live in a Democracy but every time the people vote against homosexual marriage, the men in black robes overturn the Democratic process.  Is that really the Democratic way?  Of course not, but it is the Marxist way.
Click to expand...


No. It is the way of the United States Constitution, under which everyone's rights are secured. History shows us that majorities will dump on minorities, which is one of the chief reasons that the barrier of the Constitution is in place. Remember the assholes in Virginia who passed a law that a white person could not marry a black person (Loving v. Virginia).


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
Click to expand...

Let's recap slick! You first asked that in response to my trying to educate you on the issue of rights  and made the distinction between marriage as a right in and of itself, as apposed to  same sex marriage being a civil rights issue because one group had been arbitrarily barred form it. You did not have a single, intelligent comment on that issue. You just asked a stupid and irrelevant question as a pathetic red herring to get off the topic.   And you keep asking it. Now, you answer this:  What the fuck does thatquestion have to do with the points that I made?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this argument still going on? Didn't the Supreme Court settle this for all practical purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
Click to expand...

The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

BuckToothMoron said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although I generally agree with your sentiment towards the religious right (because god said so, or it says in the Bible are remarkable lame comments), I disagree with the marriage equality thing. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any straight person. What you and others wanted was a change in the definition of marriage (you got it btw, the issue is over in my view), which I find dangerous. I have no issue with two dudes, or two women being joined in some sort of union. I just don’t like redefining civil institutions to pacify or placate a special interest. I think it sets a bad precedent.
Click to expand...


Government being involved in marriage, an institution directly rooted in religion, in the first place was the bad precedent.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.   There is a question as to whether or not the decision should be reversed or not.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.
Click to expand...




A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.

Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".

Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.

Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.

For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Terri4Trump said:


> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.


What sort of contract will compel the government to allow them to file joint income taxes, and allow them to avoint an inheritance tax?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of contract will compel the government to allow them to file joint income taxes, and allow them to avoint an inheritance tax?
Click to expand...


If America moves to a Flat Tax and abolishes Glorified Grave Robbery (euphemistically called the Death Tax) those problems will be resolved.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

> *All animals are equal*, but some animals are more equal than others. A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.
> *All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal ...*
> www.dictionary.com/browse/all-animals-are-equal--but-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others


 In Marxism there are always a few more animals with more rights than every other animal.  Why else do fudge packers and muff divers, have more than, lets say black people and definately white people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What case or cases are pending or even making their way up to the SC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.
> 
> Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".
> 
> Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.
> 
> Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.
> 
> For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change
Click to expand...

Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never know for sure what case is going to make it to the court before it does.   The Colorado baker case could be a real opening for the Court to outlaw Gay Marriage nationwide, if it made it to the Supreme Court.  But there are other cases involving gay nuptials always bubbling up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.
> 
> Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".
> 
> Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.
> 
> Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.
> 
> For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old
Click to expand...

Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of contract will compel the government to allow them to file joint income taxes, and allow them to avoint an inheritance tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If America moves to a Flat Tax and abolishes Glorified Grave Robbery (euphemistically called the Death Tax) those problems will be resolved.
Click to expand...

We need to get rid of this stupidity over same sex marriage and those and a lot of other problems will go away


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Terri4Trump said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.
> 
> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.
> 
> America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.
> 
> But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.
Click to expand...

Were you born hateful and ignorant, or did you choose it as a lifestyle?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> In addition:
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.
Click to expand...

There is NO FUCKING husband and wife in a same sex marriage.!! One thing that I like about being here is that I learn so much. In this case, I learning how wrong I have been about the limits of stupidity. I now know that are  none.


----------



## Lysistrata

We have a civil-law system in which people procure a marriage license from the count clerk and then have a choice to be married at the courthouse or have a religious ceremony according to their faith.Once a licence is procured, the couple may go upstairs and undergo a ceremony that unites the in marriage for civil purposes. A religious marriage is an add-on in which the couple unite pursuant to their specific religious beliefs and with the specific rituals of their religious community.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING husband and wife in a same sex marriage.!! One thing that I like about being here is that I learn so much. In this case, I learning how wrong I have been about the limits of stupidity. I now know that are  none.
Click to expand...



That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would.   In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING husband and wife in a same sex marriage.!! One thing that I like about being here is that I learn so much. In this case, I learning how wrong I have been about the limits of stupidity. I now know that are  none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would.   In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".
Click to expand...


What does this matter to any of us, out in society or inside of prison? So much of sex involves the positions of two bodies, and males penetrate a body with their penis and ejaculate. What is of importance about this? Among heterosexuals, the same thing goes on. In between any sexuals, someone plays "pitcher" and someone plays "catcher." Is one more important than the other?


----------



## rightwinger

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone outlaw same-sex marriage? BTW: what's it to you? Even if you are unhappy in your own marriage, do you think that you would be happier if other people could not get married?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.
> 
> Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".
> 
> Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.
> 
> Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.
> 
> For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.
Click to expand...

Marriage is about love


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer or admit that you do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant,
> 
> 
> or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
Click to expand...



It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.


NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.


The question stands.


Are men and women different?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer or admit that you do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant,
> 
> 
> or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
Click to expand...

The point of clarifying what you mean by different, specifically, is to avoid absurdity...which would be insolvency of the conversation.

Yes, men and women are different.
Men and men are different, too. 
And Im different than the me from eleven seconds ago.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Your spin that everything you want is a "Right" is an effective tactic. But it is unsupported by anything other than your dominance of media. Saying some thing over and over again worked on the nation as a whole, but one on one, like right here, it makes you look dishonest. Because it is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> What  exactly  did I say about rights? I said that it is a *civil rights* issue because a group was being arbitrarily excluded from an institution that others were able to take participation in  for granted. I never said that marriage -in and of itself is a right, although SCOTUS has on numerous occaisions. That is a useless argument I can't believe that I have to explain all of this to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that really your best shot ,Dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need my best shot for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's recap slick! You first asked that in response to my trying to educate you on the issue of rights  and made the distinction between marriage as a right in and of itself, as apposed to  same sex marriage being a civil rights issue because one group had been arbitrarily barred form it. You did not have a single, intelligent comment on that issue. You just asked a stupid and irrelevant question as a pathetic red herring to get off the topic.   And you keep asking it. Now, you answer this:  What the fuck does thatquestion have to do with the points that I made?
Click to expand...




Your fear of answering, shows that on some level, that you know your position is weak.

Answer, and I will immediately point out the relevance, that you somehow managed to miss, or at least pretend to miss.


It is not a red herring, but a leading question, designed to illuminate the topic.


Obviously.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer or admit that you do not know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant,
> 
> 
> or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
Click to expand...



Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not answering a stupid question that has no relevance to the discussion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant,
> 
> 
> or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
Click to expand...

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you can see where I am going with this question, and you are lying when you say it is not relevant,
> 
> 
> or you CAN'T see where I am going with this question, and you are lying, by pretending to know anything about it being relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> OR, slim possibility, you know where I am going, and have a bizarre way of imagining that my question is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
Click to expand...




There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms. 


Try to be less of a drama queen.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
Click to expand...

Are queens different from kings


in how many ways


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".



I love that most of what you know about gays appears to be from what your jailbird friends told you. lol. You sure seem to know a lot of criminals.


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that most of what you know about gays appears to be from what your jailbird friends told you. lol. You sure seem to know a lot of criminals.
Click to expand...

The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.


derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch


----------



## mdk

G.T. said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would. In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that most of what you know about gays appears to be from what your jailbird friends told you. lol. You sure seem to know a lot of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.
> 
> 
> derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch
Click to expand...


The exact same argument was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws half a century ago. The courts weren’t that impressed then either.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are queens different from kings
> 
> 
> in how many ways
Click to expand...



Yes, they are, in more ways than I can say off the top of my head.


See how easy I was able to answer a general question?


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.
> 
> 
> derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch




I think its more than a valid argument.   King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill.  Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.

Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.

Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.
> 
> I am 100% against gay marriage and I will never recognize any so-called "marriage" between gays. In fact, as far as I am concerned, it does not even exist.
> 
> Having said that, I am fine with gays entering into contracts that provide them with the stuff they claimed they were being denied that married couples have.
> 
> America is built on "contracts". I don't care what contracts people enter into.
> 
> But to pervert the sacred institution of marriage is an entirely different thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were you born hateful and ignorant, or did you choose it as a lifestyle?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, when a liberal starts losing the argument must resort to Rules for Radicals #13.  Insults start to fly when they dont get their way..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> So other people having the same access to social contracts is forcing you to do what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuals would call themselves "bum buddies" instead of spouses or husbands, it would make the difference between the Sexual Preferences clearer for young people to discern the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the faggots did remove the "wife" and Husband" from marriage certificates and replaced them with "partner 1 and partner 2". Because it might offend the queers to have to gender identify.  Again that is FORCING the rest of US to change for their pansy asses, which again, makes US hate them all the more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   I was under the impression that the "husband" in the gay marriage was the active member, and the "wife" was the wide receiver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING husband and wife in a same sex marriage.!! One thing that I like about being here is that I learn so much. In this case, I learning how wrong I have been about the limits of stupidity. I now know that are  none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I learned from guys I know who were in the joint and know a lot more about it that I would.   In fact, there is a real distinction between the "man" in a gay marriage and the wide receiver "wife".
Click to expand...

The "Joint" which you seem to know a lot about....(????) has nothing to do the real outside world. It is completely stupid and dishonest - and a false equivalence logical fallacy to compare prison culture and how gay couples actually live and relate to each other in the free world


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.
> 
> 
> derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its more than a valid argument.   King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill.  Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.
> 
> Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.
> 
> Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage
Click to expand...

More than valid?

The whole issue is that the gay folks want to marry EACH OTHER.

How is it humanly possible to miss the entire notion from the starting line.

Dont check your watch near flights of stairs


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.
> 
> 
> derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its more than a valid argument.   King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill.  Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.
> 
> Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.
> 
> Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than valid?
> 
> The whole issue is that the gay folks want to marry EACH OTHER.
> 
> How is it humanly possible to miss the entire notion from the starting line.
> 
> Dont check your watch near flights of stairs
Click to expand...



King James I and VI didn't want to marry some dude.  And he didn't, even though he had the absolute right to.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.
> 
> 
> derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its more than a valid argument.   King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill.  Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.
> 
> Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.
> 
> Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than valid?
> 
> The whole issue is that the gay folks want to marry EACH OTHER.
> 
> How is it humanly possible to miss the entire notion from the starting line.
> 
> Dont check your watch near flights of stairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> King James I and VI didn't want to marry some dude.  And he didn't, even though he had the absolute right to.
Click to expand...

I dont care what King James the 1st or 6th fucked or married, dude. I live in America...founded on the notion that Kings are invalid.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question in virtue of the lack of specificity.
> 
> Men and MEN are "different," it depends on what you mean by different and why you're invoking the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
Click to expand...

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.


----------



## G.T.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
Click to expand...

Its going to be such poor, convoluted logic that it's visceral and it will miss the underlying point of the entire issue and reason most folks favor more freedom and less restriction on consenting adults that arent infringing on others.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest argument from the dipshits is that gays have been allowed to marry all along...its just the opposite sex, is all.
> 
> 
> derrps like that are the type that fall down staircases checking their watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its more than a valid argument.   King James I and VI of England and Scotland was as queer as a 3 pound bill.  Further, James was the absolute monarch and head of the Church of England and Scotland, didn't have a pope to answer to.
> 
> Yet, he was married to a broad, and never once even proposed the idea of Gay Marriage- although it was 100% within his rights to implement it.
> 
> Plenty of fellow who liked it up the ass, also have had no problems with marriage
Click to expand...

You just really can't get away from that up the ass obsession.  I think that you were in the big house and were forced to play house  and that you were profoundly damaged by that .


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very general question. YOu are thus welcome to give a very general answer.
> 
> 
> NOt sure what part of that is hard for you.
> 
> 
> The question stands.
> 
> 
> Are men and women different?
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
Click to expand...




So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman, 


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
Click to expand...



Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!

Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.

Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.


----------



## mdk

gAyS iN AmEriCA dOn'T nEeD tO mArRy b/C KiNg JaMeS!


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
Click to expand...




True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.


All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.


But that is not what you lefties did. 


You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


> gAyS iN AmEriCA dOn'T nEeD tO mArRy b/C KiNg JaMeS!


The bending over backwards because they secretly enjoy imposing their own morality on others is hysterical


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Watered Down Political Science For Simpletons "*

** Sanction By Government Not Required **



mdk said:


> The exact same argument was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws half a century ago. The courts weren’t that impressed then either.


The facets of self ownership ( free roam , free association , procreation ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are intrinsic with individualism and limited by non violence principles .

Thus , individuals are entitled to paraphilia ( non procreative behavior ) , or to disposition their private property ( civil unions ) as they see fit .

However , the public is confused by the fabrication known as " equal wrights " , because " equal protection " ( specifically from government at that ) is the actual constitutional guarantee and " equal protection " does not directly translate into or guarantee " equal endowment " .

The meaning of an after life is passing on ones genetic identity onto ones offspring ; and , for example , to be married by the catholic church , spouses must attest an intent to procreate .

Thus , a unique and discerning characteristic of sex distinguishes between social civil contracts ( civil unions ) that are functionally capable of perpetuating genetic identity by the partners and social civil contracts ( civil unions ) which cannot , which is alleged to be delineated by the term " marriage " .

That is , it must be established that " unequal endowment " , based upon distinctions between styles of social civil contract , violates " equal protection " ; and , that does not necessarily always seem to be an easy thing to prove .


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
Click to expand...

No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.


----------



## G.T.

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Watered Down Political Science For Simpletons "*
> 
> ** Sanction By Government Not Required **
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exact same argument was used to defend anti-miscegenation laws half a century ago. The courts weren’t that impressed then either.
> 
> 
> 
> The facets of self ownership ( free roam , free association , procreation ) and self determination ( private property , willful intents ) are intrinsic with individualism and limited by non violence principles .
> 
> Thus , individuals are entitled to paraphilia ( non procreative behavior ) , or to disposition their private property ( civil unions ) as they see fit .
> 
> However , the public is confused by the fabrication known as " equal wrights " , because " equal protection " ( specifically from government at that ) is the actual constitutional guarantee and " equal protection " does not directly translate into or guarantee " equal endowment " .
> 
> The meaning of an after life is passing on ones genetic identity onto ones offspring ; and , for example , to be married by the catholic church , spouses must attest an intent to procreate .
> 
> Thus , a unique and discerning characteristic of sex distinguishes between social civil contracts that are functionally capable of perpetuating genetic identity of the partners and those which cannot .
> 
> That is , it must be established that " unequal endowment " based upon a style of social civil contract violates " equal protection " ; and , that does not necessarily always seem to be an easy thing to prove .
Click to expand...

I had to stop after learning that you actually spelled rights with a w.


----------



## mdk

G.T. said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> gAyS iN AmEriCA dOn'T nEeD tO mArRy b/C KiNg JaMeS!
> 
> 
> 
> The bending over backwards because they secretly enjoy imposing their own morality on others is hysterical
Click to expand...


Make no mistake, they are just as much as controls freaks as the people they rail against. The world would be a far better place if busybodies got a life and stopped peering into the windows of their neighbors. Worry about your own roof.


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> gAyS iN AmEriCA dOn'T nEeD tO mArRy b/C KiNg JaMeS!
> 
> 
> 
> The bending over backwards because they secretly enjoy imposing their own morality on others is hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make no mistake, they are just as much as controls freaks as the people they rail against. The world would be a far better place if busybodies got a life and stopped peering into the windows of their neighbors. Worry about your own roof.
Click to expand...

I would off myself if I literally sat my ass down and concocted "arguments" against two folks minding their fucking business getting married...and thought that I was actually a rational, level-headed adult.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" No Skin Off My Knows "*

** Gnats And Knit Wits **



G.T. said:


> I had to stop after learning that you actually spelled rights with a w.


A law wright crafts laws , otherwise understood at wrights .

To understand that wrights should be used rather than rights , see Legal positivism - Wikipedia .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
Click to expand...

Explain how it is not a civil rights issues and don't even bother to claim that civil rights is only about race because it is not. A very eloquent and compelling argument was most certainly made in favor of same sex marriage but you don't know that because you lack the intellectual curiosity and capacity to have actually read  Obergefell of any of the cases that preceded it.


----------



## G.T.

Monk-Eye said:


> *" No Skin Off My Knows "*
> 
> ** Gnats And Knit Wits **
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to stop after learning that you actually spelled rights with a w.
> 
> 
> 
> A law wright crafts laws , otherwise understood at wrights .
> 
> To understand that wrights should be used rather than rights , see Legal positivism - Wikipedia .
Click to expand...

Ill stick with not using the needless w, thanks


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what you were trying to say there.


My point stands. 


True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.


All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.


But that is not what you lefties did.


You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
Click to expand...

According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe. 

A spade is a spade.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how it is not a civil rights issues and don't even bother to claim that civil rights is only about race because it is not. A very eloquent and compelling argument was most certainly made in favor of same sex marriage but you don't know that because you lack the intellectual curiosity and capacity to have actually read  Obergefell of any of the cases that preceded it.
Click to expand...



You pointed out, correctly, that the argument that it IS a civil rights issue, is based on the idea that denying same sex partners from getting married was an arbitrary restriction.


But, as I pointed out, since men and women are different, than an having an institution with different roles, for the different sexes, is not arbitrary.



Thus your argument is based on a false premise. 


NO matter, how "eloquent and compelling" you think it was.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
Click to expand...


And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.


Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change, 


your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.


YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you. 


You just demonstrated my point. 


Thank you.


I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm, 

The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.


With rare exceptions.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
Click to expand...

Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
Click to expand...

Horseshit! It is very much a civil rights issue, You just don't want it to be because you then .have no defense or valid argument


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Goad Four It "*

** Rules Of Ambiguous Homonym **


G.T. said:


> Ill stick with not using the needless w, thanks


Are you sure that rites would not be more fitting , that is an entitlement to follow rituals , as there is not a difference between creed and religion ?

Or perhaps writes is more fitting for laws having been written .

The reference to natural " rights " of man is an allusion to ideals consistent with mammon having stood up , perpendicular , from the earth ; however , the conjecture of " natural rights " has nothing to do with naturalism as the former is more a vain pretense by mammon that it is not an animal but a god .

A " right " angle , or an angle of 90 degrees , mostly in 2nd and 3rd dimensional vector space is also referred to as a norm , or normal , see Normed vector space - Wikipedia ; so , a " right " is a conjecture that politicians are figuratively creating - Social norm - Wikipedia ?

Thus , while suppositions for the term " rights " are understood , my detest is based on its conjecture as being pretentious tripe ( see legal positivism ) ; thus , in disheveling protest , wright will continue to be applied by myself .


----------



## G.T.

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Go Four It "*
> 
> ** Rules Of Ambiguous Homonym **
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ill stick with not using the needless w, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure that rites would not be more fitting , that is an entitlement to follow rituals , as there is not a difference between creed and religion ?
> 
> Or perhaps writes is more fitting for laws having been written .
> 
> The reference to natural " rights " of man is an allusion to ideals consistent with mammon having stood up , perpendicular , from the earth ; however , the conjecture of " natural rights " has nothing to do with naturalism as the former is more a vain pretense by mammon that it is not an animal but a god .
> 
> A " right " angle , or an angle of 90 degrees , mostly in 2nd and 3rd dimensional vector space is also referred to as a norm , or normal , see Normed vector space - Wikipedia ; so , a " right " is a conjecture that politicians are figuratively creating - Social norm - Wikipedia ?
> 
> Thus , while suppositions for the term " rights " are understood , my detest is based on its conjecture being pretentious tripe ( see legal positivism ) ; thus , in disheveling protest , wright will continue to be applied by myself .
Click to expand...

I don't care how hard you try to puff up some fake heir of sophistry, it's cringe worthy


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Doing It My Weigh "*

** Oh Well **


G.T. said:


> I don't care how hard you try to puff up some fake heir of sophistry, it's cringe worthy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how it is not a civil rights issues and don't even bother to claim that civil rights is only about race because it is not. A very eloquent and compelling argument was most certainly made in favor of same sex marriage but you don't know that because you lack the intellectual curiosity and capacity to have actually read  Obergefell of any of the cases that preceded it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You pointed out, correctly, that the argument that it IS a civil rights issue, is based on the idea that denying same sex partners from getting married was an arbitrary restriction.
> 
> 
> But, as I pointed out, since men and women are different, than an having an institution with different roles, for the different sexes, is not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus your argument is based on a false premise.
> 
> 
> NO matter, how "eloquent and compelling" you think it was.
Click to expand...

Oh! So now you suddenly agree that it is a civil rights issue!! It took you a while but ill give you credit for it,  However, you continue to push  the issue that men and women are different and gender roles -seemingly as some sort of bizarre argument against gay marriage which makes not a lick of fucking sense. What exactly is the false premise? There  is no false premise on my part. The false premise-that you are pushing - is that gender rolls matter when considering the merits of same sex marriage.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Biology Does Now Work That Way "*

** Disqualified After Life **

A marriage and a civil union are both civil unions , but the former includes a connotation that procreation is concomitant with the social civil contract .

Issue is that same sex civil unions came to possess all social and civil entitlements as heterosexual civil unions except for the title of " marriage " ; and the term " marriage " was targeted to somehow establish that same sex civil unions were equally legitimate with heterosexual civil unions .

The preposition of equal protection from government may not be synonymous with equal endowment .

Based upon a style of social civil contracts , for example , homosexual civil unions could be taxed without access to income splitting .

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia
_The *marriage penalty* in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples with both partners earning income that would not be required by two otherwise identical single people with exactly the same incomes. There is also a *marriage bonus* that applies in other cases. Multiple factors are involved, but in general, in the current U.S. system, single-income married couples usually benefit from filing as a married couple (similar to so-called income splitting), while dual-income married couples are often penalized. The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates. _


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Monk-Eye said:


> marriage and a civil union are both civil unions , but the former includes a connotation that procreation is concomitant with the social civil contract .


Then why are women in their 60"s allowed to marry instead of relegating them to the civil union group?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Could Not Be Blamed For Trying "*

** Read The Warning Label **


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then why are women in their 60"s allowed to marry instead of relegating them to the civil union group?


The answer is " prima facie " .

Pregnancy over age 50 - Wikipedia
_In the United States, between 1997 and 1999, 539 births were reported among mothers over age 50 (four per 100,000 births), with 194 being over 55.[8]  The oldest mother to date to conceive, was 71 years, and the youngest mother, 5 years old.

The risk of genetic defects is greatly increased due to the paternal age effect. Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30.[4] Researchers estimate that compared to a male fathering a child in his early 20s, there is double the chance of the child getting schizophrenia when the father is age 40, and triple the risk of schizophrenia when the father is age 50 (though, for most people this means the risk goes from approximately 1 in 121 when a man is 29, to 1 in 47 when a man is age 50 to 54).[5] The volume and fecundity of a man’s semen quality and sperm motility (the ability of sperm to move towards an egg) decrease continually between the ages of 20 and 80.[4] The incidence of dwarfism[6] and miscarriage also increases as men age.[4][7]_


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Could Not Be Blamed For Trying "*
> 
> ** Read The Warning Label **
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are women in their 60"s allowed to marry instead of relegating them to the civil union group?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is " prima facie " .
> 
> Pregnancy over age 50 - Wikipedia
> _In the United States, between 1997 and 1999, 539 births were reported among mothers over age 50 (four per 100,000 births), with 194 being over 55.[8]  The oldest mother to date to conceive, was 71 years, and the youngest mother, 5 years old.
> 
> The risk of genetic defects is greatly increased due to the paternal age effect. Children with fathers aged 40 or older are more than five times as likely to have an autism spectrum disorder than children fathered by men aged under 30.[4] Researchers estimate that compared to a male fathering a child in his early 20s, there is double the chance of the child getting schizophrenia when the father is age 40, and triple the risk of schizophrenia when the father is age 50 (though, for most people this means the risk goes from approximately 1 in 121 when a man is 29, to 1 in 47 when a man is age 50 to 54).[5] The volume and fecundity of a man’s semen quality and sperm motility (the ability of sperm to move towards an egg) decrease continually between the ages of 20 and 80.[4] The incidence of dwarfism[6] and miscarriage also increases as men age.[4][7]_
Click to expand...

Oh Christ! Seriously?? This is really stupid but I'll play. Then what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy ?


----------



## Blues Man

andaronjim said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is nothing but a property contract as far as the state is concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't defined by the state.  It's defined by God, and no mortal government has the authority to override Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't live in a theocracy.
> If you want to live in a theocracy then move to Iran.
> 
> Marriage is a legal contract there is nothing holy about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are supposed to live in a Democracy but every time the people vote against homosexual marriage, the men in black robes overturn the Democratic process.  Is that really the Democratic way?  Of course not, but it is the Marxist way.
Click to expand...


We do not live in a democracy we live in a republic but have you ever noticed that other individual rights are not voted on?

What if the people decided to vote against the right to free speech, or the right protections from searches and seizures?

Hell we could vote slavery back into existence or we could vote religion out of existence.

We have protections in place so that our rights are not subject to mob rule


----------



## Blues Man

Lysistrata said:


> We have a civil-law system in which people procure a marriage license from the count clerk and then have a choice to be married at the courthouse or have a religious ceremony according to their faith.Once a licence is procured, the couple may go upstairs and undergo a ceremony that unites the in marriage for civil purposes. A religious marriage is an add-on in which the couple unite pursuant to their specific religious beliefs and with the specific rituals of their religious community.


In all honesty we should not allow churches to perform legally sanctioned marriages at all.
The civil ceremony should be the only legally recognized form of marriage people can still have their religious ceremony but they should have to have a civil one as well.  We say we have a separation of church and state but we allow churches to be vested with legal powers of marriage


----------



## Blues Man

rightwinger said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with glorifying Gay Marriage is what would happen if it became universal?
> 
> Normative children really are losing their role models and can be a lot more easily recruited into the gay lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.
> 
> Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".
> 
> Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.
> 
> Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.
> 
> For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is about love
Click to expand...

Marriage is a property contract


----------



## Polishprince

Blues Man said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of traditional role models have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. But I get where your coming from. Your so stupid that you think that there is a husband and a wife in same sex relationships where each fulfills the role of one gender or the others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.
> 
> Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".
> 
> Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.
> 
> Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.
> 
> For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is about love
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a property contract
Click to expand...



So people without property should not get married in your view?

I disagree.   Marriage is an institution established by Almighty God to unite one man and one broad.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
Click to expand...



Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.

Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I thought, garbo clean-up.....aisle 5!
> 
> Newsflash, odd ass...institutions are free to change in an open and evolving society...and as a society does evolve, so should the equal treatment of the good citizens encompassing said society.
> 
> Your only argument is you're being a fuckin' ninny. Nose stuck in the air at those icky others. Well adjusted adults dont go around giving 2 shits who grown folks marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horseshit! It is very much a civil rights issue, You just don't want it to be because you then .have no defense or valid argument
Click to expand...



Yeah. YOu said that. And I pointed out why it was not. Repeating yourself is not challenging my point.



It is how you won the "debate" though. Constant repetition of a lie, over and over again, and viciously attacking anyone that called you  on it, until the illusion was strong enough for your allies in the courts to dictate the change.


Not only are you failing to challenge what I said, your actions are demonstrating the behavior I accused you of.


----------



## mdk

Here is the extensive list of things you can do about my marriage:

1. Jack
2. Shit
3. Whine on Social Media


----------



## mdk

MeN & wOmEn R dIfFeReNt, sO fAgs ShOuLd KnOt BeE AlLoWeD tO mArRy!


----------



## Blues Man

Polishprince said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair number of homos become Trannies you do know.  Not everyone starts off at the deep end , they move gradually more and more into it.
> 
> Sonny and Cher's daughter, if you'll remember, started off as a Lesbian, before she became , more of less, a "dude".
> 
> Bradley Manning was a homo for years, before he decided that he was actually a broad trapped into a dude's body.
> 
> Ditto with Herbert Garrison, who first became gay, and then had a sex change.
> 
> For a growing number of homosexuals, its just and intermediate step to eventually having a sex change
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is about love
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a property contract
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So people without property should not get married in your view?
> 
> I disagree.   Marriage is an institution established by Almighty God to unite one man and one broad.
Click to expand...


Everyone owns something.

Marriage is a legal contract as far as the government is concerned. There is nothing holy about it.

In case you didn't realize this, the US in not a theocracy therefore what the the church says is completely irrelevant.  If you want to live in a theocracy then I suggest you move to Iran


----------



## Polishprince

Blues Man said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! A "fair  Where do you get that shit from. A few anecdotes certainly does not prove anything.  You're understanding of human sexuality is on the level of an intellectually challenged 10 year old
> 
> 
> 
> Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is about love
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a property contract
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So people without property should not get married in your view?
> 
> I disagree.   Marriage is an institution established by Almighty God to unite one man and one broad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone owns something.
> 
> Marriage is a legal contract as far as the government is concerned. There is nothing holy about it.
> 
> In case you didn't realize this, the US in not a theocracy therefore what the the church says is completely irrelevant.  If you want to live in a theocracy then I suggest you move to Iran
Click to expand...



I didn't say anything about what any church says about it. 

BTW, in Iran, the ruling mullahs don't believe in Almighty God at all, they believe in "allah"


----------



## Blues Man

Polishprince said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our understanding of human sexuality is above the college level as we know that having children require 1 female XX and 1 male XY.  Now if you have 2 XX they cannot produce, same goes with 2 XY, but you ass packers, sure do "think" like animals do, by humping shit that doesnt produce anything but excrement(that means shit in elaborate terms).  I laugh at your attempt to put the rest US down, who "know" the real science on human evolution, not devolution and debauchery.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about love
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a property contract
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So people without property should not get married in your view?
> 
> I disagree.   Marriage is an institution established by Almighty God to unite one man and one broad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone owns something.
> 
> Marriage is a legal contract as far as the government is concerned. There is nothing holy about it.
> 
> In case you didn't realize this, the US in not a theocracy therefore what the the church says is completely irrelevant.  If you want to live in a theocracy then I suggest you move to Iran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about what any church says about it.
> 
> BTW, in Iran, the ruling mullahs don't believe in Almighty God at all, they believe in "allah"
Click to expand...


Allah and god are the same thing.

And god doesn't have a say in our government.  If you don't like that then leave


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you got your head twisted when it was up its own ass and failed to realize that keeping them from civil marriage was based solely on being an irrational cocksucker...and most good folks don't act that way, and its especially less and less as time goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
Click to expand...

No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.

It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.
> 
> It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.
Click to expand...






You already admitted that men and women are different. Thus having an institution based on gender roles is not arbitrary.


Yet you keep repeating your assertion, without any attempt to actually support it, with any type of logical argument.


Because you can't. 


And you know it. 


That is why you are getting angry.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.
> 
> It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that men and women are different. Thus having an institution based on gender roles is not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Yet you keep repeating your assertion, without any attempt to actually support it, with any type of logical argument.
> 
> 
> Because you can't.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> 
> That is why you are getting angry.
Click to expand...

That theyre different isnt what makes it arbitrary dope


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.
> 
> It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already admitted that men and women are different. Thus having an institution based on gender roles is not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Yet you keep repeating your assertion, without any attempt to actually support it, with any type of logical argument.
> 
> 
> Because you can't.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> 
> That is why you are getting angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That theyre different isnt what makes it arbitrary dope
Click to expand...





Correct. That they are different is what makes it NOT arbitrary.


If you have an institution based on traditional gender roles, that is a reason, a system, it is not arbitrary. Indeed, it is the opposite of arbitrary.


The entire argument that it was a civil rights question, was based on a lie.


An insanely obvious lie.


----------



## G.T.

Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?

It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.

Theyre abstract.

Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.

The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> True, institutions are free to change, especially in an open and evolving society.
> 
> 
> All you have to do, is make the argument that such a change is called for.
> 
> 
> But that is not what you lefties did.
> 
> 
> You mis-characterized the debate as a civil rights movement.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.
> 
> It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.
Click to expand...



Actually there are no "arbitrary" restrictions making homosexuality taboo at all.   The traditional problems are based upon evidence in theological science, and the desire of lawmakers in the current day to avoid the fate of past Gayborhoods like Sodom as well as Gomorrah.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the courts and the majority opinion of the Country, the argument was made and you dont possess the freedom to classify what my politics are, either, thank ya very much ya homophobe.
> 
> A spade is a spade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.
> 
> It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are no "arbitrary" restrictions making homosexuality taboo at all.   The traditional problems are based upon evidence in theological science, and the desire of lawmakers in the current day to avoid the fate of past Gayborhoods like Sodom as well as Gomorrah.
Click to expand...

Go derp somewhere else, nosey busy body


----------



## mdk

Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.


Bigots always lose.


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.
> 
> 
> Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,
> 
> 
> your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.
> 
> 
> YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.
> 
> 
> You just demonstrated my point.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,
> 
> The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.
> 
> 
> With rare exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.
> 
> Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.
> 
> It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are no "arbitrary" restrictions making homosexuality taboo at all.   The traditional problems are based upon evidence in theological science, and the desire of lawmakers in the current day to avoid the fate of past Gayborhoods like Sodom as well as Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go derp somewhere else, nosey busy body
Click to expand...



In actuality, the "nosey busy bodies" are the libs who insist that everyone be forced to participate in events like Gay Marriage.

That's what the Colorado Cake case is about .  Whether Christians can be forced to bend over to the will of homosexuals, in spite of their religious beliefs.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Yes, men and women are different.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner 

Each marriage is different and marital roles are different 
In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant

What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.




Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.


Gender roles are not arbitrary.


They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".


Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.



Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk. 



These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution. 



They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.




An odd response.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.
> 
> 
> Gender roles are not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".
> 
> 
> Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.
> 
> 
> 
> Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.
> 
> 
> 
> These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner
> 
> Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
> In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant
> 
> What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones
Click to expand...



Being married is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner. 


MARRIAGE, is an institution, designed around traditional gender roles. 


Your libertarian perspective on marriage is noted. Does not seem very relevant today.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An odd response.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.


----------



## 22lcidw

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner
> 
> Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
> In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant
> 
> What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones
Click to expand...

The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.
> 
> 
> Gender roles are not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".
> 
> 
> Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.
> 
> 
> 
> Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.
> 
> 
> 
> These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.
Click to expand...



And I know men that cook and clean. 


Does not refute the existence of gender roles.


Your post was the airball.


Try again.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An odd response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
Click to expand...



NOthing I said, implied that in any way. 

Please try again.


----------



## The Purge




----------



## G.T.

but but but but gender roles

thats a whine

but but tradition...

thats a whine


but but but call it something different...

thats a whine



When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN. 

Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....

but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.

Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best


----------



## mdk

22lcidw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner
> 
> Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
> In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant
> 
> What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!
Click to expand...


Now this is the real argument that should be occurring here. The goverment should not be handing out cash and prizes like a Showcase Showdown to any married couples whatsoever.


----------



## mdk

The Purge said:


>




Was it difficult posting that with one hand?


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.
> 
> 
> Try to be less of a drama queen.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner
> 
> Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
> In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant
> 
> What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is the real argument that should be occurring here. The goverment should not be handing out cash and prizes like a Showcase Showdown to any married couples whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Thats why I only take the "govt shouldnt be involved in ANY marriages" opinion seriously...because it has some merit, albeit I dont agree with it. 

This arbitrary opposite sex thing is just ignorant to how life really works. Women dont all play the role of putting pies on the window sill, cupcakes


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.
> 
> 
> Gender roles are not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".
> 
> 
> Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.
> 
> 
> 
> Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.
> 
> 
> 
> These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I know men that cook and clean.
> 
> 
> Does not refute the existence of gender roles.
> 
> 
> Your post was the airball.
> 
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


They are breaking with traditional gender roles and therefore all their marriages should be made void. The institution is only available to those that adhere to traditional roles.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best








The thread was started by your buddy progressive.


Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD. 


All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.




This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An odd response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
Click to expand...


Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.
> 
> 
> Gender roles are not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".
> 
> 
> Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.
> 
> 
> 
> Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.
> 
> 
> 
> These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I know men that cook and clean.
> 
> 
> Does not refute the existence of gender roles.
> 
> 
> Your post was the airball.
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are breaking with traditional gender roles and therefore all their marriages should be made void. The institution is only available to those that adhere to traditional roles.
Click to expand...




Interesting claim. Seems very harsh. And outdated.  Especially considering that we live in a post industrial age.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An odd response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
Click to expand...



I set no such standards.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no.
Click to expand...



No, what?

Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary? 

Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?


Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?


or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?


----------



## The Purge

mdk said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it difficult posting that with one hand?
Click to expand...

If anyone should know, it would be you!


----------



## mdk

G.T. said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, men and women are different.
> 
> 
> So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,
> 
> 
> it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner
> 
> Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
> In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant
> 
> What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now this is the real argument that should be occurring here. The goverment should not be handing out cash and prizes like a Showcase Showdown to any married couples whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why I only take the "govt shouldnt be involved in ANY marriages" opinion seriously...because it has some merit, albeit I dont agree with it.
> 
> This arbitrary opposite sex thing is just ignorant to how life really works. Women dont all play the role of putting pies on the window sill, cupcakes
Click to expand...


What it comes down to at the end of the day is that gay marriage isn't going anywhere b/c the folks that oppose it don't have any legal standing to challenge the ruling. You're going to have to prove to the court how the hitched homos houses down have caused you a measurable harm. They are going to need to bring more to the table than emotionally clutching their pearls.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what?
> 
> Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary?
> 
> Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?
> 
> 
> or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?
Click to expand...

No, you provided 2 gender roles as your examples that are proven arbitrary by the fact that women do them...both. They hunt. They farm. Theres nothing inherent in a vagina that prevents them from doing so, this isnt the 1300's.

And not only is deciding which "roles" are gender based arbitrary, but deciding that the institution should be based on gender roles, in the first place, is arbitrary.

You are surely not the best debater that USMB has to offer...when you dont even understand the Court's decision to make it a Civil Rights issue.

Its weak, its pathetic and its lame to scream "gender roles" and then proceed by naming two roles that are done by both men AND women...rendering YOUR provided roles ARBITRARY, thus NOT a good reason for the State to keep consenting adults from a State recognized institution.

You literally cut off your own failed argument's foot right there...by naming "gender roles" that are no longer "gender based" and so using them to deny someone a right is both arbitrary and bigotted. Its a failure, and why your "side" didnt stand up in Court.

Your bigotry guides your logic as opposed to the other way around. You're not supposed to seek to invent reasons to deny free adults of something, that's a personal flaw HENCE the commenary on you being a bigot. You clearly are, and you lost and wont get it back. This is you crying a river of blood. Good, its deserved.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An odd response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
Click to expand...


Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
Click to expand...

If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit…



  Why would an honest person admit to something that is an obvious flat-out lie?


----------



## rightwinger

mdk said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it difficult posting that with one hand?
Click to expand...

It is from his private collection


----------



## rightwinger

Same sex marriage is now part of our society

Everyone has seen it and it is no longer a big deal to see a gay couple

Time for a certain segment of our society to move on


----------



## Cellblock2429

andaronjim said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember talking with a LGBTQQXYZ1234 thing(cant use gender identity) and told them that homosexuality isnt normal because 2 men or 2 women cant be natural.  The things response was "Dogs do it too".  Just think that homosexuals are like dogs, have to hump anything that moves, and NOT use their intelligence to realize how unnatural it really is.
Click to expand...

/——/ “Dogs do it”
But they get mad when we call them animals.


----------



## The Purge

rightwinger said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it difficult posting that with one hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is from his private collection
Click to expand...

why not just come out of your closet and ask for a copy?


----------



## The Purge

And to add fuel to the fire....

A new Harris Poll commissioned by the pro-LGBT media group GLAAD shows that the percentage of non-gay Americans aged 18-34, who are considered allies of the LGBT community, fell from 63% in 2016 to 45% in 2018.

In addition, the percentage of non-gay Americans aged 18-34 who felt uncomfortable in personal situations involving LGBTQ persons increased. For instance, the percentage of normal Americans who felt “uncomfortable” in learning a family member is LGBTQ rose from 24% to 36%.

Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, said of the survey’s findings, “The decline in acceptance [of LGBTs] and rise in discrimination found in the survey corresponded to an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

No Sarah...perhaps if you queers didn't PUSH your perverted life style on the rest of us who really don't  care what you do with your partner, IN PRIVATE, things would be smoothed over fairly quickly. ....but apparently queers want the publicity and notoriety more than being able to function in a normal world


----------



## The Purge




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

The Purge said:


> And to add fuel to the fire....
> 
> A new Harris Poll commissioned by the pro-LGBT media group GLAAD shows that the percentage of non-gay Americans aged 18-34, who are considered allies of the LGBT community, fell from 63% in 2016 to 45% in 2018.
> 
> In addition, the percentage of non-gay Americans aged 18-34 who felt uncomfortable in personal situations involving LGBTQ persons increased. For instance, the percentage of normal Americans who felt “uncomfortable” in learning a family member is LGBTQ rose from 24% to 36%.
> 
> Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, said of the survey’s findings, “The decline in acceptance [of LGBTs] and rise in discrimination found in the survey corresponded to an increase in hateful rhetoric in our culture.”
> 
> (Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
> 
> No Sarah...perhaps if you queers didn't PUSH your perverted life style on the rest of us who really don't  care what you do with your partner, IN PRIVATE, things would be smoothed over fairly quickly. ....but apparently queers want the publicity and notoriety more than being able to function in a normal world


That is the biased CNS News spin on the finding. The article dishonestly leaves a few things out.

New GLAAD study shows decline in LGBTQ acceptance in 18-34 year olds


*How Comfortable are Americans with LGBTQ People?*


This year, nearly half of non-LGBTQ adults (49%) are classified as ‘allies’ in the Index, meaning they responded that they were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable with LGBTQ people across all of the seven situations.* This is has not changed from the 49% reported in 2018, which was down from 53% the year prior.*
38% of non-LGBTQ adults are classified as ‘detached supporters’, whose comfort levels varies across the seven scenarios. 13% are classified as ‘resisters’ and are not comfortable in any of the situations that were presented.* The percentage of ‘resisters’ has been stable since the start of the Accelerating Acceptance Index.*
*The only age group to post a decline this year was young Americans ages 18-34*. The number of non-LGBTQ U.S. adults ages 18-34 who reported being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable across all seven situations dropped from 53% to 45%. This reflects a continued erosion in comfort among this age group over the past two years.  This year, the significant erosion is being driven by females ages 18-34, where comfort levels fell from 64% last year to 52% this year.
In total, 18% of respondents report knowing a transgender person; 31% know a bisexual person; 75% know a gay or lesbian person.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

mdk said:


> Here is the extensive list of things you can do about my marriage:
> 
> 1. Jack
> 2. Shit
> 3. Whine on Social Media


It was interesting that Roe Vs Wade was black robes overturning the will of the people, and today, that "law" is being overturned again by the people, in stopping most abortions.  It is going to be interesting when homosexual marriages again, go up for debate and when the will of the people finally have enough of the fudge packers "forcing" their immoral shit on US, they again will be voting to expel these miscreants.


----------



## rightwinger

The Purge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it difficult posting that with one hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is from his private collection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not just come out of your closet and ask for a copy?
Click to expand...

Have you always been obsessed with gay porn?


----------



## mdk

andaronjim said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the extensive list of things you can do about my marriage:
> 
> 1. Jack
> 2. Shit
> 3. Whine on Social Media
> 
> 
> 
> It was interesting that Roe Vs Wade was black robes overturning the will of the people, and today, that "law" is being overturned again by the people, in stopping most abortions.  It is going to be interesting when homosexual marriages again, go up for debate and when the will of the people finally have enough of the fudge packers "forcing" their immoral shit on US, they again will be voting to expel these miscreants.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you get your hands on a Monkey’s Paw.


----------



## Terri4Trump

18 pages of crying about homo perverts. Good grief.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.



Dear G.T. and Correll

1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.

But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.

2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.

G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.

If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment

G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
this is NOT what we want.

So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.

However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.


----------



## The Purge

rightwinger said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it difficult posting that with one hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is from his private collection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not just come out of your closet and ask for a copy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you always been obsessed with gay porn?
Click to expand...

So you are obsessed with gsy porn....figures ABNORMAL!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
Click to expand...

You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.

Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry  too.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.
> 
> Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry  too.
Click to expand...

More of her inane convoluted and bizarre horseshit about how everyone can and should be accommodated and that being gay or trans is a "  belief " equal to religious beliefs.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Here is another far right wing nut who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!

Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch



> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:



And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:



> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.



Give me a fucking break!


----------



## miketx

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
Click to expand...

Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

miketx said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.
Click to expand...

Yes of course! This is to be expected. When you people can't come up with anything relevant or intelligent to say, you invoke those raunchy gay pride parades, or but sex, or what ever disparaging horseshit you can come you with. 

Now let me ask you this? When and where was the most recent gay pride event where there was inappropriate sexual acting out on a large scale. Yes , in the past gays were militant and engaged in shock tactics because, like any downtrodden  minority  they had to  call attention  to their plight. Now that they have achieved a level of respect and legitimacy, that sort of thing is no longer necessary.


----------



## miketx

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes of course! This is to be expected. When you people can't come up with anything relevant or intelligent to say, you invoke those raunchy gay pride parades, or but sex, or what ever disparaging horseshit you can come you with.
> 
> Now let me ask you this? When and where was the most recent gay pride event where there was inappropriate sexual acting out on a large scale. Yes , in the past gays were militant and engaged in shock tactics because, like any downtrodden  minority  they had to  call attention  to their plight. Now that they have achieved a level of respect and legitimacy, that sort of thing is no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

And yet that's exactly what you perverts do!


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes of course! This is to be expected. When you people can't come up with anything relevant or intelligent to say, you invoke those raunchy gay pride parades, or but sex, or what ever disparaging horseshit you can come you with.
> 
> Now let me ask you this? When and where was the most recent gay pride event where there was inappropriate sexual acting out on a large scale. Yes , in the past gays were militant and engaged in shock tactics because, like any downtrodden  minority  they had to  call attention  to their plight. Now that they have achieved a level of respect and legitimacy, that sort of thing is no longer necessary.
Click to expand...


Dear TheProgressivePatriot 

If you don't like rightwing opponents labeling ALL LGBT members as perverts, then don't make generalizations either that all rightwing opposed to incorporating "same sex marriage" in state laws are "bigots."

You remind me of someone who hates hornets so much
they go out and stir the nest. And wonder why you get stung.

You know my position: If you want people to keep their beliefs
out of govt, then you have to respect the same standards.

If you want to interject YOUR LGBT beliefs into govt,
then be prepared for others interjecting their beliefs equally.

You get what you give.

I'm not making this up, that's just the laws of human nature,
karma, cause and effect.

Whatever beliefs you project and impose on others,
they will defend their beliefs to the same degree.

If you don't like them doing that to you,
don't do it to them. That's how justice works.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Government Over Reach "*

** Limits Of Private Health Information **


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh Christ! Seriously?? This is really stupid but I'll play. Then what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy ?


Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - Wikipedia


----------



## Terri4Trump

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ... raunchy gay pride parades.....



And you are the head cock gobbler, assmaster of ceremonies. LOL


----------



## Lysistrata

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.
> 
> Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry  too.
Click to expand...


And LGBTQs who are Christians can marry, too!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

miketx said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes of course! This is to be expected. When you people can't come up with anything relevant or intelligent to say, you invoke those raunchy gay pride parades, or but sex, or what ever disparaging horseshit you can come you with.
> 
> Now let me ask you this? When and where was the most recent gay pride event where there was inappropriate sexual acting out on a large scale. Yes , in the past gays were militant and engaged in shock tactics because, like any downtrodden  minority  they had to  call attention  to their plight. Now that they have achieved a level of respect and legitimacy, that sort of thing is no longer necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet that's exactly what you perverts do!
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be an answer?? Pathetic indeed!!


----------



## miketx

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes of course! This is to be expected. When you people can't come up with anything relevant or intelligent to say, you invoke those raunchy gay pride parades, or but sex, or what ever disparaging horseshit you can come you with.
> 
> Now let me ask you this? When and where was the most recent gay pride event where there was inappropriate sexual acting out on a large scale. Yes , in the past gays were militant and engaged in shock tactics because, like any downtrodden  minority  they had to  call attention  to their plight. Now that they have achieved a level of respect and legitimacy, that sort of thing is no longer necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet that's exactly what you perverts do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that supposed to be an answer?? Pathetic indeed!!
Click to expand...

Yes queer it was,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Government Over Reach "*
> 
> ** Limits Of Private Health Information **
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! Seriously?? This is really stupid but I'll play. Then what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy ?
> 
> 
> 
> Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Oh for fucking Christ sake! What is this now? I know all about HIPPA . I gave trainings on HIPPA as an HR person for a state agency. I asked if a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be allowed to marry as a philosophical question. Let me rephrase. You contend that " reproduction" or the ability and willingness to have children should be a condition for marriage. The question then is -should anyone-any couple who is unable or unwilling to have children " in the usual way" be allowed to marry? Stop playing stupid games. 

Another question that does not involve medical privacy. Should the marriage of a couple who does not produce a child in a certain amount of time for whatever reason be annulled? 

And yet another. Is a child produced by a same sex couple-or any couple-  by surrogacy or sperm donner any less valued that a child that resulted from heterosexual one on one sex? Answer the fucking questions!


----------



## miketx

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Government Over Reach "*
> 
> ** Limits Of Private Health Information **
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! Seriously?? This is really stupid but I'll play. Then what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy ?
> 
> 
> 
> Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh for fucking Christ sake! What is this now? I know all about HIPPA . I gave trainings on HIPPA as an HR person for a state agency. I asked if a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be allowed to marry as a philosophical question. Let me rephrase. You contend that " reproduction" or the ability and willingness to have children should be a condition for marriage. The question then is -should anyone-any couple who is unable or unwilling to have children " in the usual way" be allowed to marry? Stop playing stupid games.
> 
> Another question that does not involve medical privacy. Should the marriage of a couple who does not produce a child in a certain amount of time for whatever reason be annulled?
> 
> And yet another. Is a child produced by a same sex couple-or any couple-  by surrogacy or sperm donner any less valued that a child that resulted from heterosexual one on one sex? Answer the fucking questions!
Click to expand...

Stop promoting the sickness of gays.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

miketx said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing not who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah man! They just want to be left alone and live their lives and do what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That's why they have disgusting parades where they show everyone and children what they do in their bedrooms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes of course! This is to be expected. When you people can't come up with anything relevant or intelligent to say, you invoke those raunchy gay pride parades, or but sex, or what ever disparaging horseshit you can come you with.
> 
> Now let me ask you this? When and where was the most recent gay pride event where there was inappropriate sexual acting out on a large scale. Yes , in the past gays were militant and engaged in shock tactics because, like any downtrodden  minority  they had to  call attention  to their plight. Now that they have achieved a level of respect and legitimacy, that sort of thing is no longer necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet that's exactly what you perverts do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that supposed to be an answer?? Pathetic indeed!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes queer it was,
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting and clearly demonstrating that you can't address the issue that I raised in a reasonable and articulate way


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

miketx said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Government Over Reach "*
> 
> ** Limits Of Private Health Information **
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ! Seriously?? This is really stupid but I'll play. Then what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy ?
> 
> 
> 
> Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh for fucking Christ sake! What is this now? I know all about HIPPA . I gave trainings on HIPPA as an HR person for a state agency. I asked if a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be allowed to marry as a philosophical question. Let me rephrase. You contend that " reproduction" or the ability and willingness to have children should be a condition for marriage. The question then is -should anyone-any couple who is unable or unwilling to have children " in the usual way" be allowed to marry? Stop playing stupid games.
> 
> Another question that does not involve medical privacy. Should the marriage of a couple who does not produce a child in a certain amount of time for whatever reason be annulled?
> 
> And yet another. Is a child produced by a same sex couple-or any couple-  by surrogacy or sperm donner any less valued that a child that resulted from heterosexual one on one sex? Answer the fucking questions!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop promoting the sickness of gays.
Click to expand...

Brilliant!! Just fucking brilliant ! Are you a 13 year old intellectually challenged special ed. drop out. ?? You sure sound like it!


----------



## Dick Foster

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here is another far right wing nut who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
Click to expand...


So at what point does everyone  get to decide for themselves what law is or isn't pertinate to them? In order to maintain a society, there must be laws (rules) that everyone is required to obey. Like I've said before, I'm a live and let live type but I do tire of asshooes constantly  whining and pushing the envelope then acting sanctimonious about it. If you werent out there contanstanty running your mouths about it, maybe you wouldn't  get so much push back.


----------



## rightwinger

The Purge said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it difficult posting that with one hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is from his private collection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why not just come out of your closet and ask for a copy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you always been obsessed with gay porn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are obsessed with gsy porn....figures ABNORMAL!
Click to expand...

I know you are, but what am I?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here is another far right wing nut who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis…



  It's difficult to think of a better, more favorable endorsement of a man's intellectual and moral character, than for some morally-degenerate piece of perverted filth such as TheRegressivePervert to denounce him as a _“far right wing nut who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis”_.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

emilynghiem said:


> *by RECOGNIZING LGBT beliefs as FAITH BASED*
> then BOTH SIDES are protected from establishment by Govt


But LGBT beliefs are NOT faith-based and simply declaring them to be so doesn't make them so.  

This isn't much different than those individuals who want our government/Trump to "declare" Islam is not a religion, although it predates both the United States and our Constitution, simply in order to then be able to strip Muslims of their religious protections afforded under the U.S. Contitution for the sole purpose of inflicting harm - deportation, no government jobs, blacklisting, etc.


----------



## irosie91

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *by RECOGNIZING LGBT beliefs as FAITH BASED*
> then BOTH SIDES are protected from establishment by Govt
> 
> 
> 
> But LGBT beliefs are NOT faith-based and simply declaring them to be so doesn't make them so.
> 
> This isn't much different than those individuals who want our government/Trump to "declare" Islam is not a religion, although it predates both the United States and our Constitution, simply in order to then be able to strip Muslims of their religious protections afforded under the U.S. Contitution for the sole purpose of inflicting harm - deportation, no government jobs, blacklisting, etc.
Click to expand...


I don't see the connection.   There is just as much rationale in declaring  Nazism, communism,  "the greek lifestyle" aka LGBT,
as there is in declaring islam a "religion".  
also  "gluten free"


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

emilynghiem said:


> If you want to interject YOUR LGBT beliefs into govt,
> then be prepared for others interjecting their beliefs equally.
> 
> You get what you give.
> 
> I'm not making this up, that's just the laws of human nature,
> karma, cause and effect.
> 
> Whatever beliefs you project and impose on others,
> they will defend their beliefs to the same degree.
> 
> If you don't like them doing that to you,
> don't do it to them. That's how justice works.


All of what you wrote above is highly inaccurate especially in light of the fact that it doesn't lead to or support your erroneous conclusion of "that's how justice works".


----------



## rightwinger

Christians lost the Same Sex Marriage debate

To get even, they are playing the....I won’t bake a cake routine


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what?
> 
> Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary?
> 
> Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?
> 
> 
> or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you provided 2 gender roles as your examples that are proven arbitrary by the fact that women do them...both. They hunt. They farm. Theres nothing inherent in a vagina that prevents them from doing so, this isnt the 1300's.
> 
> And not only is deciding which "roles" are gender based arbitrary, but deciding that the institution should be based on gender roles, in the first place, is arbitrary.
> 
> You are surely not the best debater that USMB has to offer...when you dont even understand the Court's decision to make it a Civil Rights issue.
> 
> Its weak, its pathetic and its lame to scream "gender roles" and then proceed by naming two roles that are done by both men AND women...rendering YOUR provided roles ARBITRARY, thus NOT a good reason for the State to keep consenting adults from a State recognized institution.
> 
> You literally cut off your own failed argument's foot right there...by naming "gender roles" that are no longer "gender based" and so using them to deny someone a right is both arbitrary and bigotted. Its a failure, and why your "side" didnt stand up in Court.
> 
> Your bigotry guides your logic as opposed to the other way around. You're not supposed to seek to invent reasons to deny free adults of something, that's a personal flaw HENCE the commenary on you being a bigot. You clearly are, and you lost and wont get it back. This is you crying a river of blood. Good, its deserved.
Click to expand...





1. I provided two minor example of gender roles. Obviously, that was not intended to be considered the full extent of gender roles, but simply to show that they exist. That exceptions and variations exist, does not disprove the general rules. 


2. Yes, this is not the 1300s. Is there a point you want to make about that? (liberals, you have to help them make their own arguments, they are so bad at it)


3. Gender roles are not arbitrary. They are based on real biological differences.

4. I thought we were all in agreement. The court made ts a civil rights issues, because of the belief that the exclusion of same sex partners was arbitrary. I've pointed out why that was not so, and your challenge against that, is not doing well.


5. Yes many personal attacks. This demonstrates the behavior I accused you lefties of, as a major factor in your ability to win this fight. Thanks for proving my point on that. That is a win for me. ALso, you are a poopy head.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An odd response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
Click to expand...



I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
Click to expand...



If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it. 


Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him.  (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)


You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what?
> 
> Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary?
> 
> Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?
> 
> 
> or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you provided 2 gender roles as your examples that are proven arbitrary by the fact that women do them...both. They hunt. They farm. Theres nothing inherent in a vagina that prevents them from doing so, this isnt the 1300's.
> 
> And not only is deciding which "roles" are gender based arbitrary, but deciding that the institution should be based on gender roles, in the first place, is arbitrary.
> 
> You are surely not the best debater that USMB has to offer...when you dont even understand the Court's decision to make it a Civil Rights issue.
> 
> Its weak, its pathetic and its lame to scream "gender roles" and then proceed by naming two roles that are done by both men AND women...rendering YOUR provided roles ARBITRARY, thus NOT a good reason for the State to keep consenting adults from a State recognized institution.
> 
> You literally cut off your own failed argument's foot right there...by naming "gender roles" that are no longer "gender based" and so using them to deny someone a right is both arbitrary and bigotted. Its a failure, and why your "side" didnt stand up in Court.
> 
> Your bigotry guides your logic as opposed to the other way around. You're not supposed to seek to invent reasons to deny free adults of something, that's a personal flaw HENCE the commenary on you being a bigot. You clearly are, and you lost and wont get it back. This is you crying a river of blood. Good, its deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I provided two minor example of gender roles. Obviously, that was not intended to be considered the full extent of gender roles, but simply to show that they exist. That exceptions and variations exist, does not disprove the general rules.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, this is not the 1300s. Is there a point you want to make about that? (liberals, you have to help them make their own arguments, they are so bad at it)
> 
> 
> 3. Gender roles are not arbitrary. They are based on real biological differences.
> 
> 4. I thought we were all in agreement. The court made ts a civil rights issues, because of the belief that the exclusion of same sex partners was arbitrary. I've pointed out why that was not so, and your challenge against that, is not doing well.
> 
> 
> 5. Yes many personal attacks. This demonstrates the behavior I accused you lefties of, as a major factor in your ability to win this fight. Thanks for proving my point on that. That is a win for me. ALso, you are a poopy head.
Click to expand...

Saying its not going so well is not an argument, Chester. I pointed out 2 roles that were arbitrary. The only 2 you've provided. Scoreboard is G.T. infinity, Correll bigotry. Take a seat. 

B. I'm not a liberal, but dont let that stop you from being a cuck. Your busy bodying control freakness at work labeling folks, yet again.


----------



## Valerie

i have no idea what just happened, but G wins hands down cuz correll never stops sucking ever


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
Click to expand...

"based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.

You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard. 

Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.


----------



## Valerie

correll is never right about anything


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.
> 
> Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry  too.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is equal access, yet a concealed carry permit of a state isnt considered equal access.  Both are state government issued, why isnt the equal protection clause good for both?  Because some pigs are more equal than other animals.


----------



## G.T.

Is this idiot going to come back to MDK and say something like it wasnt him 'personally' that set the standard...as though that was somehow something that had to be said...

It demonstrates the intellect this derp is working with.

Correll, until further notice I'm placing you in the bottom tier of debaters. Youre stuck on not even figuring the basics. Go and practice on folks like the cat lady or willowtree and rdean.


----------



## G.T.

andaronjim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.
> 
> Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry  too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay marriage is equal access, yet a concealed carry permit of a state isnt considered equal access.  Both are state government issued, why isnt the equal protection clause good for both?  Because some pigs are more equal than other animals.
Click to expand...

If I explained the nuance there, to you, your head would explode. 

Equal access is a concept that is applied across the board WHEN NO HARM CAN BE SHOWN TO SOCIETY...derplppaleeerp


give an 8yr old concealed carry and then wonder whether or not your point was retarded


----------



## irosie91

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to interject YOUR LGBT beliefs into govt,
> then be prepared for others interjecting their beliefs equally.
> 
> You get what you give.
> 
> I'm not making this up, that's just the laws of human nature,
> karma, cause and effect.
> 
> Whatever beliefs you project and impose on others,
> they will defend their beliefs to the same degree.
> 
> If you don't like them doing that to you,
> don't do it to them. That's how justice works.
> 
> 
> 
> All of what you wrote above is highly inaccurate especially in light of the fact that it doesn't lead to or support your erroneous conclusion of "that's how justice works".
Click to expand...


I don't see a single statement in Emily's post which is  "highly inaccurate"   She presents a  POV.    As to her conclusion about  JUSTICE-----her conclusion was SIMPLY----the golden rule which she and countless others THRUOUT HISTORY have seen as   JUSTICE


----------



## irosie91

In my   (not so humble)  OPINION-----the issue of LGBT marriage is actually an
ECONOMIC one------marriage confers both
economic  advantages and liabilities which are  LEGAL.    It Is a LEGAL status and SO----mediated by laws


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

irosie91 said:


> In my   (not so humble)  OPINION-----the issue of LGBT marriage is actually an
> ECONOMIC one------marriage confers both
> economic  advantages and liabilities which are  LEGAL.    It Is a LEGAL status and SO----mediated by laws


What is really despicable about the LBGTQWXZY1234 is that it is all about the queers feelings and dont give a damn about anyone else.  Instead of doing the right thing, they go against nature, and then what is worse, in today's society they adopt children thus forcing their immoral lifestyle on the kids.  Then the liberal argument is "there are bad parents in straight marriages too", yet statistically more children grow up normal and successful in a straight family than any other.  Liberals love to use statistics, until they go against their immoral arguments, then names start to come out, like "homophobic", or bigoted.  Only Bigots are liberals, who hate anyone who loves civilization and normalcy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Dick Foster said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another far right wing nut who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!
> 
> Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a fucking break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So at what point does everyone  get to decide for themselves what law is or isn't pertinate to them? In order to maintain a society, there must be laws (rules) that everyone is required to obey. Like I've said before, I'm a live and let live type but I do tire of asshooes constantly  whining and pushing the envelope then acting sanctimonious about it. If you werent out there contanstanty running your mouths about it, maybe you wouldn't  get so much push back.
Click to expand...

Who ever said that people should be able to decide which laws to obey? What I am saying is that we have the right to challenge laws that we disagree with. That is also part of maintaining social order and an open society. Would you have  been so quick to complain about black folks and women "pushing the envelope " and whining ? Where would they be if they had just remained quiet and obedient until society decided to bestow rights on them- it that were to ever happen. 

 Don't like people speaking out against what they perceive as injustice? Move to North Korea.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
Click to expand...


You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Schema "*

** Syntax **


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh for fucking Christ sake! What is this now? I know all about HIPPA . I gave trainings on HIPPA as an HR person for a state agency. I asked if a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be allowed to marry *as a philosophical question*. Let me rephrase. You contend that *" reproduction"* or *the ability* and willingness to have children should be a condition for marriage. The question then is -should anyone-any couple who is unable or unwilling to have children " in the usual way" be allowed to marry? Stop playing stupid games.


Sexual identification does not violate privacy ( hippa ) .

The contention is that a title of " marriage " be applied to civil unions with a ( prima facie ) presumptive ability for reproduction between contract holders , they being heterosexual .

The contention is that a title of " mirriage " be applied to civil unions with a ( prima facie ) presumptive inability for reproduction between contract holders , they being homosexual .

Urban Dictionary: Mirriage

** Rhetorical **



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Another question that does not involve medical privacy. Should the marriage of a couple who does not produce a child in a certain amount of time for whatever reason be annulled


When or whether individuals choose to procreate is not a presumptive responsibility of a state .

** Attributes **



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And yet another. Is *a child produced by a same sex couple*-or any couple-  by surrogacy or sperm donner any less valued that a child that resulted from heterosexual one on one sex?


Where dependents become involved , whether by natural birth , or by adoption , or by surrogacy , or as caretaker , taxable assets may be affected .

** Answer Questions **



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Answer the fucking questions!



Is it a contention that polygamous or polyandrous civil unions be designated for tax purposes ?

Is it a contention that " communal " civil unions be designated for tax purpose ?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.
> 
> 
> Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him.  (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)
> 
> 
> You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
Click to expand...

Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:

*Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_,* the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. *All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. 

You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.


----------



## bodecea

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homosexuals cannot be married, no matter what the Supreme Court says.  That is an abomination.  Just call it a civil contract, keep your filthy perverted asses away from the churches, and stop attacking Christianity.
Click to expand...

Gays were getting married in the Church before we could marry civily....it was the hypocritical CRCs that were trying to enforce their bigoted version of christian sharia in government until the Supreme Court struck them down....finally.


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
Click to expand...

And CRCs attack those Christians who have been supporting gays and gay marriage even before it was legal.   And you are a very funny person if you believe donnie is acting as any kind of "true christian".......He'd fit right in in the Sodom Ezekiel talked about in your bible.


----------



## bodecea

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the government even involved in marriage?
> 
> I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?
> 
> Makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not "have children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
Click to expand...

Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
Click to expand...

So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.


----------



## bodecea

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
Click to expand...

It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Monk-Eye said:


> Sexual identification does not violate privacy ( hippa ) .
> 
> The contention is that a title of " marriage " be applied to civil unions with a ( prima facie ) presumptive ability for reproduction between contract holders , they being heterosexual .
> 
> The contention is that a title of " mirriage " be applied to civil unions with a ( prima facie ) presumptive inability for reproduction between contract holders , they being homosexual .


Complete horseshit! Procreation as a condition of marriage was thrown out of court numerous times


----------



## Polishprince

bodecea said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
Click to expand...



If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

bodecea said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
Click to expand...

*Incest marriage and polygamy marriage are voluntary.*
*Homosexual and heterosexual pedophilia are both big problems.*
*The point is that everyone has a moral standard and calling people bigots for holding a higher moral standard than you is hateful. *


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Courts Have Not Ever Considered Different Title Designations "*

** Classification Titles For Civil Union Registration **


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Complete horseshit! Procreation as a condition of marriage was thrown out of court numerous times


A presumption for a capacity to procreate is termed marriage .

A presumption for an incapacity to procreate is termed a mirriage .


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" State Moral Sanction Is A Fabrication "*

** Compensating For Acts Of Omission **



bodecea said:


> Gays were getting married in the Church before we could marry civily....it was the hypocritical CRCs that were trying to enforce their bigoted version of christian sharia in government until the Supreme Court struck them down....finally.


A state need not concern itself with agreements established by any social civil contract , except that the terms of agreement are valid , and do not conflict with civil liberties of other citizens .

It is for tax purposes that social civil contracts are registered with a state that may include distinct titles according to the style of agreement ( eg . LLC , SDB , incorporated , marriage , mirriage , etc . ) ; and , there is a difference between equal protection and equal endowment . 

A state has implemented inheritance policies for when adequate records of willful intent are absent and to represent the civil liberty interests of its citizens for such things as custody .


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
Click to expand...

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?


----------



## bodecea

Monk-Eye said:


> *" State Moral Sanction Is A Fabrication "*
> 
> ** Compensating For Acts Of Omission **
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays were getting married in the Church before we could marry civily....it was the hypocritical CRCs that were trying to enforce their bigoted version of christian sharia in government until the Supreme Court struck them down....finally.
> 
> 
> 
> A state need not concern itself with agreements established by any social civil contract , except that the terms of agreement are valid , and do not conflict with civil liberties of other citizens .
> 
> It is for tax purposes that social civil contracts are registered with a state that may include distinct titles according to the style of agreement ( eg . LLC , SDB , incorporated , marriage , mirriage , etc . ) ; and , there is a difference between equal protection and equal endowment .
> 
> A state has implemented inheritance policies for when adequate records of willful intent are absent and to represent the civil liberty interests of its citizens for such things as custody .
Click to expand...

I'll just plop this right here:   Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Those Not Against Us Are For Us "*

** Those Not For Us Are Against Us **


bodecea said:


> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?


Tell them to get off their assess and carry themselves on a mission to their illegal migrant countries and give them charity there , and stop pandering to egregious , illegitimate , political policies that violate the civil liberties of other citizens by way of underming the autonomy and integrity of the state .


----------



## bodecea

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Those Not Against Us Are For Us "*
> 
> ** Those Not For Us Are Against Us **
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?
> 
> 
> 
> Tell them to get off their assess and carry themselves on a mission to their illegal migrant countries and give them charity there , and stop pandering to egregious , illegitimate , political policies that violate the civil liberties of other citizens by way of underming the autonomy and integrity of the state .
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are persecuting your fellow christians there, bub.


----------



## Polishprince

bodecea said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?
Click to expand...




You can do whatever the hell you want to argue the fine points of theology in the media, in the pulpit, or on the Street corner.

You are certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs just as Normative Americans are.

But I'd say its out of place for a gentleman like Mr. Buttigieg, who wants to rule over all of us in a non-sectarian state, to use a political event to attack the religious beliefs of others.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Realism Versus Substitution "* 

** Mixed Words **



bodecea said:


> I'll just plop this right here:   Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People


All of those entitlement can be and literally were available in same sex civil unions . 

However , the establishment of those entitlements was not sufficient for homosexual political advocates who wanted to demand that others legitimize their creed , such that possession for the title of " marriage " was sought , while a unique title of " mirriage " is more fitting .


----------



## Polishprince

bodecea said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?
Click to expand...




If the Ayatollah Jim Wallis, or one of the other Mullahs on the Religious Left want to condemn me because I disagree with Abortion or Gay Marriage,  I am really fine with that.

Wallis is religious leader, its certainly within his rites to anathematize anyone who offends his religious sensibilities.   And its certainly fine for a political candidate to go to Wallis' mansion in Washington DC to kiss his ring.    But when you have rulers like Mr. Buttigieg actually condemning their fellow citizens for their contrary religious beliefs, there is where we part company.


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever the hell you want to argue the fine points of theology in the media, in the pulpit, or on the Street corner.
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs just as Normative Americans are.
> 
> But I'd say its out of place for a gentleman like Mr. Buttigieg, who wants to rule over all of us in a non-sectarian state, to use a political event to attack the religious beliefs of others.
Click to expand...

He didn't.....any more or less than anyone else would.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" To Thine Own Self Be True "*

** Bifurcated Mind Compelling Dissonance **



bodecea said:


> Sounds like you are persecuting your fellow christians there, bub.


The disingenuous left who pretend to dawn a cloak of puritanism can take the same advice regarding illegal immigrants .

** Sack Evil Whitey Pogrom **

A similar guise of fabricated truth perpetrated by the left is its reverse racist racism that is continually banters to implement its economic and political delusions as it imports more and more individuals first come , first served , low skilled , from ethnic groups that are numerically over represented among the global demographic , even as the left blind in self reflection voices that over competition for low skill employment is growing as it further derides the consequent standard of living as insufficient .

** Research Ineptitude **

A similar pet peeve is rendered against disingenuous illusions of the left for its holier than thou persona asserting that it does not believe in the establishment of religion and accepts all religions , while it ignores that there is not a difference between religion and creed , and that there is not an exception for a religion that maintains tenets of creed to violate non violence principles against other citizens .

The left promotes objectivity as a justification to remain ignorant regarding the history and doctrine of adherents for the supremacist , sectarian , bigoted , institution of fictional ishmaelism that includes tenets of creed to violate non violence principles and individual liberty of other citizens , which the left shields , obfuscates and defends from public scrutiny and castigation .

Cultural exchange is one thing , but numbers translate into votes and into political policy and against those who laud democracy for its tyranny by majority , while harboring aggression against individual liberty of citizens , political policy to extend citizenship should be more pragmatic when granting access to polling booths - see Hisbah - Wikipedia .

Thus , see Martin Luther - Wikipedia :
_He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name".[184] On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks.[185] In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war.[186] By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks.[187] He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance.[188]_


----------



## Polishprince

bodecea said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever the hell you want to argue the fine points of theology in the media, in the pulpit, or on the Street corner.
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs just as Normative Americans are.
> 
> But I'd say its out of place for a gentleman like Mr. Buttigieg, who wants to rule over all of us in a non-sectarian state, to use a political event to attack the religious beliefs of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't.....any more or less than anyone else would.
Click to expand...


Well, maybe your right.

But a lot of Christians are getting the idea that Mr. Buttigieg is rabidly Christophobic.  To quell this, I would advise Petey to make a visit to San Antonio and assure Christian leaders like John Hagee that he thinks its great that they have their own religious beliefs and he has no intent of condemning them in any way


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Monk-Eye said:


> All of those entitlement can be and literally were available in same sex civil unions .


The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.


----------



## Terri4Trump

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.



The Federal Govt has nothing to do with it you gonad gargler


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of those entitlement can be and literally were available in same sex civil unions .
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.
Click to expand...



If you get rid of Legalized Grave Robbery, what difference does it make?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

All of you bigots and other assorted morons need to stop whining about same sex marriage long enough to read this. Lets who, if anyone has something intelligent to say about it:

124 Words From Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

*Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.*

Today's 5-4 decision in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.

But it's Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever the hell you want to argue the fine points of theology in the media, in the pulpit, or on the Street corner.
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs just as Normative Americans are.
> 
> But I'd say its out of place for a gentleman like Mr. Buttigieg, who wants to rule over all of us in a non-sectarian state, to use a political event to attack the religious beliefs of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't.....any more or less than anyone else would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, maybe your right.
> 
> But a lot of Christians are getting the idea that Mr. Buttigieg is rabidly Christophobic.  To quell this, I would advise Petey to make a visit to San Antonio and assure Christian leaders like John Hagee that he thinks its great that they have their own religious beliefs and he has no intent of condemning them in any way
Click to expand...

He's a christian himself....or are you saying that only certain christians are really christians?

Oh...and John Hagee?      too funny!


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
Click to expand...


Respect is a two-way street. Exactly what do you think Mayor Pete ought to do or refrain from doing? Frankie graham has not been very respectful or "understanding" toward people who don't share his sectarian views. He insults people often.

The word "hypocrite" implies a contrast between taking a stance on one issue and then taking an inconsistent stance on another issue.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bodecea said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.
> 
> The result of losing that understanding should be  self-evident
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not "have children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?
Click to expand...


Hey dumbass, look at the meaning of the word "have".  In this context, it does not mean possession.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bodecea said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
Click to expand...


You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?

Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?


----------



## bodecea

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> 
> 
> They do not "have children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, look at the meaning of the word "have".  In this context, it does not mean possession.
Click to expand...

My questions still stand.


----------



## bodecea

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?
> 
> Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?
Click to expand...

MY favorite topic?   Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bodecea said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do not "have children"
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, look at the meaning of the word "have".  In this context, it does not mean possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My questions still stand.
Click to expand...


You still do not understand the difference in procreation and possessing children, so you would not understand any answer I gave.  Your gonads overruled your brain a long time ago.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

bodecea said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?
> 
> Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY favorite topic?   Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.
Click to expand...


Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest.  Why?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex couples have children and are families
> 
> 
> 
> They do not "have children"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, look at the meaning of the word "have".  In this context, it does not mean possession.
Click to expand...

Hey dumb ass. Gay couples HAVE children in their care. The are parents to those children. Those children have the same right to the legal protections, financial security and social status of having married parents as other children . The bigots just want to use the issue of children  as a weapon to harm gay people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?
> 
> Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY favorite topic?   Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest.  Why?
Click to expand...


I'll answer that one.  Because neither are on topic. You seem to be trying to call someone a hypocrite here . That is nothing more than a pathetic logical fallacy- my favorite actually:

_tu quoque_ (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that *attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position;* it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. *This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. *Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their 
argument."

It is also a red herring fallacy intended to derail the discussion


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, look at the meaning of the word "have".  In this context, it does not mean possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My questions still stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still do not understand the difference in procreation and possessing children, so you would not understand any answer I gave.  Your gonads overruled your brain a long time ago.
Click to expand...

You still do not  understand that producing children and* being parents* are two different and separate things.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves.



  If the meaning of marriage is so fluid as to be defined separately, by every individual who wants to define it to fit his own agenda, then marriage means nothing.

  That's the game that you on the left *wrong* play with important moral principles; to undermine any solid, objective definitions, in order to render these principles meaningless.

  It does not work.

  Marriage is not meaningless, no matter how much you try to make it so.

  Morality is not meaningless, no matter how much you try to make it so.

  Who do you think you are fooling?


----------



## bodecea

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
> If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
> If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
> If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
> If you are against  same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?
> 
> Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY favorite topic?   Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest.  Why?
Click to expand...

Not something I am that concerned about....if they want to make it legal (it currently is not), let them make their case.


----------



## bodecea

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your wife the biological father of your child?  If not, you don't have children.  YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.   How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from?   Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother?    So much for adoption.   So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, look at the meaning of the word "have".  In this context, it does not mean possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My questions still stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still do not understand the difference in procreation and possessing children, so you would not understand any answer I gave.  Your gonads overruled your brain a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still do not  understand that producing children and* being parents* are two different and separate things.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you would think someone who has worked our school systems would know the difference all too well.


----------



## Polishprince

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian".    President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.
> 
> What's good for the good is good for the gander
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respect is a two-way street. Exactly what do you think Mayor Pete ought to do or refrain from doing? Frankie graham has not been very respectful or "understanding" toward people who don't share his sectarian views. He insults people often.
> 
> The word "hypocrite" implies a contrast between taking a stance on one issue and then taking an inconsistent stance on another issue.
Click to expand...



Rev. Franklin Graham is a theologian,   Mr. Buttigieg is a politician that is expecting to rule over me.

That's a big difference.   I expect someone who wants to use the force of law to run my life to have respect.

If Rev. Graham has no respect for my lifestyle, this is America I don't have to listen to any theologian.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the meaning of marriage is so fluid as to be defined separately, by every individual who wants to define it to fit his own agenda, then marriage means nothing.
> 
> That's the game that you on the left *wrong* play with important moral principles; to undermine any solid, objective definitions, in order to render these principles meaningless.
> 
> It does not work.
> 
> Marriage is not meaningless, no matter how much you try to make it so.
> 
> Morality is not meaningless, no matter how much you try to make it so.
> 
> Who do you think you are fooling?
Click to expand...


Bobby boy...you might have noticed that I have been ignoring your inane and bizarre drivel ….but hey, it's a slow day here and you're grossly misrepresenting me  which I won't stand for. Your narrow and concreate thought process is causing you to fail to grasp the nuanced meaning of "define your own marriage" -although you should have been able to ascertain that by noting what I was responding to. By "defining ones own marriage" I am referring-primarily  to the right to decide if it  will be about have having children or not. At the same time there are many other reasons why people get married and each gets to decide what  those reasons are, what the rules are and what their respective roles are. And yes, they have a right to define it as being with someone of the same sex or opposite sex

In your twisted mind you seem to think that I'm referring to being able to marry their child or a goat. So you also misrepresent me in accusing me of taking the positions that marriage and morality  are meaningless. If you believe that same sex marriage is immoral, and I don't-that does not mean that I think that morality is meaningless and it does not make me immoral- except in your narrow mind.. That is just a straw man logical fallacy of you attributing a position to me that I did not take.  Who do you think that your fooling?>??


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bobby boy...you might have noticed that I have been ignoring your inane and bizarre drivel ….but hay [sic], it's a slow day here and you're grossly misrepresenting me. Your narrow and concreate [sic] thought process is causing you to fail to grasp the nuanced meaning of "define your own marriage" -although you should have been able to ascertain that by noting what I was responding to. By "defining ones own marriage" I am referring-primarily  to the right to decide it  will be about have having children or not. At the same time there are many other reasons why people get married and each gets to decide what  those reasons are, what the rules are and what their respective roles are. And yes, they have a right to define it as being with someone of the same sex or opposite sex
> 
> In your twisted mind you seem to think that I'm referring to being able to marry their child or a goat. So you also misrepresent me in accusing me of taking the positions that marriage and morality  are meaningless. If you believe that same sex marriage is immoral, and I don't-that does not mean that I think that morality is meaningless and it does not make me immoral- except in your narrow mind.. That is just a straw man logical fallacy of you attributing a position to me that I did not take.  Who do you think that your [sic] fooling?>??


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic.  You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?
> 
> Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY favorite topic?   Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer that one.  Because neither are on topic. You seem to be trying to call someone a hypocrite here . That is nothing more than a pathetic logical fallacy- my favorite actually:
> 
> _tu quoque_ (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that *attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position;* it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. *This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. *Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their
> argument."
> 
> It is also a red herring fallacy intended to derail the discussion
Click to expand...

Good grief Progressive Patriot meet your mirror


----------



## jillian

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non religious liberal Bigots Still Obsessing About Christians-Get a Life!
Click to expand...

Not religious bigots? You’re delusional


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent.   Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You blew right past polygamy and incest and went straight to your favorite topic.  Why is that?  Do you support polygamy and incest?
> 
> Your last statement definitely would apply to you if it were true.  How do you reconcile that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MY favorite topic?   Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll answer that one.  Because neither are on topic. You seem to be trying to call someone a hypocrite here . That is nothing more than a pathetic logical fallacy- my favorite actually:
> 
> _tu quoque_ (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that *attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position;* it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. *This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. *Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their
> argument."
> 
> It is also a red herring fallacy intended to derail the discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief Progressive Patriot meet your mirror
Click to expand...

Do you have any more brilliant retorts up your …...cape?  Seems that you don't have much of an understanding of logical fallacies .


----------



## Terri4Trump

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Not religious bigots? You’re delusional



The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.

Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby boy...you might have noticed that I have been ignoring your inane and bizarre drivel ….but hay [sic], it's a slow day here and you're grossly misrepresenting me. Your narrow and concreate [sic] thought process is causing you to fail to grasp the nuanced meaning of "define your own marriage" -although you should have been able to ascertain that by noting what I was responding to. By "defining ones own marriage" I am referring-primarily  to the right to decide it  will be about have having children or not. At the same time there are many other reasons why people get married and each gets to decide what  those reasons are, what the rules are and what their respective roles are. And yes, they have a right to define it as being with someone of the same sex or opposite sex
> 
> In your twisted mind you seem to think that I'm referring to being able to marry their child or a goat. So you also misrepresent me in accusing me of taking the positions that marriage and morality  are meaningless. If you believe that same sex marriage is immoral, and I don't-that does not mean that I think that morality is meaningless and it does not make me immoral- except in your narrow mind.. That is just a straw man logical fallacy of you attributing a position to me that I did not take.  Who do you think that your [sic] fooling?>??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 266914
Click to expand...


Brilliant Bobby Boy. Pretty much what I expected  of you. You can't deal with the truth so you do this instead.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Terri4Trump said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not religious bigots? You’re delusional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.
> 
> Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.
Click to expand...

People who hate for the sake of hate are mentally ill, and those who put gays people and pedophiles in the same category are just plain fucking stupid.  What the fuck is a "medical fact" you nincompoop?


----------



## Terri4Trump

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.
> 
> Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.
> 
> 
> 
> People who hate for the sake of hate are mentally ill.........
Click to expand...


*Thats you. You hate the truth and you hate people who tell the truth, like me.

I repeat: * The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.

Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Terri4Trump said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terri4Trump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not religious bigots? You’re delusional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.
> 
> Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who hate for the sake of hate are mentally ill.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats you. You hate the truth and you hate people who tell the truth, like me.
Click to expand...

You tell the truth??   

You mindlessly repeat right wing bigoted talking points without even understanding what your saying or how it effect real people.


----------



## Terri4Trump

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You tell the truth??



Yes I do, and here it is again: The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.

Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.


----------



## rightwinger

andaronjim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.
> 
> Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry  too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gay marriage is equal access, yet a concealed carry permit of a state isnt considered equal access.  Both are state government issued, why isnt the equal protection clause good for both?  Because some pigs are more equal than other animals.
Click to expand...

Gays can carry guns 
Equal access


----------



## rightwinger

Terri4Trump said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell the truth??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, and here it is again: The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here  would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.
> 
> Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.
> 
> Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.
Click to expand...

Yea
Liberals believe in fake science like the earth is round, cigarettes cause cancer and we are experiencing climate change


----------



## Terri4Trump

rightwinger said:


> Yea Liberals believe in fake science like the earth is round.........



Yep, you do. Democrats promote the fake science that homos are normal and there are 37 genders and transgenders are normal. You are no different than Nazis promoting Aryan human science.

Oh, and by the way: The earth is not round you fucking idiot. The Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.

LOLLL. *God* you're *stupid!*


----------



## Correll

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?
> 
> It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.
> 
> Theyre abstract.
> 
> Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.
> 
> The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T. and Correll
> 
> 1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
> You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.
> 
> But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
> we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.
> 
> 2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
> AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.
> 
> G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
> ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
> you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
> Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
> to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.
> 
> If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
> then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment
> 
> G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
> this is NOT what we want.
> 
> So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
> nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.
> 
> However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
> then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
> It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
Click to expand...




This is not about transexualism. It is about homosexuals.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, what?
> 
> Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary?
> 
> Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?
> 
> 
> Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?
> 
> 
> or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you provided 2 gender roles as your examples that are proven arbitrary by the fact that women do them...both. They hunt. They farm. Theres nothing inherent in a vagina that prevents them from doing so, this isnt the 1300's.
> 
> And not only is deciding which "roles" are gender based arbitrary, but deciding that the institution should be based on gender roles, in the first place, is arbitrary.
> 
> You are surely not the best debater that USMB has to offer...when you dont even understand the Court's decision to make it a Civil Rights issue.
> 
> Its weak, its pathetic and its lame to scream "gender roles" and then proceed by naming two roles that are done by both men AND women...rendering YOUR provided roles ARBITRARY, thus NOT a good reason for the State to keep consenting adults from a State recognized institution.
> 
> You literally cut off your own failed argument's foot right there...by naming "gender roles" that are no longer "gender based" and so using them to deny someone a right is both arbitrary and bigotted. Its a failure, and why your "side" didnt stand up in Court.
> 
> Your bigotry guides your logic as opposed to the other way around. You're not supposed to seek to invent reasons to deny free adults of something, that's a personal flaw HENCE the commenary on you being a bigot. You clearly are, and you lost and wont get it back. This is you crying a river of blood. Good, its deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I provided two minor example of gender roles. Obviously, that was not intended to be considered the full extent of gender roles, but simply to show that they exist. That exceptions and variations exist, does not disprove the general rules.
> 
> 
> 2. Yes, this is not the 1300s. Is there a point you want to make about that? (liberals, you have to help them make their own arguments, they are so bad at it)
> 
> 
> 3. Gender roles are not arbitrary. They are based on real biological differences.
> 
> 4. I thought we were all in agreement. The court made ts a civil rights issues, because of the belief that the exclusion of same sex partners was arbitrary. I've pointed out why that was not so, and your challenge against that, is not doing well.
> 
> 
> 5. Yes many personal attacks. This demonstrates the behavior I accused you lefties of, as a major factor in your ability to win this fight. Thanks for proving my point on that. That is a win for me. ALso, you are a poopy head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying its not going so well is not an argument, Chester. I pointed out 2 roles that were arbitrary. The only 2 you've provided. Scoreboard is G.T. infinity, Correll bigotry. Take a seat.
> 
> B. I'm not a liberal, but dont let that stop you from being a cuck. Your busy bodying control freakness at work labeling folks, yet again.
Click to expand...




1. No, you pointed out that there were exceptions and variations to the general rules. That does not prove that they are arbitrary.


2. You dropped the bit about the 1300s? Why? That was the next step in your failed argument. Do you not even see where your argument is going?


3. Your additional insults are noted. As I said, that was a primary part of what you lefties had to win the "debate". Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the behavior I accused you of.

4. Also, you are still  a poopy head.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> "based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.
> 
> You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard.
> 
> Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.
Click to expand...





1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage. 


2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing. 


3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> "based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.
> 
> You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard.
> 
> Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.
> 
> 
> 2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.
> 
> 
> 3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.
Click to expand...

Youre 0 for like 3 or 4 convoes in this very thread. Bottom tier.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing I said, implied that in any way.
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
Click to expand...



No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles. 


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this. 


Until today, with the modern liberal.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
Click to expand...


Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.


----------



## P@triot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of those entitlement can be and literally were available in same sex civil unions .
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.
Click to expand...

And? Every “benefit” that the homosexual community is desperate to cash in on can easily be achieved through basic legal documents (wills, power of attorney, etc.).


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> "based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.
> 
> You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard.
> 
> Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.
> 
> 
> 2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.
> 
> 
> 3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.
Click to expand...


You think you’re being mob harassed and stampeded in this thread!?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

P@triot said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of those entitlement can be and literally were available in same sex civil unions .
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? Every “benefit” that the homosexual community is desperate to cash in on can easily be achieved through basic legal documents (wills, power of attorney, etc.).
Click to expand...

Horseshit!  Ans why should they have to? Because of you bigoted and irrational opposition to their marriage ?  Get the fuck over it . Marriage is a reality and it's not going away.


----------



## P@triot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ans why should they have to?


Um...because they are abnormal. Because they are an anomaly of nature. Because marriage is one man and one woman. I can go on all day.


----------



## P@triot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Because of you bigoted and irrational opposition to their marriage ?


Yep.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get the fuck over it .


Nope.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Marriage is a reality and it's not going away.


Marriage is a reality. _Gay_ marriage is absurd.


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?
> 
> We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way to spin it.
> 
> But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality.   I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  This is a secular country.  We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs.   We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose.   Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respect is a two-way street. Exactly what do you think Mayor Pete ought to do or refrain from doing? Frankie graham has not been very respectful or "understanding" toward people who don't share his sectarian views. He insults people often.
> 
> The word "hypocrite" implies a contrast between taking a stance on one issue and then taking an inconsistent stance on another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Franklin Graham is a theologian,   Mr. Buttigieg is a politician that is expecting to rule over me.
> 
> That's a big difference.   I expect someone who wants to use the force of law to run my life to have respect.
> 
> If Rev. Graham has no respect for my lifestyle, this is America I don't have to listen to any theologian.
Click to expand...


Just what is a "theologian," anyway? It's all opinion. frankie doesn't seem to be intelligent or possess any particular wisdom. He is an aggressive asshole who earns his keep by making bigoted declarations about others. He sits at the right hand of trump,  trying to identify the Christian faith with right-wing politics, when they don't go together, and orchestrated attacks on Hillary Clinton, a life-long practicing Methodist Christian.

If being president means ruling over you and me, we certainly have trash ruling over us currently. I, too, expect that someone who wants to use the force of law "to run my life"  to have respect. The trash in the White House and frankie boy do not have any respect for anyone not of their own ilk.

Between frankie and Buttigieg, Buttigieg is by far more respectful than frankie, who is a blatant politician.


----------



## Terri4Trump

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ...... bigoted and irrational opposition to their marriage ?.......



The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.

Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.


----------



## Terri4Trump

*Same sex attraction is a mental disorder*, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the  DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. *The fact is that they were right before and wrong now* because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.
> 
> 
> Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him.  (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)
> 
> 
> You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:
> 
> *Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_,* the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. *All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
> 
> You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.
Click to expand...



We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction. 


i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles. 


GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying. 


You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.


Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years, 


was a "Non sequitur" is a fucking joke. Pathetic. 


Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.



Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.


AND YOU CAN'T.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> "based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.
> 
> You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard.
> 
> Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.
> 
> 
> 2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.
> 
> 
> 3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre 0 for like 3 or 4 convoes in this very thread. Bottom tier.
Click to expand...




lol! We all noticed you giving up on making your point. Even you.


 I accept your concession.



Why did you not try the, "times have changed" line of reasoning?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.
> 
> 
> Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him.  (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)
> 
> 
> You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:
> 
> *Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_,* the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. *All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
> 
> You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction.
> 
> 
> i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying.
> 
> 
> You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years,
> 
> 
> was a "Non sequitur" is a fucking joke. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.
> 
> 
> AND YOU CAN'T.
Click to expand...

You beat your chest all youd like...but so far...you named only two examples of gender roles and you failed at demonstrating theyre inarbitrary in virtue of women being perfectly capable of, and in actuality, doing them.

Second, not only are gender roles arbitrary, but the court decided that marriage being sex-based, in and of itself, was arbitrary and youve not supported why its NOT....and the fact that it is arbitrary lead them tk conclude there's no compelling reason besides bigotry to limit the state right to marriage.

Too bad.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
Click to expand...




Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> "based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.
> 
> You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard.
> 
> Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.
> 
> 
> 2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.
> 
> 
> 3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you’re being mob harassed and stampeded in this thread!?
Click to expand...




No. I think that Progressive, is trying to run the same line of bullshit past me, that worked in the public debate on this issue, 


but without control of the medium, or a braying mob of brainless assholes to shout me down,


it does not work.


As I said in more detail further up the thread.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
Click to expand...


You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?


----------



## G.T.

Legal Marriage in the US wasnt even based on "gender roles" necessarily to begin with...it widely varied from State to State...but its more fun to let bottom-tier debater "Correll" cling to his arbitrary life line.


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
Click to expand...



Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.

James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
Click to expand...


I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite  apparent they are the only ones you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
Click to expand...

Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-esque, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.


----------



## mdk

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
Click to expand...


That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
Click to expand...



To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.

Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution. 

History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
Click to expand...

looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
Click to expand...


History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
Click to expand...

We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
Click to expand...



Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?

The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
Click to expand...

I didnt make that claim.

On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in _Loving v. Virginia. _This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
Click to expand...


And yet the same argument used then were used again just recently. Both failed miserably. Too bad for you.


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.
> 
> Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.
> 
> History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.
> 
> 
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
Click to expand...



Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.
Click to expand...

Marriage, gay or straight, isnt based on the story of adam and eve you fucking weirdo


----------



## mudwhistle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

So you think everyone should just dump their religion and support gay marriage?

Do you expect the same of Muslims?
I think it's utter hypocrisy when you attack Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves yet you support Muslims who hang gays in their countries.


----------



## mdk

The same folks that demand you meet the biblical standard for marriage sure are as silent as the grave about the biblical standards for ending one.


----------



## rightwinger

Terri4Trump said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea Liberals believe in fake science like the earth is round.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you do. Democrats promote the fake science that homos are normal and there are 37 genders and transgenders are normal. You are no different than Nazis promoting Aryan human science.
> 
> Oh, and by the way: The earth is not round you fucking idiot. The Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.
> 
> LOLLL. *God* you're *stupid!*
Click to expand...

Yes, we do recognize that sexuality is not cut and dry


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think everyone should just dump their religion and support gay marriage?
> 
> Do you expect the same of Muslims?
> I think it's utter hypocrisy when you attack Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves yet you support Muslims who hang gays in their countries.
Click to expand...

You can believe anything you want
You can hate anyone you want

You just can’t force the government to do the same


----------



## Erinwltr

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> looooo0o0ol "history" teaches the story of adam and eve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Adam and Ever were married.  I thought they just frolicked around in some garden, naked and fornicating.


----------



## Polishprince

Erinwltr said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> History sure the hell doesn't say anything about Steve taking it in the caboose as libs contend.
> 
> 
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know Adam and Ever were married.  I thought they just frolicked around in some garden, naked and fornicating.
Click to expand...



The historical record clearly states that Eve was Adam's legal Old Lady, Genesis 2:25 refer to her as his "wife".

Apparently you went to government school and weren't taught this part of history


----------



## Erinwltr

Polishprince said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We dont care what the bible says, numbnut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know Adam and Ever were married.  I thought they just frolicked around in some garden, naked and fornicating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record clearly states that Eve was Adam's legal Old Lady, Genesis 2:25 refer to her as his "wife".
> 
> Apparently you went to government school and weren't taught this part of history
Click to expand...

Who married them?  Did they get married before or after they had all those incest children?


----------



## Polishprince

Erinwltr said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your source for your historical claim that Almighty God put Adam and Steve into the garden?
> 
> The bible is one of the most popular source books for history during the era in question
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know Adam and Ever were married.  I thought they just frolicked around in some garden, naked and fornicating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record clearly states that Eve was Adam's legal Old Lady, Genesis 2:25 refer to her as his "wife".
> 
> Apparently you went to government school and weren't taught this part of history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who married them?  Did they get married before or after they had all those incest children?
Click to expand...


Almighty God married the two of them.

Since they were already married in Genesis 2, they didn't have their children until afterwards


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> but but but but gender roles
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> but but tradition...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> but but but call it something different...
> 
> thats a whine
> 
> 
> 
> When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
> 
> Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
> 
> but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
> 
> Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.
> 
> 
> Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him.  (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)
> 
> 
> You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:
> 
> *Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_,* the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. *All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
> 
> You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction.
> 
> 
> i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying.
> 
> 
> You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years,
> 
> 
> was a "Non sequitur" is a fucking joke. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.
> 
> 
> AND YOU CAN'T.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who has to make an argument. You do. You are  the one who made the absurd assertion that same sex marriage should not happen because "men and women are different'  and that men and women have different gender rolls, arbitrary or not. I not even going to quibble about what those rolls are or whether or not it matters if people adhere to "traditional rolls"

You are absolutely engaging in a Non sequitur fallacy !

.Premis: Men and women are different  in terms of gender rolls- Conclusion: Same sex marriage is wrong.  There is nothing to connect the two. You have not shown that two people of the same sex cannot function as a family unity. You have not shown that because of their "rolls" or what ever other dung that  you can throw at the wall, that they cannot have love and full fill  all of the  pragmatic and  emotional aspects of a marriage. You have nothing

I will also point out that of all the ridiculous arguments against same sex marriage that were put out there my the bigots in the past , none of them were stupid enough to try this one. You should be proud


----------



## Erinwltr

Polishprince said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt make that claim.
> 
> On a scale of 1 to 1...how stupid are you, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what is your justification for Gay Marriage?   If Adam and Steve weren't in the Gardem. where were they?  Highway rest stops and bus stations bathrooms weren't invented in antiquity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't know Adam and Ever were married.  I thought they just frolicked around in some garden, naked and fornicating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The historical record clearly states that Eve was Adam's legal Old Lady, Genesis 2:25 refer to her as his "wife".
> 
> Apparently you went to government school and weren't taught this part of history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who married them?  Did they get married before or after they had all those incest children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almighty God married the two of them.
> 
> Since they were already married in Genesis 2, they didn't have their children until afterwards
Click to expand...

So they had their incest children after god married them but fornicated before marriage.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think everyone should just dump their religion and support gay marriage?
> 
> Do you expect the same of Muslims?
> I think it's utter hypocrisy when you attack Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves yet you support Muslims who hang gays in their countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can believe anything you want
> You can hate anyone you want
> 
> You just can’t force the government to do the same
Click to expand...

OH really?
Why can people be put out of business because of their beliefs?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think everyone should just dump their religion and support gay marriage?
> 
> Do you expect the same of Muslims?
> I think it's utter hypocrisy when you attack Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves yet you support Muslims who hang gays in their countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can believe anything you want
> You can hate anyone you want
> 
> You just can’t force the government to do the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH really?
> Why can people be put out of business because of their beliefs?
Click to expand...

Because of their beliefs?? Really.? They can be put out of business for their BEHAVIOR. Now back to the topic. Same sex marriage


----------



## mudwhistle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think everyone should just dump their religion and support gay marriage?
> 
> Do you expect the same of Muslims?
> I think it's utter hypocrisy when you attack Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves yet you support Muslims who hang gays in their countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can believe anything you want
> You can hate anyone you want
> 
> You just can’t force the government to do the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH really?
> Why can people be put out of business because of their beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of their beliefs?? Really.? They can be put out of business for their BEHAVIOR. Now back to the topic. Same sex marriage
Click to expand...

Christian bakery get sued for not baking a cake for same-sex couple. The couple was given other options but chose to press charges. Baker is harassed and protested into closing their doors. Why?
Because LGBT activists are so filled with hate that they infringed on the religious freedoms of a business owner thru the courts costing them thousands in legal fees and fines.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

mudwhistle said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> So you think everyone should just dump their religion and support gay marriage?
> 
> Do you expect the same of Muslims?
> I think it's utter hypocrisy when you attack Christians who keep their beliefs to themselves yet you support Muslims who hang gays in their countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can believe anything you want
> You can hate anyone you want
> 
> You just can’t force the government to do the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OH really?
> Why can people be put out of business because of their beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of their beliefs?? Really.? They can be put out of business for their BEHAVIOR. Now back to the topic. Same sex marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christian bakery get sued for not baking a cake for same-sex couple. The couple was given other options but chose to press charges. Baker is harassed and protested into closing their doors. Why?
> Because LGBT activists are so filled with hate that they infringed on the religious freedoms of a business owner thru the courts costing them thousands in legal fees and fines.
Click to expand...

The topic is marriage


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).
> 
> 
> For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.
> 
> 
> Until today, with the modern liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
Click to expand...



Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.


So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're finally getting over the stupid idea that gender roles have something to do with who should get married. Congratulations! Or am I missing something here


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
Click to expand...


And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
> 
> 
> Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
> 
> 
> All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.
> 
> 
> Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him.  (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)
> 
> 
> You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:
> 
> *Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_,* the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. *All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
> 
> You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction.
> 
> 
> i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying.
> 
> 
> You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.
> 
> 
> Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years,
> 
> 
> was a "Non sequitur" is a fucking joke. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.
> 
> 
> AND YOU CAN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who has to make an argument. You do. You are  the one who made the absurd assertion that same sex marriage should not happen because "men and women are different'  and that men and women have different gender rolls, arbitrary or not. I not even going to quibble about what those rolls are or whether or not it matters if people adhere to "traditional rolls"
> 
> You are absolutely engaging in a Non sequitur fallacy !
> 
> .Premis: Men and women are different  in terms of gender rolls- Conclusion: Same sex marriage is wrong.  There is nothing to connect the two. You have not shown that two people of the same sex cannot function as a family unity. You have not shown that because of their "rolls" or what ever other dung that  you can throw at the wall, that they cannot have love and full fill  all of the  pragmatic and  emotional aspects of a marriage. You have nothing
> 
> I will also point out that of all the ridiculous arguments against same sex marriage that were put out there my the bigots in the past , none of them were stupid enough to try this one. You should be proud
Click to expand...



1. Did you forget the part where you agreed that the argument that it is a civil rights case, rests on the restrictions being "arbitrary" or are you embracing lying as a supporting argument?


2. My point, is that men and women are different and that structuring Marriage based on those differences is not arbitrary, thus the court decision was utter bullshit.

3. Your insults are noted. Thank you for again demonstrating the shitty behavior of your lefties, that I accused you of. Your verification is appreciated. Again. 


4. You are a poopy head.


----------



## Polishprince

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
Click to expand...


Actually, you are talking about 2 separate institutions here.

Marriage and Gay Marriage are quite different   The latter is actually "high camp" which are homoamerican friends thought up to try and get under the skin of Straight Arrow Americans, normative folks. Its a parody of actual marriage.

I was around when it first became popular on the Springer Program.   Jerry deadpanned it, but the audience hooted and hollered, and let people know they were in on the gag.

The thing is that somewhere along the line, the doofuses in the media decided to pretend like it was serious.   So that's where we are at today.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're finally getting over the stupid idea that gender roles have something to do with who should get married. Congratulations! Or am I missing something here
Click to expand...



Stating that something is based on gender roles, does not thus require rigid adherence to said gender roles. 


Plenty of homosexuals got married, and it was rarely an issue, as long as they did not completely abandon their responsibilities. 


You are missing a lot. Obviously. ON purpose. It is a very common defense from liberals, and quite boring.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.
> 
> 
> THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
Click to expand...




You are reworking my society based on lies and bullshit. It is my business. 


And you cannot defend your argument, except, as I sad, with lies and bullshit.


----------



## mdk

Polishprince said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you are talking about 2 separate institutions here.
> 
> Marriage and Gay Marriage are quite different   The latter is actually "high camp" which are homoamerican friends thought up to try and get under the skin of Straight Arrow Americans, normative folks. Its a parody of actual marriage.
> 
> I was around when it first became popular on the Springer Program.   Jerry deadpanned it, but the audience hooted and hollered, and let people know they were in on the gag.
> 
> The thing is that somewhere along the line, the doofuses in the media decided to pretend like it was serious.   So that's where we are at today.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am well aware of you arrogant twats laboring under the delusion that gay people getting married is really all about *you* or something.


----------



## MaryL

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

I am the same with gays, think of the many years it took to strategize this. Oh, and the money. And the lawyers, and   god knows whom behind the scenes.  Brilliant. But  marriage isn't an exclusively hetro  only club. No, it transcends politics. The fact that gays don't get THAT  shows how corrupt intellectually/morraly  homosexuals truly are. Gays can artificiality manufacture consent  ( to steal from Norm Chomsky)  but they completely miss the point.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are reworking my society based on lies and bullshit. It is my business.
> 
> 
> And you cannot defend your argument, except, as I sad, with lies and bullshit.
Click to expand...


_It's muh society and muh duty!_ The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.
> 
> James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD.  James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time.   He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are reworking my society based on lies and bullshit. It is my business.
> 
> 
> And you cannot defend your argument, except, as I sad, with lies and bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _It's muh society and muh duty!_ The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.
Click to expand...




You made the point that it was none of my business.


I pointed out that it was.


Your rebuttal? The Logical Fallacy of Ridicule.


Exactly as I accused you lefties of.


I look forward to seeing how you manage to response, and disagree, without ever addressing my actual points.



Because, on some level, you know that you cannot.


----------



## 22lcidw

Fellas. If you are hetero and white you are at the bottom of the pile. The easiest thing is to not get married and do not have children. The war is against you. To much can go wrong and you will pay out of your azz or go through to much turmoil raising your kids in this current environment. If you get married make sure. You see the riots, protests and other things every day. Once the sex goes away so does everything else if the person you are with is selfish with little skills to run a home. Marriages do not last as long and people are still paying off the wedding reception while divorcing. People my age are divorcing at a higher clip with some of the having a bit more money then decades ago. Just watch TV. Watch the endless sex being sold fellas. Its not a science question. But a lifetime of pain can be avoided.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are reworking my society based on lies and bullshit. It is my business.
> 
> 
> And you cannot defend your argument, except, as I sad, with lies and bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _It's muh society and muh duty!_ The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the point that it was none of my business.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that it was.
> 
> 
> Your rebuttal? The Logical Fallacy of Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Exactly as I accused you lefties of.
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing how you manage to response, and disagree, without ever addressing my actual points.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, on some level, you know that you cannot.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry if I bruised your pussy with my pointed words, but I'm trying to make a man out of you. I feel it's important in my society for men not be such nebby little whiners and concern themselves with the marriages of other people.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both are examples of people not conforming to gender role norms, that got married, and no one cared.
> 
> 
> So, that is relevant to your odd take on it, anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are reworking my society based on lies and bullshit. It is my business.
> 
> 
> And you cannot defend your argument, except, as I sad, with lies and bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _It's muh society and muh duty!_ The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the point that it was none of my business.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that it was.
> 
> 
> Your rebuttal? The Logical Fallacy of Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Exactly as I accused you lefties of.
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing how you manage to response, and disagree, without ever addressing my actual points.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, on some level, you know that you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if I bruised your pussy with my pointed words, but I trying to make a man out of you. I feel it's important in my society for men not be such nebby little whiners and concern themselves with the marriages of other people.
Click to expand...





Your continued inability to address my point, is noted. 


Your way that you seem to think that insults and ridicule, is a form of supporting argument,


is exactly what we saw when you lefties wages your campaign to get Gay Marriage legalized by the courts.


As i stated. And then predicted that you lefties would demonstrate in this very thread.


As you (plural) have been doing over and over again.


Do you realize that we can all see that you are incapable of defending your position?


I know, that you can see it. That is why you are getting angry.


----------



## mdk




----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


>


get off my lawwwnnn!!!!


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
Click to expand...




You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
Click to expand...

When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable 

so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
Click to expand...


Is this where you start belly-aching about mobs and shit? lol. I know how much you get off on feeling downtrodden.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable
> 
> so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid
Click to expand...




Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that, 


or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable
> 
> so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that,
> 
> 
> or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?
Click to expand...

I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.

Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!


----------



## mdk




----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this where you start belly-aching about mobs and shit? lol. I know how much you get off on feeling downtrodden.
Click to expand...



Pointing out that your obvious lies were only able to be sold, because you libs control the medium, 


is a valid point.


That you unable to make your point, and instead end up doing nothing but using the Logical Fallacy of Ridicule to "support" your position, *demonstrates* that point.


AND, you can do nothing but keep going, because on some level, you know that you cannot engage me in real debate, because you know that your position, is as I said, nothing but bullshit and lies.


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


>


 youre just the meme god today. that canada thread had me stealing shit for personal textual use all day


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable
> 
> so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that,
> 
> 
> or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.
> 
> Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!
Click to expand...



I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.


I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.



Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me, 


demonstrates my point, every time you do it.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable
> 
> so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that,
> 
> 
> or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.
> 
> Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.
> 
> 
> I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me,
> 
> 
> demonstrates my point, every time you do it.
Click to expand...

Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable
> 
> so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that,
> 
> 
> or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.
> 
> Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.
> 
> 
> I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me,
> 
> 
> demonstrates my point, every time you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!
Click to expand...



Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue, 


was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".


I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.


Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.



Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.


As I predicted. 


So that is where this thread stands. 


You libs can't make you case.


And you know it.


----------



## mdk

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this where you start belly-aching about mobs and shit? lol. I know how much you get off on feeling downtrodden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that your obvious lies were only able to be sold, because you libs control the medium,
> 
> 
> is a valid point.
> 
> 
> That you unable to make your point, and instead end up doing nothing but using the Logical Fallacy of Ridicule to "support" your position, *demonstrates* that point.
> 
> 
> AND, you can do nothing but keep going, because on some level, you know that you cannot engage me in real debate, because you know that your position, is as I said, nothing but bullshit and lies.
Click to expand...


It's a real shame those opposed to gay marriage didn't have any way to make their case via politicians, pastors, newspapers, churches, blogs, television shows, entire fucking television channels, radio programs, magazines, websites, think tanks, socially consecutive activist groups, religious organizations...

Instead of accepting personally responsibility for your inability to convince people or the courts, in true beta fashion you blame others instead.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you make a valid case to begin with, itll be less humor and more of a discussion but I somehow doubt youre capable
> 
> so far, its all get off my lawn and no spinal fluid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that,
> 
> 
> or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.
> 
> Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.
> 
> 
> I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me,
> 
> 
> demonstrates my point, every time you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue,
> 
> 
> was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.
> 
> 
> As I predicted.
> 
> 
> So that is where this thread stands.
> 
> 
> You libs can't make you case.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
Click to expand...

You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.

But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**


----------



## mdk

I bet Correll spends the commercial breaks on Lifetime bragging to the other ladies about winning internet arguments.


----------



## Correll

mdk said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get off my lawwwnnn!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You here to try again? Or are you just here to try to provide the mindless chorus, that I told you you needed, to sell your line of bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this where you start belly-aching about mobs and shit? lol. I know how much you get off on feeling downtrodden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that your obvious lies were only able to be sold, because you libs control the medium,
> 
> 
> is a valid point.
> 
> 
> That you unable to make your point, and instead end up doing nothing but using the Logical Fallacy of Ridicule to "support" your position, *demonstrates* that point.
> 
> 
> AND, you can do nothing but keep going, because on some level, you know that you cannot engage me in real debate, because you know that your position, is as I said, nothing but bullshit and lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a real shame those opposed to gay marriage didn't have any way to make their case via politicians, pastors, newspapers, churches, blogs, television shows, entire fucking television channels, radio programs, magazines, websites, think tanks, socially consecutive activist groups, religious organizations...
> 
> Instead of accepting personally responsibility for your inability to convince people or the courts, in true beta fashion you blame others instead.
Click to expand...




That would be a more convincing argument, if you and your lib buddies had A, not spent several dozens pages using the tactics I accused you of, AND b. if you had not so quickly and utterly given up on supporting your actual position.


You given up on going that, ie supporting your position.


BUt you, always take the time to personally attack me. 


As I predicted.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Have you seriously managed to lie to yourself that quickly and well that you believe that,
> 
> 
> or are you purposefully trying to lie to us, while knowing that you were utterly unable to seriously challenge my point(s)?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.
> 
> Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.
> 
> 
> I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me,
> 
> 
> demonstrates my point, every time you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue,
> 
> 
> was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.
> 
> 
> As I predicted.
> 
> 
> So that is where this thread stands.
> 
> 
> You libs can't make you case.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
Click to expand...




I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.


But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address, 

to a personal attack on me.


As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.


Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.


In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.


Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care how epic and serious you think your debate skills, but youre bending over 6 ways to say you won something and meanwhile...youre just a bottom, dude.
> 
> Get used to losing...seems like a habit for ya!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.
> 
> 
> I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me,
> 
> 
> demonstrates my point, every time you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue,
> 
> 
> was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.
> 
> 
> As I predicted.
> 
> 
> So that is where this thread stands.
> 
> 
> You libs can't make you case.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
Click to expand...

You are emotional and repeating yourself.


----------



## mdk




----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm aware we lost that "debate".  I did not start this thread. One of your buddies did.
> 
> 
> I just pointed out, correctly, that your win was not based on a valid argument, but on bullshit and lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to make your case, and instead doing nothing now, but personally attacking me,
> 
> 
> demonstrates my point, every time you do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue,
> 
> 
> was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.
> 
> 
> As I predicted.
> 
> 
> So that is where this thread stands.
> 
> 
> You libs can't make you case.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
Click to expand...



I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.


You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.


So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. 


And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.


But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your version of events is nice, and I hope it means a real lot to ya. Really, I do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue,
> 
> 
> was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.
> 
> 
> As I predicted.
> 
> 
> So that is where this thread stands.
> 
> 
> You libs can't make you case.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
Click to expand...

lollllll


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Page 53, the op, you, some other libs, have agreed that the crux of the reason that Gay Marriage was a Civil Rights issue,
> 
> 
> was because the restrictions not letting gays marry same sex were "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, which are based on real biological differences, and thus the restrictions were NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Thus, the very premise used to present the issue to the Courts, was a lie, and a painfully obvious one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of you libs tried to make your case, but quickly gave up and now are just using various logical fallacies, mostly the Logical Fallacy of ad hominem.
> 
> 
> As I predicted.
> 
> 
> So that is where this thread stands.
> 
> 
> You libs can't make you case.
> 
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lollllll
Click to expand...





I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.


You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.


So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.


But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lollllll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
Click to expand...

The debate has not bogged down. It is over, You have lost . Your premise that gender rolls and differences between men and women  are somehow tided to the right to marry has been established as ridiculous horseshit. End of story

Yes , men and women are different. So are any two women and any two men. Each individual brings their own interests, abilities, talents to the relationship. You are struggling to justify your bigoted position that people of the same sex should not marry based on an idiotic and bogus premise that you have failed to support. Indeed you have not even attempted to support it. 

Two men or two women who marry are quite capable of  functioning as a family unit and doing all of the same things that hetero couple due. You are quite pathetic and embarrassing yourself try to argue otherwise


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

22lcidw said:


> Fellas. If you are hetero and white you are at the bottom of the pile. The easiest thing is to not get married and do not have children. The war is against you. To much can go wrong and you will pay out of your azz or go through to much turmoil raising your kids in this current environment. If you get married make sure. You see the riots, protests and other things every day. Once the sex goes away so does everything else if the person you are with is selfish with little skills to run a home. Marriages do not last as long and people are still paying off the wedding reception while divorcing. People my age are divorcing at a higher clip with some of the having a bit more money then decades ago. Just watch TV. Watch the endless sex being sold fellas. Its not a science question. But a lifetime of pain can be avoided.


Holly shit! Seriously!?? Sorry to hear that you are so cynical and miserable!! Maybe you'll have a better experience in the next life, but you first have to learn by your mistakes in this life or you'll be destines to repeat the cycle. 

I got off to a shaky start in terms of my relationships  as a young person but I worked on my issues. I too had my doubts about finding happiness But  I am now 72 yeas old, married 30 years and the sex is still good. Hopefully you  are still young enough to turn your life around as I did


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say it 1, 000 times and until you're blue in the face, dude. The fact that you obsessively do so....over and over and over...should cause yourself some concern.
> 
> But it wont. Youre more worried about icky gays, and your lawn. Same old guy screaming. Different day. **yawn**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lollllll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family. 

In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lollllll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The debate has not bogged down. It is over, You have lost . Your premise that gender rolls and differences between men and women  are somehow tided to the right to marry has been established as ridiculous horseshit. End of story
> 
> Yes , men and women are different. So are any two women and any two men. Each individual brings their own interests, abilities, talents to the relationship. You are struggling to justify your bigoted position that people of the same sex should not marry based on an idiotic and bogus premise that you have failed to support. Indeed you have not even attempted to support it.
> 
> Two men or two women who marry are quite capable of  functioning as a family unit and doing all of the same things that hetero couple due. You are quite pathetic and embarrassing yourself try to argue otherwise
Click to expand...





Not "tied to the right to marry" but part of the foundation of the concept of Marriage.


It is not about rights, unless the restrictions are arbitrary.


Did you forget that you agreed with that? Do you need me to cut and paste your own words to remind you?




THe debate is over. NOw we are at the part where all you do, is demonstrate the dishonest practices, of lying and unsupported assertions that led to your victory in the courts.


This is what liberals do, when they are shown that their arguments and positions are wrong.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly discussed with others, and will be happy to do so again, as to why I am here, and what I am doing.
> 
> 
> But in the context of this thread, your comment on that, is nothing but another dodging away from the actual topic, which you fear to address,
> 
> to a personal attack on me.
> 
> 
> As I predicted you (plural) would do, when you realized that you could not actually make your case.
> 
> 
> Each and ever post, nothing but working to avoid the issue, and find keep attacking me.
> 
> 
> In another page or two, I will again post a summary of where the discussion bogged down, and you lefties gave up on the topic.
> 
> 
> Until then, keep demonstrating how well I know you, better than you know yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lollllll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
Click to expand...



That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Not "tied to the right to marry" but part of the foundation of the concept of Marriage.


You called me a liar, but here, you are lying if you are now going to claim that you opposition to same sex marriage has been that men and women perform different gender rolls?  In any case, what you are saying now is just another logical fallacy-this time an appeal to tradition.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> It is not about rights, unless the restrictions are arbitrary.
> Did you forget that you agreed with that? Do you need me to cut and paste your own words to remind you?


Restrictions on marriage -prohibiting same sex couples from marriage was indeed arbitrary as proven in court. The states were  unable to sustain an argument that there was a compelling government interest, or even a rational basis for the restriction.

So yes I did agree that arbitrary restrictions are discriminatory.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> He debate is over. NOw we are at the part where all you do, is demonstrate the dishonest practices, of lying and unsupported assertions that led to your victory in the courts.
> 
> 
> This is what liberals do, when they are shown that their arguments and positions are wrong.


What exactly did we lie about in court? That gender rolls don't matter when it come to the issue of marriage? Dude!! As far as I know, it was never even brought up. As I said before, with all of the idiotic crap that the bigots tried to use to thwart gay marriage, none of them were stupid enough to try you so called miserable and failed argument.. Game over


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are emotional and repeating yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lollllll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
Click to expand...

Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not "tied to the right to marry" but part of the foundation of the concept of Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> You called me a liar, but here, you are lying if you are now going to claim that you opposition to same sex marriage has been that men and women perform different gender rolls?  In any case, what you are saying now is just another logical fallacy-this time an appeal to tradition.
Click to expand...



I understand why you are so desperate to avoid addressing anything I actually say. 


My point, no. The point we AGREED on, thus OUR POINT, was that the crux of your side's argument that it was a civil rights issue, was based on the idea that the restrictions were arbitrary.


I have pointed that the restrictions were not arbitrary, but based on traditional gender roles.


That is where we are stuck. You desperately trying to avoid that.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about rights, unless the restrictions are arbitrary.
> Did you forget that you agreed with that? Do you need me to cut and paste your own words to remind you?
> 
> 
> 
> Restrictions on marriage -prohibiting same sex couples from marriage was indeed arbitrary as proven in court. The states were  unable to sustain an argument that there was a compelling government interest, or even a rational basis for the restriction.
> 
> So yes I did agree that arbitrary restrictions are discriminatory.
Click to expand...





Nice Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. 


Is that your way of admitting that you cannot make the case yourself? Cause that is already apparent. You dont' have to make that point anymore.


We can move on to the next step in your argument, where you admit that you were wrong.


Just kidding. Keep up the personal attacks. I know that is all you have  now.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He debate is over. NOw we are at the part where all you do, is demonstrate the dishonest practices, of lying and unsupported assertions that led to your victory in the courts.
> 
> 
> This is what liberals do, when they are shown that their arguments and positions are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did we lie about in court? That gender rolls don't matter when it come to the issue of marriage? Dude!! As far as I know, it was never even brought up. As I said before, with all of the idiotic crap that the bigots tried to use to thwart gay marriage, none of them were stupid enough to try you so called miserable and failed argument.. Game over
Click to expand...





Your victory was in the courts. Your lies were everywhere else, setting up the major lie, that it was arbitrary.


Does that sound familiar? It should. I've been telling you the same thing, that we agreed on, many pages and days ago, over and over again. 


If my argument is so pathetic, why are you afraid to actually address it?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> lollllll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
Click to expand...




Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule. 


Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not "tied to the right to marry" but part of the foundation of the concept of Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> You called me a liar, but here, you are lying if you are now going to claim that you opposition to same sex marriage has been that men and women perform different gender rolls?  In any case, what you are saying now is just another logical fallacy-this time an appeal to tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you are so desperate to avoid addressing anything I actually say.
> 
> 
> My point, no. The point we AGREED on, thus OUR POINT, was that the crux of your side's argument that it was a civil rights issue, was based on the idea that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I have pointed that the restrictions were not arbitrary, but based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> That is where we are stuck. You desperately trying to avoid that.
Click to expand...

I have addressed EVERYTHING that you have said! You pointed out that  restrictions were not arbitrary, but based on traditional gender roles.? YOU POINTED OUT!You are presenting an opinion that flies in the face of the reality and the legal record that they were in fact arbitrary. How the fuck did we agree  when you are saying  they were NOT arbitrary, and I am saying that they were and therefore  unconstitutional! . It appears that you have lost your fucking mind!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not about rights, unless the restrictions are arbitrary.
> Did you forget that you agreed with that? Do you need me to cut and paste your own words to remind you?
> 
> 
> 
> Restrictions on marriage -prohibiting same sex couples from marriage was indeed arbitrary as proven in court. The states were  unable to sustain an argument that there was a compelling government interest, or even a rational basis for the restriction.
> 
> So yes I did agree that arbitrary restrictions are discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that you cannot make the case yourself? Cause that is already apparent. You dont' have to make that point anymore.
> 
> 
> We can move on to the next step in your argument, where you admit that you were wrong.
> 
> 
> Just kidding. Keep up the personal attacks. I know that is all you have  now.
Click to expand...

I do not have to make any case. That was done already. Read the fuckin cases. Read Obergefell . What the fuck am I supposed to admit to that I was wrong about? You keep  saying that I'm wrong an calling me a liar but you are pathetically unable to say what I'm wrong about, or what I lied about.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He debate is over. NOw we are at the part where all you do, is demonstrate the dishonest practices, of lying and unsupported assertions that led to your victory in the courts.
> 
> 
> This is what liberals do, when they are shown that their arguments and positions are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did we lie about in court? That gender rolls don't matter when it come to the issue of marriage? Dude!! As far as I know, it was never even brought up. As I said before, with all of the idiotic crap that the bigots tried to use to thwart gay marriage, none of them were stupid enough to try you so called miserable and failed argument.. Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your victory was in the courts. Your lies were everywhere else, setting up the major lie, that it was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Does that sound familiar? It should. I've been telling you the same thing, that we agreed on, many pages and days ago, over and over again.
> 
> 
> If my argument is so pathetic, why are you afraid to actually address it?
Click to expand...

You are becoming tedious and boring. From what I can tell , the "lie"that I'm being accused of is my contention that the discriminatory bans of same sex marriage were arbitrary. The fact that you can't accept that they were arbitrary and had no rational purpose does not make me a liar or wrong in any way.  It makes you a ridged and narrow minded traditionalist who can't stand the idea of change and an evolving social  order . Societies do in fact evolve despite the fact that some individuals like you are unable to evolve. Your problem , Not mine


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> lollllll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
Click to expand...

I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not "tied to the right to marry" but part of the foundation of the concept of Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> You called me a liar, but here, you are lying if you are now going to claim that you opposition to same sex marriage has been that men and women perform different gender rolls?  In any case, what you are saying now is just another logical fallacy-this time an appeal to tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you are so desperate to avoid addressing anything I actually say.
> 
> 
> My point, no. The point we AGREED on, thus OUR POINT, was that the crux of your side's argument that it was a civil rights issue, was based on the idea that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I have pointed that the restrictions were not arbitrary, but based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> That is where we are stuck. You desperately trying to avoid that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have addressed EVERYTHING that you have said! You pointed out that  restrictions were not arbitrary, but based on traditional gender roles.? YOU POINTED OUT!You are presenting an opinion that flies in the face of the reality and the legal record that they were in fact arbitrary. How the fuck did we agree  when you are saying  they were NOT arbitrary, and I am saying that they were and therefore  unconstitutional! . It appears that you have lost your fucking mind!
Click to expand...



You agreed that the crux of your side's argument was that the restrictions were arbitrary. 


I pointed out the obvious fact that Marriage was based on traditional gender roles, and thus they are not arbitrary.



I also agreed with you that the courts disagreed. That is called "making a lie work".


Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them. 



LOL!!!


Obviously, you will do neither and will instead keep spouting various logical fallacies, mostly Proof by Assertion, Argument by Ridicule, Appeal to Authority and of course, Ad Hominem



I have lost my mind. I keep insisting on sane rational discourse from liberals, even though, EVERY SINGLE DAY, you prove to me that you are not capable of it. 


I have my suspicious as to why I do this, but that is off topic. Big Time.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
Click to expand...




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm repeating myself, because the debate has bogged down, and is stuck at the point I mentioned.
> 
> 
> You libs keep "replying" but without saying anything relevant to the topic.
> 
> 
> So, if I dont' respond, and repeat myself, you can create the illusion of winning though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
> 
> 
> And I am not really emotional about this. YOur insults and lies are so far, too pathetic to annoy me to the point of anger.
> 
> 
> But you will know, if and/or when you succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
Click to expand...




1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part. 

2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful. 

3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them.


Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were. 

Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.
> 
> Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.
Click to expand...



So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles, 

while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.



And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something else you ignorant twit,. WE have two women who are married to each other next door. One mows the lawn, the other shops for groceries and cooks . It has nothing to do with gender rolls. It about what each one wants to to and is able to do. They function as a family.
> 
> In my house, I, the male does the cooking while my wife tends to the family finances. Nothing to do with gender rolls, traditional or other wise. You just constructed this artificial horseshit in a feeble and failed attempt to discredit same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
Click to expand...


Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.
> 
> Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,
> 
> while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!
Click to expand...

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls.     Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not justify your side's radical changes in the fundamental building block of our society, though the abuse of the court process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
Click to expand...



1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
Click to expand...

Right!  The courts are not democratic and this is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic and the courts job is to enforce the constitution which is what they did. You don't get to vote on the rights of other people.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for well over a decade now. Longer that that in some other countries. Please list all of the social ills and horror stories that you can find as a result of MARRIAGE EQUALITY


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just whining . What radical changes? The fact that there are a few same sex couples scattered around town? Do you even notice them? Do they bother anyone? What has really changed ? Nothing! Those gay couples are now part of the building blocks of society, going about their lives just like everyone else. And again, the courts were used appropriately. Do you also think that Loving  V. Virginia was an abuse of the court system?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
Click to expand...

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model. 

calm the fuck down, grampa


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> 
> calm the fuck down, grampa
Click to expand...

Correll is always good for a laugh.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.
> 
> Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,
> 
> while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls.     Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills
Click to expand...



Sufficiently blurred? By what?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right!  The courts are not democratic and this is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic and the courts job is to enforce the constitution which is what they did. You don't get to vote on the rights of other people.
> 
> We have had same sex marriage in some states for well over a decade now. Longer that that in some other countries. Please list all of the social ills and horror stories that you can find as a result of MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Click to expand...




1. The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions. 


2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling my point, "whining" is just the logical fallacy of Argument by Ridicule.
> 
> 
> Again, anything to avoid serious and honest discussion of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> 
> calm the fuck down, grampa
Click to expand...



Your utter inability to address my points seriously or honestly, continues. Thank for playing.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
Click to expand...



You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position. 


LIbs are dim like that.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.



  I think it is important to point out that *traditional* does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b].  Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.

  Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.

  Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.

  The *LI*b*E*ral attacks on _“traditional”_ marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.
> 
> Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,
> 
> while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls.     Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sufficiently blurred? By what?
Click to expand...

Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life. Men and women do essentially the same things both domestically and outside of the home. Women go off to war, they are cops and fire fighters . Men are nurses and social workers. At home men stay at home with children and cook. Women are bread winners and pay the bills .There is no basis for the idiotic contention that at marriage must be based on gender rolls. The basis in modern society is that each individual- regardless of what they have between their legs in relation to the other person- brings their unique talents , abilities and interests to the relationship and make it work. You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up.   Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences  is ridiculous and demonstrably false.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 1. The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.


Horseshit.. Only if you are living in the Ozzy and Harriet world of the 50's. See post 572


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.


So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm avoiding serious discussion? Are you fucking serious. ? You have presented nothing but idiotic drivel  and you are fully worthy of ridicule. I have made a serious attempt to have an honest discussion and all that you have doe is to repeatedly present you opinion about gender rolls as fact and twist yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to justify your opposition to sane sax marriage. I'll ask you again. Why do you care if gays can marry? How has it effected your life.? It hasn't! But it has made the lives of gay people who now can marry infinitely better and apparently you can't stand that. Too fucking bad, Get over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> 
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your utter inability to address my points seriously or honestly, continues. Thank for playing.
Click to expand...

Exactly what points did anyone not address.? The fact that you are unable to understand or accept what is being said does not mean that your points were not addressed- and disseminated


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.
> 
> 2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.
> 
> 3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
Click to expand...

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!


----------



## Crixus

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...



Your the only only honky I hear bitching about it honestly.


----------



## Correll

Bob Blaylock said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is important to point out that *traditional* does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b].  Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.
> 
> Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.
> 
> Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.
> 
> The *LI*b*E*ral attacks on _“traditional”_ marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.
Click to expand...



Thank you. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between me and Progressive on that.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your task here, if you want to defend your argument, is to argue that either traditional gender roles are arbitrary, like GT tried, for a second, or that Marriage was not based on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.
> 
> Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,
> 
> while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls.     Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sufficiently blurred? By what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life... You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up.   Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences  is ridiculous and demonstrably false.
Click to expand...




Wow. Your reading comprehension is not so great.


I said that Marriage, an ancient institution was based, note paste tense, on traditional gender roles.


Ok. so now you are making the point,* finally,* that in the modern age, that gender roles have changed, or lessened in importance. (you are still very poor at communicating)


Ok, that is a fair point. BUT.


1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.


2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.

3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.



It is sad not only that I have to lead you to your own points, to have a real discussion, but that it takes so long to do so, because normally all you can do is spout various logical fallacies. I really get the feeling that when you finally made your point, that you sort of did so by accident.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.
> 
> 
> 
> So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.
Click to expand...



Most likely result, imo, massive rate of divorce, with all the problems that the brings.

BUT, as we have seen with other social changes brought by progressives, the connections and results of such progressive social changes are often surprising and generally negative. 


Generally, it is on the person advocating the change, that has to make the case that the change will be good.


Quite clever the way you dodged that. Very divisive and dishonest and harmful to the nation as as whole, but effective.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
Click to expand...



It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule. 


You are just an asshole. You and yours.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
Click to expand...

You are not capable...its too much ignorance within you.

You were told why gender roles are arbitrary ~ you havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

You havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.


You're not logical. You piss, moan. Bitch and complain about name calling and literally all youve done is ignored the arguments and went "poopy liberals!!! Poopy gays ruining marriage!! all liberals do is x y,z amd name call!!"

^ all ad hom, all name calling....and all at the same time as whining about name calling and ad hom...and Im not even a liberal..

Youre a fucking schmuck and have lost every, literally every... argument Ive ever seen you engaged in.

Bottom tier debater = Correll. Youre the table scraps.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is important to point out that *traditional* does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b].  Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.
> 
> Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.
> 
> Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.
> 
> The *LI*b*E*ral attacks on _“traditional”_ marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between me and Progressive on that.
Click to expand...

What miscommunication? Horseshit to both of you. There was no miscommunication. I know exactly where your coming from with your appeal to tradition fallacy. Let me tell you something. I have a" traditional "   family. Tradition has it's place. But traditions change. They evolve , and that is healthy. Stagnation is not healthy. Advocation for more inclusiveness is not an attack on the traditional family. To claim that it is , is just idiotic, paranoid, lugubrious horseshit.!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.
> 
> Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families.  You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,
> 
> while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls.     Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sufficiently blurred? By what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life... You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up.   Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences  is ridiculous and demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Your reading comprehension is not so great.
> 
> 
> I said that Marriage, an ancient institution was based, note paste tense, on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Ok. so now you are making the point,* finally,* that in the modern age, that gender roles have changed, or lessened in importance. (you are still very poor at communicating)
> 
> 
> Ok, that is a fair point. BUT.
> 
> 
> 1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.
> 
> 
> 2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.
> 
> 3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad not only that I have to lead you to your own points, to have a real discussion, but that it takes so long to do so, because normally all you can do is spout various logical fallacies. I really get the feeling that when you finally made your point, that you sort of did so by accident.
Click to expand...

We did not agree on anything Dude!!  You have been claiming that the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary when I have contended that they were. You are hung up what marriage was thousands of years ago and I am saying that the only thing that matters is what marriage, and gender rolls are now.


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.




The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public. 

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.
> 
> 
> 
> So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely result, imo, massive rate of divorce, with all the problems that the brings.
> 
> BUT, as we have seen with other social changes brought by progressives, the connections and results of such progressive social changes are often surprising and generally negative.
> 
> 
> Generally, it is on the person advocating the change, that has to make the case that the change will be good.
> 
> 
> Quite clever the way you dodged that. Very divisive and dishonest and harmful to the nation as as whole, but effective.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you blathering about now? Gay marriage contributes to divorce ? I can't wait to hear you try to explain that horseshit. And by the way, the divorce rat is down. You seem to be struggling to come up with something but you have nothing.

I will add that the burden of proof is on  those who want to place restrictions on rights and social progress -to show that thos restrictions or limitations are justifiable


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.
> 
> 2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
Click to expand...

More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
Click to expand...




Just because someone doesn't want it in the caboose doesn't make them a "bigot" or have a "fear of change".   A lot of Americans, a lot of people in every country, find that kind of thing to be very disturbing.

What, IMHO, is more disturbing isn't the legality of Gay Marriage- but instead the fact that it is shoved in the face of Americans who want nothing to do with it.  If people were to keep their sodomical relationships discrete and confidential, revealing them to people on a "need to know" basis, they would get a lot less negative feedback.   But that would defeat the purpose of the Institution of Gay Marriage, which is to freak out and outrage Straight Arrows and "prudes".


----------



## iamwhatiseem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
> _"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? _To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality.
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
Click to expand...


I imagine I am with the majority in my opinion on this.
I don't 100% support either side. I totally support a private business not wanting to do something if it is against their beliefs. Even not serve minorities if that is their thing. And then I will enjoy sitting back and watch their business crumble. People should be able to do what they want to do. We don't need the government mandating our morals.
  At the same time, I have no issue with gay marriage. Because...wait for it... people should be able to do what they want to do. 
I do not support a church having to perform a gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. Why the fuck would two gay people want to get married there if not to antagonize?
  Gay marriage? No problem.
Gay people trying to force themselves onto people who clearly don't want it... problem.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
Click to expand...

Your life is offensive to the public


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your life is offensive to the public
Click to expand...



I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.   

But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass.  And my point is, they really don't.   They just don't want to hear about it.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your life is offensive to the public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.
> 
> But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass.  And my point is, they really don't.   They just don't want to hear about it.
Click to expand...

You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your life is offensive to the public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.
> 
> But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass.  And my point is, they really don't.   They just don't want to hear about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen
Click to expand...



Hardly, I'm just observing reality.

Out in San Fran, its certainly considered ordinary for people to pitch their tents on the sidewalks, crap in the streets and openly engage in butt sex.    But that's not everywhere.  If certainly isn't the case in the Great City of Hermitage or in Youngstown, Canton, or the other great cities of the American Heartland that libs hate.


----------



## G.T.

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your life is offensive to the public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.
> 
> But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass.  And my point is, they really don't.   They just don't want to hear about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly, I'm just observing reality.
> 
> Out in San Fran, its certainly considered ordinary for people to pitch their tents on the sidewalks, crap in the streets and openly engage in butt sex.    But that's not everywhere.  If certainly isn't the case in the Great City of Hermitage or in Youngstown, Canton, or the other great cities of the American Heartland that libs hate.
Click to expand...

good for you


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not capable...its too much ignorance within you.
> 
> You were told why gender roles are arbitrary ~ you havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> You havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.
> 
> 
> You're not logical. You piss, moan. Bitch and complain about name calling and literally all youve done is ignored the arguments and went "poopy liberals!!! Poopy gays ruining marriage!! all liberals do is x y,z amd name call!!"
> 
> ^ all ad hom, all name calling....and all at the same time as whining about name calling and ad hom...and Im not even a liberal..
> 
> Youre a fucking schmuck and have lost every, literally every... argument Ive ever seen you engaged in.
> 
> Bottom tier debater = Correll. Youre the table scraps.
Click to expand...




1. You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.


2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.

3. I try to construct logical arguments to support my positions. I know that it alien to you.

4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.

5. You are an asshole.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is important to point out that *traditional* does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b].  Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.
> 
> Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.
> 
> Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.
> 
> The *LI*b*E*ral attacks on _“traditional”_ marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between me and Progressive on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What miscommunication? Horseshit to both of you. There was no miscommunication. I know exactly where your coming from with your appeal to tradition fallacy. Let me tell you something. I have a" traditional "   family. Tradition has it's place. But traditions change. They evolve , and that is healthy. Stagnation is not healthy. Advocation for more inclusiveness is not an attack on the traditional family. To claim that it is , is just idiotic, paranoid, lugubrious horseshit.!
Click to expand...



I made no Appeal to Tradition. If you believe that, you just demonstrated your poor communication skills.


AND ironically, supported Blaylock's point on communication.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,
> 
> while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.
> 
> 
> 
> And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!
> 
> 
> 
> No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls.     Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sufficiently blurred? By what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life... You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up.   Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences  is ridiculous and demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Your reading comprehension is not so great.
> 
> 
> I said that Marriage, an ancient institution was based, note paste tense, on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> Ok. so now you are making the point,* finally,* that in the modern age, that gender roles have changed, or lessened in importance. (you are still very poor at communicating)
> 
> 
> Ok, that is a fair point. BUT.
> 
> 
> 1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.
> 
> 
> 2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.
> 
> 3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad not only that I have to lead you to your own points, to have a real discussion, but that it takes so long to do so, because normally all you can do is spout various logical fallacies. I really get the feeling that when you finally made your point, that you sort of did so by accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did not agree on anything Dude!!  You have been claiming that the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary when I have contended that they were. You are hung up what marriage was thousands of years ago and I am saying that the only thing that matters is what marriage, and gender rolls are now.
Click to expand...




No walking it back. You've admitted that at least part of your reasoning, is that gender roles have changed with time.


That means, that the institution of Marriage, created thousands of years ago, cannot be attacked as arbitrary, based on changes in gender roles occurring in the last few decades.



Thus, My response to that admission on your part, stands, and you addressing it, is the next step in the debate. Repeated assertions of your initial position, ignoring legitimate points of discussion over 60 pages of debate, 

is the logical fallacy of proof by assertion and the act of an asshole.


Please don't do that.


Try again. 






1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.


2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.

3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.
> 
> 
> 
> So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely result, imo, massive rate of divorce, with all the problems that the brings.
> 
> BUT, as we have seen with other social changes brought by progressives, the connections and results of such progressive social changes are often surprising and generally negative.
> 
> 
> Generally, it is on the person advocating the change, that has to make the case that the change will be good.
> 
> 
> Quite clever the way you dodged that. Very divisive and dishonest and harmful to the nation as as whole, but effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you blathering about now? Gay marriage contributes to divorce ? I can't wait to hear you try to explain that horseshit. And by the way, the divorce rat is down. You seem to be struggling to come up with something but you have nothing.
> 
> I will add that the burden of proof is on  those who want to place restrictions on rights and social progress -to show that thos restrictions or limitations are justifiable
Click to expand...



OMG, you directly asked me a question, and I answered it. 


Well, when I put it down like that I can see how, as a liberal, you would not understand what just happened.


Go back, read it again, and try responding again. Or not. I know you don't really care about answers to you questions.


----------



## Polishprince

G.T. said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Your life is offensive to the public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.
> 
> But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass.  And my point is, they really don't.   They just don't want to hear about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly, I'm just observing reality.
> 
> Out in San Fran, its certainly considered ordinary for people to pitch their tents on the sidewalks, crap in the streets and openly engage in butt sex.    But that's not everywhere.  If certainly isn't the case in the Great City of Hermitage or in Youngstown, Canton, or the other great cities of the American Heartland that libs hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good for you
Click to expand...



Like I said, homosexuality is something to share on a need to know basis.

I'm 62 and a decade ago, at the advice of my physician, I was given a screen colonoscopy. I was a little bit concerned.  A homosexual acquaintance volunteered to have the test instead- he explained that taking the large instrument in the keister was exciting to him.

I didn't find it to be that thrilling at all- but it did give me assurance that I would probably be ok with it


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol liberal assaults on marriage
> 
> the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
> calm the fuck down, grampa
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
Click to expand...




You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## Polishprince

Gay Marriage has nothing to do with "civil rights" at all.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence, signed on this date in 1776,  you will see a lot of grievance against the liberal tyrant in England, George III.

But not a single complaint insisting on homosexual rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> . You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.


Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.


Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 3. I try to construct logical arguments to support my positions. I know that it alien to you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.
> 
> 5. You are an asshole.


What vile lies sweetheart?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> Gay Marriage has nothing to do with "civil rights" at all.
> 
> If you look at the Declaration of Independence, signed on this date in 1776,  you will see a lot of grievance against the liberal tyrant in England, George III.
> 
> But not a single complaint insisting on homosexual rights.


There is nothing about slavery, women's suffrage or child labor either


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> No walking it back. You've admitted that at least part of your reasoning, is that gender roles have changed with time.
> 
> 
> That means, that the institution of Marriage, created thousands of years ago, cannot be attacked as arbitrary, based on changes in gender roles occurring in the last few decades.




1. I did not "admit " anything . I made a statement of fact with respect to gender rolls

2. The debate over same sex marriage was never about gender rolls -you just made that shit up because you thought it would stick. It's not

3. Making marriage more inclusive is not attacking it. It is strengthening it as an institution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is always good for a laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap


----------



## Dogmaphobe

iamwhatiseem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
> Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
> just know
> it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
> as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
> That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
> Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
> going too far by getting involved with government.
> That crosses the line for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
> _"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? _To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality.
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I imagine I am with the majority in my opinion on this.
> I don't 100% support either side. I totally support a private business not wanting to do something if it is against their beliefs. Even not serve minorities if that is their thing. And then I will enjoy sitting back and watch their business crumble. People should be able to do what they want to do. We don't need the government mandating our morals.
> At the same time, I have no issue with gay marriage. Because...wait for it... people should be able to do what they want to do.
> I do not support a church having to perform a gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. Why the fuck would two gay people want to get married there if not to antagonize?
> Gay marriage? No problem.
> Gay people trying to force themselves onto people who clearly don't want it... problem.
Click to expand...



If you are what you seem, I'd say you are a well-balanced, sensible person who forms his own opinions rather than being a warrior for a tribe.

 I also support gay marriage, but bristle at the notion that others must all agree or face punishment. One does not eliminate intolerance by being completely intolerant.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
Click to expand...

So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.
Click to expand...




Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.

The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.

If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.
> 
> The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.
> 
> If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.
Click to expand...

You have some mighty strange ideas. Might strange!!


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.
> 
> The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.
> 
> If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have some mighty strange ideas. Might strange!!
Click to expand...


Its the only reasonable explanation for the sudden rise in Sex Changes and She Males.   Its a new bridge to cross since the SCOTUS legitimized Sodomy in 2003 and Gay Marriage in 2015.   Time to move on to something even crazier.    Its not an accident that Bruce decided to be Caitlyn as soon as the Gay Marriage Bridge was crossed


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.
> 
> The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.
> 
> If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have some mighty strange ideas. Might strange!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its the only reasonable explanation for the sudden rise in Sex Changes and She Males.   Its a new bridge to cross since the SCOTUS legitimized Sodomy in 2003 and Gay Marriage in 2015.   Time to move on to something even crazier.    Its not an accident that Bruce decided to be Caitlyn as soon as the Gay Marriage Bridge was crossed
Click to expand...

Sure! Right !! perfectly good sense. People are deciding to have gender reassignment surgury  purely for the shock value. You can't think of any other possible explanation??


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument.    People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.
> 
> 
> But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces.  Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".
> 
> Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence.   Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.
> 
> If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope.  Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.
> 
> The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.
> 
> If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have some mighty strange ideas. Might strange!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its the only reasonable explanation for the sudden rise in Sex Changes and She Males.   Its a new bridge to cross since the SCOTUS legitimized Sodomy in 2003 and Gay Marriage in 2015.   Time to move on to something even crazier.    Its not an accident that Bruce decided to be Caitlyn as soon as the Gay Marriage Bridge was crossed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure! Right !! perfectly good sense. People are deciding to have gender reassignment surgury  purely for the shock value. You can't think of any other possible explanation??
Click to expand...



They are being forced to into it, PP.


When I was a young man, sodomy itself was considered unacceptable and anti-social.  It shocked the public conscience when the police busted homosexual parks and bus station mens rooms and gay bars (like the Stonewall).   Now that stuff is considered normal, the envelope has been pushed along.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that people who go to court to get divorced provide graphic details of their sexual practice in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.
> 
> The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.
> 
> If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have some mighty strange ideas. Might strange!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its the only reasonable explanation for the sudden rise in Sex Changes and She Males.   Its a new bridge to cross since the SCOTUS legitimized Sodomy in 2003 and Gay Marriage in 2015.   Time to move on to something even crazier.    Its not an accident that Bruce decided to be Caitlyn as soon as the Gay Marriage Bridge was crossed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure! Right !! perfectly good sense. People are deciding to have gender reassignment surgury  purely for the shock value. You can't think of any other possible explanation??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are being forced to into it, PP.
> 
> 
> When I was a young man, sodomy itself was considered unacceptable and anti-social.  It shocked the public conscience when the police busted homosexual parks and bus station mens rooms and gay bars (like the Stonewall).   Now that stuff is considered normal, the envelope has been pushed along.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that you believe this crap. You can't be for real.  Who is doing the forcing and how?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normative people don't.      But homosexuals looking to "freak out" the straight arrow K Mart shoppers on the jury sure the hell would.  That's the whole purpose of the institution of Gay Marriage in the first place, to rile up the Deplorables.
> 
> The fact that over the past several years, the institution is no longer Freaking people out as much as it did 10 and 20 years ago,  is the main motivations toward emphasizing She Males and Sex Changes and whether dudes should be welcomed into the nation's ladies' rooms.
> 
> If that becomes acceptable, homosexuals will just move the bar even further in the direction of extremism.   Anything to rile the Deplorables.
> 
> 
> 
> You have some mighty strange ideas. Might strange!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its the only reasonable explanation for the sudden rise in Sex Changes and She Males.   Its a new bridge to cross since the SCOTUS legitimized Sodomy in 2003 and Gay Marriage in 2015.   Time to move on to something even crazier.    Its not an accident that Bruce decided to be Caitlyn as soon as the Gay Marriage Bridge was crossed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure! Right !! perfectly good sense. People are deciding to have gender reassignment surgury  purely for the shock value. You can't think of any other possible explanation??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are being forced to into it, PP.
> 
> 
> When I was a young man, sodomy itself was considered unacceptable and anti-social.  It shocked the public conscience when the police busted homosexual parks and bus station mens rooms and gay bars (like the Stonewall).   Now that stuff is considered normal, the envelope has been pushed along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it hard to believe that you believe this crap. You can't be for real.
Click to expand...



I've lived life, and I know that people, particularly troubled youth, crave discipline and limits.   Telling them they can do anything they dam well want to  will push them to even crazier behavior.

In reality, the conservatives who put these limits up are doing homosexuals more of a favor than the libs who pretend like they are their allies.

After Transexuality becomes the norm- and it might- do you really think that will be the end of it?

People will just change orientations and identities and every one will be happy?

No, something crazier is around the corner.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> I've lived life, and I know that people, particularly troubled youth, crave discipline and limits. Telling them they can do anything they dam well want to will push them to even crazier behavior.
> In reality, the conservatives who put these limits up are doing homosexuals more of a favor than the libs who pretend like they are their allies.


I have lived too. 72 years .I also know about troubled kids as I was a social worker for a long time. And, I agree that kids need boundaries and limits. But none of that has a damned thing to do with gender dysphoria . It is something that people experience in a very real way and it must be taken seriously.

 You cant seem to decide if kids are being forced or just allowed to do this, but no conservatives are doing them a favor. That is ridiculous


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> After Transexuality becomes the norm- and it might- do you really think that will be the end of it?
> 
> People will just change orientations and identities and every one will be happy?
> 
> No, something crazier is around the corner.


Slippery slope horseshit. You know, I recall that you also said that in a same sex marriage, one person is the husband and the other the wife...… so you don't have a lot of credibility with me.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...



We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.


THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.


I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.  


You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.
Click to expand...



1, Support and celebration of Divorce.

2. Support and celebration of Single Motherhood.

3. Replacing the Father with a government check.

4. General feminist and anti-male shit.



Off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed something. Or 5.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.
> 
> 5. You are an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> What vile lies sweetheart?
Click to expand...



In the context of this issue, claiming that anyone that does not embrace and support your position, is a bigot. 


You did that on purpose to divide Americans against each other. It was vile of you.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No walking it back. You've admitted that at least part of your reasoning, is that gender roles have changed with time.
> 
> 
> That means, that the institution of Marriage, created thousands of years ago, cannot be attacked as arbitrary, based on changes in gender roles occurring in the last few decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not "admit " anything . I made a statement of fact with respect to gender rolls
> 
> 2. The debate over same sex marriage was never about gender rolls -you just made that shit up because you thought it would stick. It's not
> 
> 3. Making marriage more inclusive is not attacking it. It is strengthening it as an institution.
Click to expand...





1. Considering how resistant you are to the obvious implications of your statement on the alleged "arbitrary"-ness of Traditional Marriage, I think referring to your statement as an "admission" is very much called for.

2. You admitted that the basis of the reasoning that Gay Marriage was a civil rights case, was based on the restriction being arbitrary. Thus, a discussion of the ACTUAL reasons for the restrictions, is completely on topic. And your claim otherwise, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

3. Unlikely.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.
> 
> 
> LIbs are dim like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
Click to expand...




Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid. 


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.


----------



## G.T.

drama queen still doesnt understand what arbitrary means


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
Click to expand...

Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.


----------



## Third Party

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...

Anybody can marry if they want. Just like anybody can go to prison if they want.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1, Support and celebration of Divorce.
> 
> 2. Support and celebration of Single Motherhood.
> 
> 3. Replacing the Father with a government check.
> 
> 4. General feminist and anti-male shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed something. Or 5.
Click to expand...

You have missed a lot all right. Divorce is not an attack on marriage. It does not prevent or discourage people from getting married. It just happens. Did it ever occur to you that a situation where it was difficult or impossible to get out of a marriage, would in fact discourage marriage.?

Single motherhood is not an attack on marriage either. The woman  has the option to marry or not.  Replacing the father with a check? What  the fuck does that even mean and how is it an  attack on marriage?  By providing that single mother with a social safety net. ?Would the father have stuck around had she not had that check available? Your thinking is quite fuzzy on all of this.

Feminism ? Yes woman are more independent -which you consider :anti male"- and may choose not to marry and that seems to frighten you . Too bad. It's still not an attack on marriage. Not getting married is an option, just like marrying is stil an option.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Third Party said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can marry if they want. Just like anybody can go to prison if they want.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that brilliant and thoughtful contribution to an important topic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.
> 
> 5. You are an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> What vile lies sweetheart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of this issue, claiming that anyone that does not embrace and support your position, is a bigot.
> 
> 
> You did that on purpose to divide Americans against each other. It was vile of you.
Click to expand...

I did not claim that anyone that does not embrace and support my  position, is a bigot. I don't give a fuck what you "embrace and support" as long as  treat other with respect and dignity and as equals.

I said that people who engage in or advocate discrimination are indeed bigots. That is not a lie. It is a statement of fact.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance  of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interest


----------



## Third Party

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can marry if they want. Just like anybody can go to prison if they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant and thoughtful contribution to an important topic.
Click to expand...

Anytime.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Click to expand...

Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to  run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.

So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry *someone of the opposite sex. *Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall  we say a CEO   who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married  a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.

So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now.  You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.

Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!

Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...




And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.


I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.


Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1, Support and celebration of Divorce.
> 
> 2. Support and celebration of Single Motherhood.
> 
> 3. Replacing the Father with a government check.
> 
> 4. General feminist and anti-male shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed something. Or 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have missed a lot all right. Divorce is not an attack on marriage. It does not prevent or discourage people from getting married. It just happens. Did it ever occur to you that a situation where it was difficult or impossible to get out of a marriage, would in fact discourage marriage.?
> 
> Single motherhood is not an attack on marriage either. The woman  has the option to marry or not.  Replacing the father with a check? What  the fuck does that even mean and how is it an  attack on marriage?  By providing that single mother with a social safety net. ?Would the father have stuck around had she not had that check available? Your thinking is quite fuzzy on all of this.
> 
> Feminism ? Yes woman are more independent -which you consider :anti male"- and may choose not to marry and that seems to frighten you . Too bad. It's still not an attack on marriage. Not getting married is an option, just like marrying is stil an option.
Click to expand...



You are funny, and all of that, but the above is really off topic for this thread. 

Let's just chuckle at it, and move on with the topic.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance  of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interest
Click to expand...




Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his. 

The Evolution of Marriage


"
At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If a man does not commit to a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship, the likelihood of creating fatherless children and fragmented families increases. The more sexual partners a man has, and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chance he creates children with multiple women. When his attention and resources are thus divided, a long line of consequences unfolds for both mother and child, and for society as a whole."



"The idea is that high-status males are the big winners of polygamy, but an alpha male who mates exclusively with an alpha female gets assurance that she’ll bear his — and only his — offspring, and she gets assurance that he’ll stick around for the long haul to help raise the child and protect her from aggressors. The same is then true for the beta male and beta female, and gamma, “and so on down the line — much the way it happens in high school.” Monogamy is a form of what game theorists call “Nash equilibrium”: It does not maximize the outcome for each and every individual, but it does “_optimize_ everyone’s individual outcome in a way that maintains the integrity of the entire society.”



For starters. What do you disagree with about this?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.
> 
> 
> That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.
> 
> 
> You are just an asshole. You and yours.
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to  run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Click to expand...


Actually, it was a complete failure. 


My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary. 


YOu agreed with that.


I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles. 


This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.


All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.











> Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
> 
> So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry *someone of the opposite sex. *Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall  we say a CEO   who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married  a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
> 
> So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now.  You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
> 
> Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
> 
> Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.





Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up. 


I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary". 

Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Actually, it was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> YOu agreed with that.
> 
> 
> I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
> 
> 
> All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.


A failure?? Really. Then how come you found it necessary to  my central question regarding the equal application of gender role requirements to both same sex and opposite sex couples who wish to marry? You avoided it because you have no answer.  There is not answer. 

Allow me to rephrase the question.  If you are so concerned about  the respective gender rolls  of two people of the same sex who get married because those rolls might be in conflict rather than complimentary - why are you not concerned about a heterosexual couple where, as in the example that I gave, both parties have assumed what is arguably traditional male rolls? It is clearly a double standard if you don't.

And continuing to blather about "traditional gender rolls" which few people concern themselves with anymore, is not doing you any good. And to call us dishonest because we convinced the courts that restrictions on same sex marriage were in fact arbitrary is just plane stupid. We made the case . Deal with it.  Lastly, the matter of traditional gender rolls in relation to same sex marriage never even came up as far as I know, and if it did , it would not  have rendered  those restrictions as anything less than arbitrary. You just made that shit up.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to  run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> YOu agreed with that.
> 
> 
> I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
> 
> 
> All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
> 
> So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry *someone of the opposite sex. *Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall  we say a CEO   who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married  a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
> 
> So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now.  You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
> 
> Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
> 
> Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
> 
> Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
Click to expand...

your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient


----------



## G.T.

RolEs*


roles

roles


Not dinner ones


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit!  I made my points, that were all  lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance  of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> 
> "
> At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.
> 
> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.
> 
> If a man does not commit to a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship, the likelihood of creating fatherless children and fragmented families increases. The more sexual partners a man has, and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chance he creates children with multiple women. When his attention and resources are thus divided, a long line of consequences unfolds for both mother and child, and for society as a whole."
> 
> 
> 
> "The idea is that high-status males are the big winners of polygamy, but an alpha male who mates exclusively with an alpha female gets assurance that she’ll bear his — and only his — offspring, and she gets assurance that he’ll stick around for the long haul to help raise the child and protect her from aggressors. The same is then true for the beta male and beta female, and gamma, “and so on down the line — much the way it happens in high school.” Monogamy is a form of what game theorists call “Nash equilibrium”: It does not maximize the outcome for each and every individual, but it does “_optimize_ everyone’s individual outcome in a way that maintains the integrity of the entire society.”
> 
> 
> 
> For starters. What do you disagree with about this?
Click to expand...

Now I know what your problem is. Your   being fed crap by the Heritage foundation. What do I disagree with? It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage  and is not inclusive of many from  LGBT people, to those who marry for reasons other than having children, to  those who adapt no traditional gender rolls.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
Click to expand...

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient



_“Ancient”_ does not mean, nor even imply, wrong.

  In this case, it certainly refers to what thousands of years of human experience have taught us, about what works, what produces desirable outcomes, and what does not.

  It is, at best, pure folly to discard the lessons of human history, in order to pander to a tiny minority of degenerate sexual deviants who this history has already shown us do not produce good outcomes for society.  The cliché comes to mind that defines insanity as doing what has been tried before, and expecting a different result.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

G.T. said:


> RolEs*
> 
> 
> roles
> 
> roles
> 
> 
> Not dinner ones



  I keep seeing that too.  TheRegressivePervert keeps using that word, but not once, has he spelled it correctly.  That's just one example, out of many others, that seems to be particularly prominent in this thread, demonstrating his general level of literacy to be well below the level of education and intelligence that he wants us to to believe he has.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage  and is not inclusive of many from  LGBT…



  The LGBpbi*WTF* are a tiny, degenerate fringe of society.  There is no rational reason to corrupt society's most essential institutions just to pander to them.  No reason to weaken and degrade the whole of society, just to be _“inclusive”_ of an insignificant but noisy minority of immoral perverts.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

31 arguments against gay marriage (and why they’re all wrong)

Here are my favorites:

*1. “We need to protect marriage.”*

The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.

*2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”*

Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.

*8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”*

No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.

*12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”*

For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.

*13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”*

To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.

*16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”*

There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.

*21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”*

Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.

*22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”*

The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.

People actually use this argument.

*25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”*

This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*The Left Wing Bigots hate mainstream society because they hold much higher moral standards.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage  and is not inclusive of many from  LGBT…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LGBpbi*WTF* are a tiny, degenerate fringe of society.  There is no rational reason to corrupt society's most essential institutions just to pander to them.  No reason to weaken and degrade the whole of society, just to be _“inclusive”_ of an insignificant but noisy minority of immoral perverts.
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

Bob Blaylock said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> RolEs*
> 
> 
> roles
> 
> roles
> 
> 
> Not dinner ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing that too.  TheRegressivePervert keeps using that word, but not once, has he spelled it correctly.  That's just one example, out of many others, that seems to be particularly prominent in this thread, demonstrating his general level of literacy to be well below the level of education and intelligence that he wants us to to believe he has.
Click to expand...

I think he's an alright dude...i was just busting his balls over rolls/roles.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> YOu agreed with that.
> 
> 
> I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
> 
> 
> All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
> 
> 
> 
> A failure?? Really. Then how come you found it necessary to  my central question regarding the equal application of gender role requirements to both same sex and opposite sex couples who wish to marry? You avoided it because you have no answer.  There is not answer.
Click to expand...


I answered it clearly. That something is not rigid does not mean that it is arbitrary. Everything you have said, along those lines, has been a non sequitur. 





> Allow me to rephrase the question.  If you are so concerned about  the respective gender rolls  of two people of the same sex who get married because those rolls might be in conflict rather than complimentary - why are you not concerned about a heterosexual couple where, as in the example that I gave, both parties have assumed what is arguably traditional male rolls? It is clearly a double standard if you don't.




Why should I be?






> And continuing to blather about "traditional gender rolls" which few people concern themselves with anymore, is not doing you any good. And to call us dishonest because we convinced the courts that restrictions on same sex marriage were in fact arbitrary is just plane stupid. We made the case . Deal with it.  Lastly, the matter of traditional gender rolls in relation to same sex marriage never even came up as far as I know, and if it did , it would not  have rendered  those restrictions as anything less than arbitrary. You just made that shit up.





What do you mean, "anymore"? Are you implying that there was a time when people cared more?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to  run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> YOu agreed with that.
> 
> 
> I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
> 
> 
> All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
> 
> So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry *someone of the opposite sex. *Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall  we say a CEO   who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married  a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
> 
> So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now.  You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
> 
> Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
> 
> Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
> 
> Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient
Click to expand...




You brought up a point. 


I seriously and honestly address it. 


You blow off what I said, because you cannot refute it. YOu instead of addressing it, attack me. 


Now, later on, you will go back to your normal standard of "debate" reasserting your starting position over and over again, peppered with personal attacks.



ON some level, you know that you cannot defend your position. It is clear by your actions.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
> 
> So far you have only made two actual points.
> 
> 
> 1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance  of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> 
> "
> At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.
> 
> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.
> 
> If a man does not commit to a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship, the likelihood of creating fatherless children and fragmented families increases. The more sexual partners a man has, and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chance he creates children with multiple women. When his attention and resources are thus divided, a long line of consequences unfolds for both mother and child, and for society as a whole."
> 
> 
> 
> "The idea is that high-status males are the big winners of polygamy, but an alpha male who mates exclusively with an alpha female gets assurance that she’ll bear his — and only his — offspring, and she gets assurance that he’ll stick around for the long haul to help raise the child and protect her from aggressors. The same is then true for the beta male and beta female, and gamma, “and so on down the line — much the way it happens in high school.” Monogamy is a form of what game theorists call “Nash equilibrium”: It does not maximize the outcome for each and every individual, but it does “_optimize_ everyone’s individual outcome in a way that maintains the integrity of the entire society.”
> 
> 
> 
> For starters. What do you disagree with about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now I know what your problem is. Your   being fed crap by the Heritage foundation. What do I disagree with? It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage  and is not inclusive of many from  LGBT people, to those who marry for reasons other than having children, to  those who adapt no traditional gender rolls.
Click to expand...




No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no traditional gender roles". 


But, my point(s) stand. The restrictions were not arbitrary. There were reasons for them.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
Click to expand...


No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.


I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> I answered it clearly. That something is not rigid does not mean that it is arbitrary. Everything you have said, along those lines, has been a non sequitur.


Bullshit ! You have not answered anything clearly  and further , you don't seem to know  what a non sequitur actually is. Where and when did I propose a premise that dies not support my conclusion? For your part, you have claimed that gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples the ability to marry but have been woefully unable to make a connection between your premise and that conclusion,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to  run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> YOu agreed with that.
> 
> 
> I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
> 
> 
> All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
> 
> So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry *someone of the opposite sex. *Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall  we say a CEO   who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married  a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
> 
> So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now.  You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
> 
> Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
> 
> Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
> 
> Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up a point.
> 
> 
> I seriously and honestly address it.
> 
> 
> You blow off what I said, because you cannot refute it. YOu instead of addressing it, attack me.
> 
> 
> Now, later on, you will go back to your normal standard of "debate" reasserting your starting position over and over again, peppered with personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> ON some level, you know that you cannot defend your position. It is clear by your actions.
Click to expand...

Give me a fucking break!! What did you seriously and honestly address? Your contention that traditional gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples marriage? What exactly is it that I can't refute? YOU can't refute the fact that same sex couples- regardless of any gender role issues real or imagined - function just fine. They form families and maintain  households like everyone else. You cant refute my contention that this whole gender role thing is made up horseshit by you and you alone. You cant refute my observation tat while you concern yourself with the  gender roles of gay couples- austensibley because there is come conflict or lack of complimentary function, you ignore the fact that heterosexual couples who do nott adhere to traditioan gender rolews also may lake that complimentary elemt.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
Click to expand...


Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise


----------



## Leo123

You can't procreate by sticking your dick in another guy's anus.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it clearly. That something is not rigid does not mean that it is arbitrary. Everything you have said, along those lines, has been a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit ! You have not answered anything clearly  and further , you don't seem to know  what a non sequitur actually is. Where and when did I propose a premise that dies not support my conclusion? For your part, you have claimed that gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples the ability to marry but have been woefully unable to make a connection between your premise and that conclusion,
Click to expand...



1. Most of your discussion does not support your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary. It is mostly a mishmash of filler, logical fallacies and personal attacks. 

2. I have claimed that Marriage is based on traditional gender roles. Thus the restrictions are NOT arbitrary. Your fear of being honest about that is noted for future discussion. 

3. AS you just recently demanded support for that, I have posted an article discussing the ancient development of Marriage, and it's basis in encouraging healthy family units and societies, and requested from you, what if any disagreements you have with it, for further support.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
> 
> 
> That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to  run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a complete failure.
> 
> 
> My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> YOu agreed with that.
> 
> 
> I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
> 
> 
> This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
> 
> 
> All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
> 
> So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry *someone of the opposite sex. *Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall  we say a CEO   who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married  a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
> 
> So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now.  You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
> 
> Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
> 
> Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
> 
> Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up a point.
> 
> 
> I seriously and honestly address it.
> 
> 
> You blow off what I said, because you cannot refute it. YOu instead of addressing it, attack me.
> 
> 
> Now, later on, you will go back to your normal standard of "debate" reasserting your starting position over and over again, peppered with personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> ON some level, you know that you cannot defend your position. It is clear by your actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a fucking break!! What did you seriously and honestly address? Your contention that traditional gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples marriage? .....
Click to expand...



Step one. Be honest about my premise. Marriage is based on traditional gender roles. Thus the restrictions are not arbitrary.


I understand why you want to lie about my premise, but I am not going to let you do that.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise
Click to expand...




1. Calling something "Absurd" is not an actual argument. It is just a logical fallacy. 


2. My claim is the differences between men and women, and traditional gender roles, is why Marriage, (in western culture) is a institution with a role for one man and a role for one woman. 


3. HOw is the current state of gender roles relevant when discussing the development of Marriage, something that took place in ancient times?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking now that you are either playing a sick game while knowing that you're full of shit, or you are totally out of touch with reality. I have been quite clear and direct on a number of points that you are either unable to understand or that you are pretending not to understand.

Point:  Bans on same sex marriage have been found to be arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional  by nearly every court that heard a case on the issue.
Point: No  one lied to- or deceived the courts -about gender roles in order to claim that same sex marriage bans were arbitrary. The cases were won using logic a facts. It was the opposition who lied using fear and logical fallacies such as appeals to tradition, as you do
Point: "Traditional " gender roles are a minor and insignificant factor in modern life.
Point: Couples, same and opposite sex , function as families regardless of what gender roles they bring to the relationship. Divisions of labor get worked out regardless.
Point: You have refused to deal with the fact that opposite sex couples must also deal with gender role issues because the demands of modern life and evolving definitions of gender no longer allow for them to fit neatly into "traditional" gender roles-yet you don't question the viability of those marriages.
Point: Few people give a fuck about traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage or believe that it has a bearing on current reality-and it certainly has no legal weight.
Point: You claim that there were reasons for bans on same sex marriage but you have been unable to say what those reasons are- other than invoking traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage. You have not been able to point to a single, negative consequence of same sex marriage.
Point: You are stuck in the past and hung up on tradition. You think that it is 1950 and long for ideal marriage of Ozzy and Harriet, a one income -male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom and of course no same sex marriage- You are struggling  to deal with the modern world and the evolving definition of marriage and gender.

I'm saying EXACTLY what I mean as I have all along. Now lets see you tear that to pieces. Let's see you identify what I'm being dishonest and evasive about. Your bleating about  me being dishonest and not saying what I mean does not make it true. It just makes you sound like an idiot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
Click to expand...

Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying  what I think. Of being afraid of saying something,  but you will never say what that is. ,

Let me tell you something.  A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.

Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude!  I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.

Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....

Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.

Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to  marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.

Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm thinking now that you are either playing a sick game while knowing that you're full of shit, or you are totally out of touch with reality. I have been quite clear and direct on a number of points that you are either unable to understand or that you are pretending not to understand.
> 
> Point:  Bans on same sex marriage have been found to be arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional  by nearly every court that heard a case on the issue.
Click to expand...


Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid. 



> Point: No  one lied to- or deceived the courts -about gender roles in order to claim that same sex marriage bans were arbitrary. The cases were won using logic a facts. It was the opposition who lied using fear and logical fallacies such as appeals to tradition, as you do




Yet, you are unable to make the case that they are arbitrary. HInt: Stating it over and over again, is not making the case. 




> Point: "Traditional " gender roles are a minor and insignificant factor in modern life.



Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument  to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.





> Point: Couples, same and opposite sex , function as families regardless of what gender roles they bring to the relationship. Divisions of labor get worked out regardless.



That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".



> Point: You have refused to deal with the fact that opposite sex couples must also deal with gender role issues because the demands of modern life and evolving definitions of gender no longer allow for them to fit neatly into "traditional" gender roles-yet you don't question the viability of those marriages.



Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".




> Point: Few people give a fuck about traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage or believe that it has a bearing on current reality-and it certainly has no legal weight.




Well, A. nice appeal to popularity, ie logical fallacy, thus that point is invalid, AND B. it certainly should have legal weight as it shows that the restrictions were never arbitrary, but based on real issues. As discussed in my linked article. 




> Point: You claim that there were reasons for bans on same sex marriage but you have been unable to say what those reasons are- other than invoking traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage. You have not been able to point to a single, negative consequence of same sex marriage.




I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article. 

And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.





> Point: You are stuck in the past and hung up on tradition. You think that it is 1950 and long for ideal marriage of Ozzy and Harriet, a one income -male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom and of course no same sex marriage- You are struggling  to deal with the modern world and the evolving definition of marriage and gender.




Stripped of your spin on the issue, Yes, I would like to have the One income, male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom, as the goal of national policy.  

I am not struggling with anything. THe modern world is struggling with the costs of the breakdown of the nuclear family. 





> I'm saying EXACTLY what I mean as I have all along. Now lets see you tear that to pieces. Let's see you identify what I'm being dishonest and evasive about. Your bleating about  me being dishonest and not saying what I mean does not make it true. It just makes you sound like an idiot.




You are still avoiding the crux of the matter. And your side's most powerful argument. For reasons that I strongly suspect that you know.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
> 
> 
> I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
> 
> 
> You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying  what I think. Of being afraid of saying something,  but you will never say what that is. ,
Click to expand...


Dude. I have a life. I was doing stuff in RL. 


And IF you were not such a liberal, you would have said what you are dancing around, and we would have moved on long ago. You are the one being evasive. 



> Let me tell you something.  A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.



I understand everything you have said. I am just not going to address a point you have not made.





> Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude!  I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.




lol!



> Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....
> 
> Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.




Blah, blah, blah. 




> Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to  marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.




We shall see if such benefit manifest with time. But the cost of what you put the nation though, that is already done. You torn this nation apart.





> Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything




You are being dishonest and evasive.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.


It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the  earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority. 

In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Yet, you are unable to make the case that they are arbitrary. HInt: Stating it over and over again, is not making the case.


See post 665


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.


Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".


It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".


The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.

You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Well, A. nice appeal to popularity, ie logical fallacy, thus that point is invalid, AND B. it certainly should have legal weight as it shows that the restrictions were never arbitrary, but based on real issues. As discussed in my linked article.


The Heritage Society Article is nothing but biased and bigoted opinion. Neither you or anyone else has been able to document any tangible or measurable negative consequences of same sex marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.
> 
> And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.


Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families  as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Stripped of your spin on the issue, Yes, I would like to have the One income, male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom, as the goal of national policy.
> 
> I am not struggling with anything. THe modern world is struggling with the costs of the breakdown of the nuclear family.


Now all that you have to do is show how the breakdown of the nuclear family is the result of same sex marriage and you might have a case.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> You are still avoiding the crux of the matter. And your side's most powerful argument. For reasons that I strongly suspect that you know.


You keep saying that same shit over and over again but can't seem to spell out what you think I am avoiding. Until you do, it is just more of your bullshit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying  what I think. Of being afraid of saying something,  but you will never say what that is. ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I have a life. I was doing stuff in RL.
> 
> 
> And IF you were not such a liberal, you would have said what you are dancing around, and we would have moved on long ago. You are the one being evasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something.  A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand everything you have said. I am just not going to address a point you have not made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude!  I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....
> 
> Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to  marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see if such benefit manifest with time. But the cost of what you put the nation though, that is already done. You torn this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are being dishonest and evasive.
Click to expand...

Give it a fucking rest already. You have no case, You are just playing a sick and dishonest game. State what I have been evasive about or shut up


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the  earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.
> 
> In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.
Click to expand...



Correct. Sometimes an "Appeal to Authority" is valid.


If the Authority is actually an Authority that can be trusted to be completely knowledgeable about a subject AND the subject is such that non-experts can't really grasp the issue.


Marriage was developed over thousands of years, starting thousands of years ago.


Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. You would do better to cite a board of evolutionary sociologists.


Also, neither of us seem intimidated by the idea of addressing and/or understanding the structure of Traditional Marriage. You have been addressing the issue, constantly, though very confusedly for many pages and days. 


Indeed, I suspect there is NOTHING that any lib judge could say on the issue that you could not say just as well.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you are unable to make the case that they are arbitrary. HInt: Stating it over and over again, is not making the case.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 665
Click to expand...




And see my response to it.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?
Click to expand...



Nothing in my post suggested that we keep Marriage as it was, because of it being old or traditional. 


Read it again. 



Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> 
> It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.
Click to expand...




Really? THat makes the court rulings even more stupid.


If the restrictions were "arbitrary", and people have the "right" to equal treatment, then arguing about the breakdown of gender roles had no place in the case.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.
> 
> You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.
Click to expand...



Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage. 


It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, A. nice appeal to popularity, ie logical fallacy, thus that point is invalid, AND B. it certainly should have legal weight as it shows that the restrictions were never arbitrary, but based on real issues. As discussed in my linked article.
> 
> 
> 
> The Heritage Society Article is nothing but biased and bigoted opinion. Neither you or anyone else has been able to document any tangible or measurable negative consequences of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...




The Heritage Society Artical was a nice summary of the issue. I specifically asked you to note what if any issues you had with it, that I would address more in depth.


Saying "bigoted" does not make it so. Indeed, it is nothing but demagoguery from you.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.
> 
> And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families  as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.
Click to expand...




Nice circular reasoning. 

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that. 


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stripped of your spin on the issue, Yes, I would like to have the One income, male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom, as the goal of national policy.
> 
> I am not struggling with anything. THe modern world is struggling with the costs of the breakdown of the nuclear family.
> 
> 
> 
> Now all that you have to do is show how the breakdown of the nuclear family is the result of same sex marriage and you might have a case.
Click to expand...



No, I do not have to do that. I have not made that claim.


My claim, specifically related to that, was that you liberals have made a general attack on Marriage for a long time now. 


Interesting and very self serving "mistake" you made there.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still avoiding the crux of the matter. And your side's most powerful argument. For reasons that I strongly suspect that you know.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that same shit over and over again but can't seem to spell out what you think I am avoiding. Until you do, it is just more of your bullshit.
Click to expand...



And as I said, I am not going to address an argument you refuse to make. You libs have taught me that that does not work. YOu are too dishonest for that. 



I will have to slowly lead you to your argument, before I can destroy it. 


Your dodging skills are very strong.


----------



## Erinwltr

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
> 
> 
> I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
> 
> 
> Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
> 
> 
> 
> You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying  what I think. Of being afraid of saying something,  but you will never say what that is. ,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I have a life. I was doing stuff in RL.
> 
> 
> And IF you were not such a liberal, you would have said what you are dancing around, and we would have moved on long ago. You are the one being evasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something.  A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand everything you have said. I am just not going to address a point you have not made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude!  I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....
> 
> Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to  marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see if such benefit manifest with time. But the cost of what you put the nation though, that is already done. You torn this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are being dishonest and evasive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give it a fucking rest already. You have no case, You are just playing a sick and dishonest game. State what I have been evasive about or shut up
Click to expand...

He must be one of those folks that thinks getting the last work in means he "wins" despite he has regurgitated the same garbage claim over and over again.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the  earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.
> 
> In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Sometimes an "Appeal to Authority" is valid.
> 
> 
> If the Authority is actually an Authority that can be trusted to be completely knowledgeable about a subject AND the subject is such that non-experts can't really grasp the issue.
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed over thousands of years, starting thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. You would do better to cite a board of evolutionary sociologists.
> 
> 
> Also, neither of us seem intimidated by the idea of addressing and/or understanding the structure of Traditional Marriage. You have been addressing the issue, constantly, though very confusedly for many pages and days.
> 
> 
> Indeed, I suspect there is NOTHING that any lib judge could say on the issue that you could not say just as well.
Click to expand...

Right Dude! Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. Dhaaaa! But they are authorities on the law and on the constitution. They are authorities on civil rights.

As far as who is confused is concerned, it appears to be you because I have not been discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. You are the one who is obsessed with traditional marriage . I don't give a rats ass about traditional marriage.

You're calling me "confused" is just another pathetic gaslighting attempt. Still not working. I mean what I say and I say what I mean


Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my post suggested that we keep Marriage as it was, because of it being old or traditional.
> 
> 
> Read it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.
Click to expand...

You have been bleating about how marriage is based on ancient traditions all along . Are you now saying that you are selective about the traditions that you want to keep or toss. ?? That's pretty fucking hypocritical it that's the case! Is it that the "women as property" tradition would be too unpopular to promote, but you can still get away with discrimination against gays?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> 
> It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? THat makes the court rulings even more stupid.
> 
> 
> If the restrictions were "arbitrary", and people have the "right" to equal treatment, then arguing about the breakdown of gender roles had no place in the case.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to say  here and I don't that you do either. The argument that the restrictions on marriage were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory does not preclude or conflict with the argument that  same sex couples function as a family like anyone else- which undermines any claim to a rational basis for restrictions.

As I have said before, gender roles were never an issue during the litigation. Are you just making this shit up as you go??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.
> 
> You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.
> 
> 
> It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Nice circular reasoning.
> 
> You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.


More lies. The case was made on both counts 1. Restrictions were arbitrary and discriminatory and 2. The case was made for why same sex marriage would be beneficial. Shit you're confused!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.
> 
> 
> You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


I am going to find that article and pick it apart  just for you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.
> 
> And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families  as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice circular reasoning.
> 
> You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.
> 
> The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.
> 
> 
> You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.
> 
> 
> But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.
Click to expand...


https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-evolution-marriage



After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and ,  the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage  with this:



> One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “*From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. *“It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: *Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ *attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”




Two thing about this drivel:

1.    An evolutionary non starter ?  What does it have to do with evolution?  Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story

2.    The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .

He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy  and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms

Then there is this:



> At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces.



As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof.  Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit .  There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage

We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a fucking joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit.  You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.

 You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the  earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.
> 
> In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Sometimes an "Appeal to Authority" is valid.
> 
> 
> If the Authority is actually an Authority that can be trusted to be completely knowledgeable about a subject AND the subject is such that non-experts can't really grasp the issue.
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed over thousands of years, starting thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. You would do better to cite a board of evolutionary sociologists.
> 
> 
> Also, neither of us seem intimidated by the idea of addressing and/or understanding the structure of Traditional Marriage. You have been addressing the issue, constantly, though very confusedly for many pages and days.
> 
> 
> Indeed, I suspect there is NOTHING that any lib judge could say on the issue that you could not say just as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right Dude! Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. Dhaaaa! But they are authorities on the law and on the constitution. They are authorities on civil rights.
> 
> As far as who is confused is concerned, it appears to be you because I have not been discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. You are the one who is obsessed with traditional marriage . I don't give a rats ass about traditional marriage.
> 
> You're calling me "confused" is just another pathetic gaslighting attempt. Still not working. I mean what I say and I say what I mean
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in my post suggested that we keep Marriage as it was, because of it being old or traditional.
> 
> 
> Read it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been bleating about how marriage is based on ancient traditions all along . Are you now saying that you are selective about the traditions that you want to keep or toss. ?? That's pretty fucking hypocritical it that's the case! Is it that the "women as property" tradition would be too unpopular to promote, but you can still get away with discrimination against gays?
Click to expand...





1.  When you make a claim that the "restrictions" against same sex marriage in Traditional Marriage, is arbitrary, you are discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. Your denial of that is absurd.

2. I have been very clear about what I have been saying. That you keep needing to twist and misunderstand what I say, in order to make your points, shows that on some level, you know that your argument is weak. 


My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that. 


That is not an Appeal to Authority. Stop wasting my time and yours.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".
> 
> 
> 
> It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? THat makes the court rulings even more stupid.
> 
> 
> If the restrictions were "arbitrary", and people have the "right" to equal treatment, then arguing about the breakdown of gender roles had no place in the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what you are trying to say  here and I don't that you do either. The argument that the restrictions on marriage were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory does not preclude or conflict with the argument that  same sex couples function as a family like anyone else- which undermines any claim to a rational basis for restrictions.
> 
> As I have said before, gender roles were never an issue during the litigation. Are you just making this shit up as you go??
Click to expand...





If something is a "RIGHT" then arguing about effectiveness is not required. One demands it as a right, not because it is "effective".


I have the right to free speech. I don't have to justify my speech to anyone as being "effective". 


Again, that should not be hard for you to understand.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 1. When you make a claim that the "restrictions" against same sex marriage in Traditional Marriage, is arbitrary, you are discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. Your denial of that is absurd.


What??!! I said that the restrictions were arbitrary and discriminatory -period! I said nothing about the structure of Traditional Marriage. YOU are absurd! Don't try to obfuscate what I am saying by throwing in references to traditional marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 2. I have been very clear about what I have been saying. That you keep needing to twist and misunderstand what I say, in order to make your points, shows that on some level, you know that your argument is weak.


I am not twisting or misunderstanding anything. Yes you have been very clear. You oppose same sex marriage. However, you keep dishonestly trying to claim that there is some rational and defensible  reason for it when there is none that you actually articulate. ,What I know is that your argument is weak-actually non-existent.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.


The year is 2019


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> If something is a "RIGHT" then arguing about effectiveness is not required. One demands it as a right, not because it is "effective".


I didn't say that it was required. The fact that marriage was denied to same sex couple while opposite sex couples were able to take it for granted was more than enough to show discrimination. I was responding to your insistence that advocates for marriage equality should have argued that there were benefits  allowing gays to marry which we did -while the states failed miserably in demonstrating that there was any down side to gay mariage. It was "icing on the cake sort of speak - but it also erased all doubt that the restrictions were arbitrary and had no rational basis . Please stop wasting my time and yours with your dishonest idiocy.

And once again I will ask, what is the issue that you keep alluding to -that you keep accusing me of avoiding- while you yourself seem to be fearful of broaching?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.
> 
> 
> You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to find that article and pick it apart  just for you.
Click to expand...




You, address what I actually presented? I will believe it, when I see it.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.
> 
> And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families  as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice circular reasoning.
> 
> You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.
> 
> The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.
> 
> 
> You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.
> 
> 
> But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-evolution-marriage
> 
> 
> 
> After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and ,  the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage  with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “*From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. *“It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: *Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ *attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two thing about this drivel:
> 
> 1.    An evolutionary non starter ?  What does it have to do with evolution?  Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story
> 
> 2.    The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .
> 
> He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy  and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms
> 
> Then there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof.  Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit .  There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage
> 
> We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a fucking joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit.  You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.
> 
> You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid
Click to expand...




1. One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."


You did not address this. 


2. One of the other major points of the article, was that monogamy, is better for social stability than polygamy.

You did not address that either.



3. I knew that you would not. Even though you said you would.


4. It seems pointless to address what you do bring up, when you refuse to actually discuss the points I do bring up. It seems more and more that ALL you do, is "muddy the waters", and "poison the well".


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/muddy-the-waters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.
> 
> You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.
> 
> 
> It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.
Click to expand...




I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you make a claim that the "restrictions" against same sex marriage in Traditional Marriage, is arbitrary, you are discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. Your denial of that is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> What??!! I said that the restrictions were arbitrary and discriminatory -period! I said nothing about the structure of Traditional Marriage. YOU are absurd! Don't try to obfuscate what I am saying by throwing in references to traditional marriage.
Click to expand...




THe structure of traditional marriage is one man, one woman. When you claim that that is an "arbitrary discrimination" you are discussing the structure of traditional marriage.


That you want to fight against discussing the structure of traditional marriage, after attacking the structure of traditional marriage, 


that is a fine example of the dishonesty I have accused you of.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.
> 
> 
> 
> The year is 2019
Click to expand...



Yes, that is the current year. Is there a point you are trying to make with that?


(this btw , what you won't say now, is the point that I've been refusing to address, unless you actually SAY IT)



My point stands, barring an actually on topic  response from you.




My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something is a "RIGHT" then arguing about effectiveness is not required. One demands it as a right, not because it is "effective".
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that it was required. The fact that marriage was denied to same sex couple while opposite sex couples were able to take it for granted was more than enough to show discrimination. I was responding to your insistence that advocates for marriage equality should have argued that there were benefits  allowing gays to marry which we did -while the states failed miserably in demonstrating that there was any down side to gay mariage. It was "icing on the cake sort of speak - but it also erased all doubt that the restrictions were arbitrary and had no rational basis . Please stop wasting my time and yours with your dishonest idiocy.
> 
> And once again I will ask, what is the issue that you keep alluding to -that you keep accusing me of avoiding- while you yourself seem to be fearful of broaching?
Click to expand...



See post 701. And save your spin. My refusal to address a point that you keep implying but refuse to clearly make, is not fear, but experience in dealing with dishonest libs.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.
> 
> You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.
> 
> 
> It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.
> 
> You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.
> 
> 
> It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.
Click to expand...




Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.
> 
> And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families  as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice circular reasoning.
> 
> You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.
> 
> The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.
> 
> 
> You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.
> 
> 
> But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> 
> 
> After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and ,  the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage  with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “*From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. *“It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: *Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ *attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two thing about this drivel:
> 
> 1.    An evolutionary non starter ?  What does it have to do with evolution?  Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story
> 
> 2.    The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .
> 
> He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy  and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms
> 
> Then there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof.  Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit .  There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage
> 
> We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a fucking joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit.  You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.
> 
> You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."
> 
> 
> You did not address this.
> 
> 
> 2. One of the other major points of the article, was that monogamy, is better for social stability than polygamy.
> 
> You did not address that either.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I knew that you would not. Even though you said you would.
> 
> 
> 4. It seems pointless to address what you do bring up, when you refuse to actually discuss the points I do bring up. It seems more and more that ALL you do, is "muddy the waters", and "poison the well".
> 
> 
> Definition of muddy the waters | Dictionary.com
> 
> Poisoning the well - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I addressed non- monogamy and polygamy to the extent that it was necessary and appropriate. The author used those issues to set the stage for a slippery slope fear mongering fallacy as in ….if we allow gay marriage, and I said as much . Nothing more to say there. 

The procreation thing is just more bullshit and has zero relevance to same sex marriage. Let me know when marriage between opposite sex couples who cannot or choose not to have children are discouraged from, or barred from marriage and we can talk. Meanwhile suffice it to say that same sex couple have children in their care who came to be there in a variety of ways-just as children of heterosexuals do. They maintain homes, function as families and are parents to those kids.

You are the one who constantly muddies the water with you extraneous  crap


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.
> 
> You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.
> 
> 
> It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You've done NOTHING to support your claim.
Click to expand...

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.


----------



## Andylusion

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.

However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.

What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.

The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.   

If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".

The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.

So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.
> 
> And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families  as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice circular reasoning.
> 
> You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.
> 
> The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.
> 
> 
> You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.
> 
> 
> But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> 
> 
> After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and ,  the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage  with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “*From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. *“It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: *Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ *attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two thing about this drivel:
> 
> 1.    An evolutionary non starter ?  What does it have to do with evolution?  Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story
> 
> 2.    The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .
> 
> He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy  and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms
> 
> Then there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof.  Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit .  There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage
> 
> We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a fucking joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
> 
> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit.  You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.
> 
> You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."
> 
> 
> You did not address this.
> 
> 
> 2. One of the other major points of the article, was that monogamy, is better for social stability than polygamy.
> 
> You did not address that either.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I knew that you would not. Even though you said you would.
> 
> 
> 4. It seems pointless to address what you do bring up, when you refuse to actually discuss the points I do bring up. It seems more and more that ALL you do, is "muddy the waters", and "poison the well".
> 
> 
> Definition of muddy the waters | Dictionary.com
> 
> Poisoning the well - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I addressed non- monogamy and polygamy to the extent that it was necessary and appropriate. The author used those issues to set the stage for a slippery slope fear mongering fallacy as in ….if we allow gay marriage, and I said as much . Nothing more to say there.
> 
> The procreation thing is just more bullshit and has zero relevance to same sex marriage. Let me know when marriage between opposite sex couples who cannot or choose not to have children are discouraged from, or barred from marriage and we can talk. Meanwhile suffice it to say that same sex couple have children in their care who came to be there in a variety of ways-just as children of heterosexuals do. They maintain homes, function as families and are parents to those kids.
> 
> You are the one who constantly muddies the water with you extraneous  crap
Click to expand...






Discussing the reasons and function of marriage, in response to YOUR claim that the "restrictions" are arbitrary, is completely  relevant. For you to claim otherwise is absurdly dishonest.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.
> 
> 
> It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You've done NOTHING to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.
Click to expand...



"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals. 


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You've done NOTHING to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The evidence is all around us"?
> 
> 
> Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.
Click to expand...

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so 
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You've done NOTHING to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The evidence is all around us"?
> 
> 
> Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
> The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.
Click to expand...






A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true. 


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that. 


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Andylusion said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
Click to expand...

That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You've done NOTHING to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The evidence is all around us"?
> 
> 
> Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
> The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.
> 
> 
> Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.
> 
> 
> They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.
> 
> 
> Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. Nor have you been able to articulate any observable and measurable negative impacts on society.  And  that is why bans on same sex marriage were proven to be arbitrary and therefor discriminatory. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding. My work is done here*


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You've done NOTHING to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The evidence is all around us"?
> 
> 
> Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
> The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.
> 
> 
> Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.
> 
> 
> They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.
> 
> 
> Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.
> 
> The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.
> 
> Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding*
Click to expand...






When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination 

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The evidence is all around us"?
> 
> 
> Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
> The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.
> 
> 
> Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.
> 
> 
> They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.
> 
> 
> Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.
> 
> The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.
> 
> Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.
> 
> 
> That is not me.
> 
> 
> The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination
> 
> The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.
Click to expand...

Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The evidence is all around us"?
> 
> 
> Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
> The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.
> 
> 
> Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.
> 
> 
> They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.
> 
> 
> Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.
> 
> The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.
> 
> Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.
> 
> 
> That is not me.
> 
> 
> The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination
> 
> The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual
Click to expand...



Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.


You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".


THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society. 


Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.


Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.


Just admit that you were wrong.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
> The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"
> 
> Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.
> 
> 
> Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.
> 
> 
> They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.
> 
> 
> Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.
> 
> The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.
> 
> Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.
> 
> 
> That is not me.
> 
> 
> The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination
> 
> The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.
> 
> 
> You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.
> 
> 
> Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.
> 
> 
> Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.
> 
> 
> Just admit that you were wrong.
Click to expand...

More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession. 

There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.

By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.
> 
> 
> Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.
> 
> 
> They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.
> 
> 
> Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.
> 
> The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.
> 
> Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.
> 
> 
> That is not me.
> 
> 
> The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination
> 
> The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.
> 
> 
> You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.
> 
> 
> Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.
> 
> 
> Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.
> 
> 
> Just admit that you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
Click to expand...



Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?


This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.
> 
> The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.
> 
> Now here you are, making up more baseless  crap . I'll have to admit, it's original.  To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things  others do. *That is the central question that YOU are avoiding*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.
> 
> 
> That is not me.
> 
> 
> The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination
> 
> The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.
> 
> 
> You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.
> 
> 
> Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.
> 
> 
> Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.
> 
> 
> Just admit that you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
Click to expand...

Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage

I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:

1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.

2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?

4. Your  hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?

5.Here is one more: The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that  you have a problem with? If so why exactly?

Deal with it!!


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> You [TheRegressivePervert] have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".



  It's occurred to me that you are having this argument with someone who is so seriously f•••ed up in the head that he accepts _“transgenderism”_ as credible—that he believes that a man can be a woman, and vice versa.

  If one rejects the biological distinction between men and women, as this particular mentally-defective freak does, then one must necessarily also reject the unique roles that each sex plays in forming a marriage and a family.

  Trying to argue about what marriage is with such a person is futile.  He's operating on a false premise that  makes it impossible for him to grasp what marriage actually is.


----------



## Andylusion

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
Click to expand...


No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.

You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.

So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9

*Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
*​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.

If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22

*Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.




 

As for being married.... 

Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:

*"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.

Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.

But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".   

End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Andylusion said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!
Click to expand...

Very anal of you.


----------



## Andylusion

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!
Click to expand...


We agree on something.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Andylusion said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree on something.
Click to expand...

No we don't.


----------



## Andylusion

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.
> 
> However, what he said, is in fact true.   There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world.  So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.
> 
> What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us.  They are not married.  The end.
> 
> The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.
> 
> If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street.  He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".
> 
> The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true.   Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women.   As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.
> 
> So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us.  Because we will never back down on this issue.  Never.  We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree on something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we don't.
Click to expand...

"That's all I can say"

I agree with you.  That's all you can say.   Because I'm right, and you have no response.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Andylusion said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is   indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians  to get  gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree on something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "That's all I can say"
> 
> I agree with you.  That's all you can say.   Because I'm right, and you have no response.
Click to expand...

I have no response to insanity, you're right


----------



## Andylusion

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't get to decide who is a Christian.
> 
> You know who does? Jesus Christ.... which is where Christianity came, and it was his disciples that wrote the Bible, which is the basis of Christian faith.
> 
> So forget about me, read the Bible. What does Jesus Christ, say about who is a Christian in the Book written in his name? 1 Corr 6:9
> 
> *Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom
> *​Seems pretty clear doesn't it.    So no, I don't get to decide who is a Christian, but G-d does.  And G-d's word says he is not.
> 
> If Buttigieg wants a word from the Lord, the Bible has it:  Matthew 7:22
> 
> *Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, “We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles.”  But I will tell them, “I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!”*​
> That's the words of Jesus himself... who being the Christ, defines what a Christian is, and is not.
> 
> View attachment 268630
> 
> As for being married....
> 
> Jesus was asked about marriage and said the following in Matthew 19:
> 
> *"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."*​
> Clearly Jesus himself indicates that it was G-d that instituted marriage, and that it was between a male, and a female.
> 
> Now if you want to pretend in your pagan world, that Pete is married, that's fine with me. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care.
> 
> But if you expect me to accept two guys being married... no.      "No." is a complete sentence.  You can believe whatever you want, but the moment that you expect me to believe in your myths, the answer is "No".
> 
> End of story.  Game over.  Thanks for playing.  Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit!! That's all I can say!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree on something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "That's all I can say"
> 
> I agree with you.  That's all you can say.   Because I'm right, and you have no response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no response to insanity, you're right
Click to expand...


If you need to call the truth, insanity, to make you feel better about your position, by all means.  Whatever security blanket will help you sleep at night.


----------



## Lastamender

Gays are between 4 to 5% of the population. They are protected by the same laws we are. They need to shut the fuck up accept what their lifestyle brings ( people will always hate you and that violates no law) and get on with their lives.


----------



## Papageorgio

Don't care if a person is gay or not. I believe the gay lifestyle is a choice and if that is your choice, that is between you and your higher being. It's a choice I don't agree with however it's not my life.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.
> 
> 
> That is not me.
> 
> 
> The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination
> 
> The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.
> 
> 
> You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.
> 
> 
> Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.
> 
> 
> Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.
> 
> 
> Just admit that you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
Click to expand...



Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.


And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!


----------



## Correll

Bob Blaylock said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You [TheRegressivePervert] have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's occurred to me that you are having this argument with someone who is so seriously f•••ed up in the head that he accepts _“transgenderism”_ as credible—that he believes that a man can be a woman, and vice versa.
> 
> If one rejects the biological distinction between men and women, as this particular mentally-defective freak does, then one must necessarily also reject the unique roles that each sex plays in forming a marriage and a family.
> 
> Trying to argue about what marriage is with such a person is futile.  He's operating on a false premise that  makes it impossible for him to grasp what marriage actually is.
Click to expand...



I pressed him enough that he, after 70 pages, is blatantly lying about what he has been saying for 70 pages.


ON some level, he knows that he lost this argument. And that people, even the people pretending to believe his story, know it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Christ!!  I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates"  States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.
> 
> 
> You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.
> 
> 
> Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.
> 
> 
> Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.
> 
> 
> Just admit that you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
Click to expand...

Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:

I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:

1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.

2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?

4. Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?

5.Here is one more: The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly?

Deal with it!!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.
> 
> 
> You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".
> 
> 
> THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.
> 
> 
> Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.
> 
> 
> Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.
> 
> 
> Just admit that you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
Click to expand...



Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever. 


I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
Click to expand...

Thank you for capitulating and admitting that you are too much of a coward and a fraud to answer my questions. You seize on one thing that I said where I inadvertently left some room for interpretation, which I then clarified, and use to t call me dishonest and thing that excuses you from explaining yorself

Here are the questions that you need to answer yet  again:

1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.

2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?

4. You're hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are viewed and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked  discriminatory laws  that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned  my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.
> 
> There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.
> 
> By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
Click to expand...

Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory. 
Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for capitulating and admitting that you are too much of a coward and a fraud to answer my questions. You seize on one thing that I said where I inadvertently left some room for interpretation, which I then clarified, and use to t call me dishonest and thing that excuses you from explaining yorself
> ....?
Click to expand...



Clarify after 70 pages of dialog.


You choose to be dishonest. I cant' bring myself to have more respect for your words than you do. 


If just once, you had honestly answered my questions, instead of being evasive for 70 pages, we could have moved on to discuss other aspects of this issue.


But you can't give an inch. You are not here to discuss, but to propagandize.


EVERY TIME you post, is a lie, because your intent is to falsely present the possibility of dialog, when there is not one.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?
> 
> 
> This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
Click to expand...



Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for capitulating and admitting that you are too much of a coward and a fraud to answer my questions. You seize on one thing that I said where I inadvertently left some room for interpretation, which I then clarified, and use to t call me dishonest and thing that excuses you from explaining yorself
> ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify after 70 pages of dialog.
> 
> 
> You choose to be dishonest. I cant' bring myself to have more respect for your words than you do.
> 
> 
> If just once, you had honestly answered my questions, instead of being evasive for 70 pages, we could have moved on to discuss other aspects of this issue.
> 
> 
> But you can't give an inch. You are not here to discuss, but to propagandize.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you post, is a lie, because your intent is to falsely present the possibility of dialog, when there is not one.
Click to expand...

Wow Dude!! Sounds like you're loosing your shit! You keep accusing me of being evasive and lying while you refuse to answer the questions that I put to you. I have no fucking idea what the question that you claim that I refuse to answer is.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. .....!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> …after *70 pages* of dialog…



  Do you not realize that on this forum, the number of posts that one views per _“page”_ is configurable?

  I have my account set to show 100 posts per page.  For me, this thread is, at this time, only eight (8) pages.  If you're configured to show only ten posts per page (which to me, seems absurdly small) then you'd be at about 75 pages.


  In any event, it's meaningless to use _“pages”_ as a reference to how long a thread has been going on, because everyone can have a different number of posts per page.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.



He doesn't care.

  You're arguing with someone who advocates putting children in the custody of sexual deviants, who has boasted of his own role in doing so.

  You're arguing with someone who openly defends and advocates the sexual indoctrination, manipulation, and exploitation of children to promote the homosexual agenda.

  At the very best, he doesn't care what harm is done to children, in order to advance the sick, degenerate agenda that he supports; and he doesn't care about the harm that is done to this country as a result.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for capitulating and admitting that you are too much of a coward and a fraud to answer my questions. You seize on one thing that I said where I inadvertently left some room for interpretation, which I then clarified, and use to t call me dishonest and thing that excuses you from explaining yorself
> ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify after 70 pages of dialog.
> 
> 
> You choose to be dishonest. I cant' bring myself to have more respect for your words than you do.
> 
> 
> If just once, you had honestly answered my questions, instead of being evasive for 70 pages, we could have moved on to discuss other aspects of this issue.
> 
> 
> But you can't give an inch. You are not here to discuss, but to propagandize.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you post, is a lie, because your intent is to falsely present the possibility of dialog, when there is not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow Dude!! Sounds like you're loosing your shit! You keep accusing me of being evasive and lying while you refuse to answer the questions that I put to you. I have no fucking idea what the question that you claim that I refuse to answer is.
Click to expand...



I am sick and tired of your bullshit. That is a normal and healthy response to your bullshit.


Your spin that it is otherwise, is just you being an ass.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
Click to expand...



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the  origins and  purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:
> 
> I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:.....
> Deal with it!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
Click to expand...

Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" Prior to Obergefell, marriage was the union between two consenting adults who desired to be with each other,  Now, it is still the union of two consenting adults who desire to be  with each other but without regards to what they have between their respective legs.

Were  you this distraught when the institution of marriage was deemed by the high court to  no longer be between two people of the same race? If not, please explain how this is different.

The country is not being torn apart over same sex marriage . The country is being torn apart by the bigotry and intolerance that you and your ilk perpetuate .

Yes, some families have experienced a rift over it, but many more families and children  have benefited by the  ability of same sex couples to marry and to provide a home with two married legal parents to those children-something that you reuse to acknowledge . More families  people are torn apart bigotry and hate than by acceptance and inclusion. You are living in a dark and lonely place devoid of any real understanding of todays society.

Society evolves. Institutions like marriage evolve. Stagnation is death. I had said that I was not going to delve into the history and purpose of marriage as envision by those -who ever the fuck they were- who "invented it" and I wont. But I will again say that none of that is relevant now. I do not hold those people responsible for the discriminatory nature of marriage as it was. They were a product of their time.

I hold YOU and those who cling to the ancient and exclusionary  aspects of marriage as an excuse to discriminate in the present day responsible. Perhaps that is the answer to the big question that  you have been accusing me of refusing to answer.

Now for the questions that you have been too much of a coward to answer yet again for the 4th time

1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.

2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?

4. You're hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are viewed and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution  should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.


That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves   real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.
> 
> 
> I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
Click to expand...




You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument. 


My point stands. 



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.
> 
> 
> 
> That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves   real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.
Click to expand...




Most of your argument, is similar name calling.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
Click to expand...

That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.
> 
> 
> 
> That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves   real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your argument, is similar name calling.
Click to expand...


I called you a name? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
> Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
Click to expand...


First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...

It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
Click to expand...



Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.
Click to expand...

That is a bullshit cop-out!!  I have addressed every single thing  that you have said. You're clearly avoiding  points and questions.  Now go away.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

I honestly don't care if y'all play house  and pretend to be married...but will you deviants ever actually behave like normal, married couples? I doubt it...because your whole thing is about being deviant and destructive to normalcy.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
Click to expand...

Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> I honestly don't care if y'all play house  and pretend to be married...but will you deviants ever actually behave like normal, married couples? I doubt it...because your whole thing is about being deviant and destructive to normalcy.



Thank you for another brilliant and thoughtful contribution to the topic


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
Click to expand...

The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
Click to expand...



I think the problem is that you think Homos are an involuntary group.   They are just people with nothing in common except for their sexual practices, that they voluntarily tell people who don't want to hear about them about.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't care if y'all play house  and pretend to be married...but will you deviants ever actually behave like normal, married couples? I doubt it...because your whole thing is about being deviant and destructive to normalcy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for another brilliant and thoughtful contribution to the topic
Click to expand...

Are you mad because I assumed you're a homosexual?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem is that you think Homos are an involuntary group.   They are just people with nothing in common except for their sexual practices, that they voluntarily tell people who don't want to hear about them about.
Click to expand...

I think that the problem is that you are a troll who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about and makes shit up try to get a rise out of people and derail the thread.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly don't care if y'all play house  and pretend to be married...but will you deviants ever actually behave like normal, married couples? I doubt it...because your whole thing is about being deviant and destructive to normalcy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for another brilliant and thoughtful contribution to the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you mad because I assumed you're a homosexual?
Click to expand...

I'm not mad and I don't give a rats hind parts what you assume or think that I am.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
Click to expand...

Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.

The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...


Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mad because I assumed you're a homosexual?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not mad and I don't give a rats hind parts what you assume or think that I am.
Click to expand...


  It's not like you've not made it fairly obvious, your denials notwithstanding.

  If the insufficiently-massive item of slip-on footwear is the correct size, put it on.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

Lol....sounds like a pathetic attempt at a joke on the southern baptist pastor's part. That is not biblical teaching at all.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Being a Baptist myself, though not a southern Baptist...I cannot picture this being said by a Baptist preacher....we keep the children with their parwnts throughout the entire service...and that type of comment would most definitely not come out of my pastor's mouth.


----------



## Polishprince

Lysistrata said:


> Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.




Gay Marriage is of significantly great public import that it was argued about in the highest court of the land.    Even hardcore libs like William Clinton and Robert Byrd argued against it.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.
> 
> 
> 
> That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves   real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your argument, is similar name calling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called you a name?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Many. Which makes your attack on somedude, quite hypocritical.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.
> 
> 
> You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Blah, blah, blah, bigot. Got it.



My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.


My point stands.


----------



## Correll

Polishprince said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...



Thank you. Progressive knows that, but it by pretending otherwise, he gets to insult people and shout them down, instead of dealing with their points.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, bigot. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what happened with some of my extended family. I didn't shun them for supporting it....they shunned me for not supporting it. All over some deviant perverts...well, bye.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a bullshit cop-out!!  I have addressed every single thing  that you have said. You're clearly avoiding  points and questions.  Now go away.
Click to expand...




You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a bullshit cop-out!!  I have addressed every single thing  that you have said. You're clearly avoiding  points and questions.  Now go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
Click to expand...

And they actually didn't even have to do this. They could have drawn up legal contracts with each other that took care of all the issues the homos were concerned with and treated it as similar to marriage. But they were usually to busy posting Craigslist ads looking for quickies with total strangers and visiting bath houses to think about that.

I am dedicated to destroying this political movement.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a bullshit cop-out!!  I have addressed every single thing  that you have said. You're clearly avoiding  points and questions.  Now go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
Click to expand...

You posted that same ridiculous crap before and I responded to it. Only in your dark and troubled world are large numbers of people still ruminating over this. Marriage is till marriage and better now for being more inclusive. You really will do anything that you can to take attention away from those questions that you don't have the nerve or integrity to answer!


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a bullshit cop-out!!  I have addressed every single thing  that you have said. You're clearly avoiding  points and questions.  Now go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted that same ridiculous crap before and I responded to it. Only in your dark and troubled world are large numbers of people still ruminating over this. Marriage is till marriage and better now for being more inclusive. You really will do anything that you can to take attention away from those questions that you don't have the nerve or integrity to answer!
Click to expand...

Wrong. The % of people that support it and the rest of the movement's causes has taken a dip. You want to pretend This is a done deal. It isn't.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

The young are regarded as the most tolerant generation. That's why results of this LGBTQ survey are 'alarming'

This one should scare your movement the most, you pushed too hard and too fast. It has turned a lot people against you. But you won't stop being lunatics and I welcome that....makes my job easier:

Fewer Americans Think LGBT People Face Discrimination


----------



## Correll

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, bigot. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what happened with some of my extended family. I didn't shun them for supporting it....they shunned me for not supporting it. All over some deviant perverts...well, bye.
Click to expand...



The behavior is one way. Liberals have convinced themselves, that anyone that disagrees with them, must be Evul. And more and more, they are being serious about this shit.


The rest of US normal Americans, do not do this.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Correll said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck over the histrionics  . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, bigot. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what happened with some of my extended family. I didn't shun them for supporting it....they shunned me for not supporting it. All over some deviant perverts...well, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The behavior is one way. Liberals have convinced themselves, that anyone that disagrees with them, must be Evul. And more and more, they are being serious about this shit.
> 
> 
> The rest of US normal Americans, do not do this.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is they shunned me because of my bi-sexual uncle, who knows my views and didn't shun me. Still see him every Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's more important to them than it is to him. He doesn't want to get married and according to what he has said to me; "Gays don't want to get married for the most part, that's not what the lifestyle is about". He also says no gays actually believe they were born gay.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
Click to expand...

That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.

I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage? 

As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

The homosexual movement messed up when they linked themselves with the other letters in the movement...now everyone knows who is responsible for all the rest of this sick shit and they will be punished for it at some point.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

If the homosexual movement wasn't forever linked to the T's and the Q's and the pedos..... They might not be seeing the push back they are.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't  deal with this issue and are in way over your head.  You are clearly on the ropes here.  Now answer my fucking questions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a bullshit cop-out!!  I have addressed every single thing  that you have said. You're clearly avoiding  points and questions.  Now go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted that same ridiculous crap before and I responded to it. Only in your dark and troubled world are large numbers of people still ruminating over this. Marriage is till marriage and better now for being more inclusive. You really will do anything that you can to take attention away from those questions that you don't have the nerve or integrity to answer!
Click to expand...



You started this thread, to attack people based on this issue. So, you are a perfect example that this issue is still tearing this nation apart. 

Hell,  you insult people in your thread title. 


So, my point not only stands, but you yourself are evidence that it is still quite pointy.


You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?




Not around here they don't.   Homosexuals in these parts like to hang out at Interstate rest stops, gay bars and other events. It isn't a coincidence that aids is so fantastically popular with the Gay Community even to this very day.


----------



## Correll

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, bigot. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what happened with some of my extended family. I didn't shun them for supporting it....they shunned me for not supporting it. All over some deviant perverts...well, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The behavior is one way. Liberals have convinced themselves, that anyone that disagrees with them, must be Evul. And more and more, they are being serious about this shit.
> 
> 
> The rest of US normal Americans, do not do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is they shunned me because of my bi-sexual uncle, who knows my views and didn't shun me. Still see him every Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's more important to them than it is to him. He doesn't want to get married and according to what he has said to me; "Gays don't want to get married for the most part, that's not what the lifestyle is about". He also says no gays actually believe they were born gay.
Click to expand...



I've heard similar shit from actual gay people, about the gay community. 


NOt the tale the libs want to present.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
Click to expand...

Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house. 

I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If you can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched. 

I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.


----------



## Lysistrata

Polishprince said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay Marriage is of significantly great public import that it was argued about in the highest court of the land.    Even hardcore libs like William Clinton and Robert Byrd argued against it.
Click to expand...


But why is it of public importance? You have your's, I have mine, they have their's. Go home, kiss your spouse, make love, file joint tax returns.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Correll said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, bigot. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.
> 
> 
> That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly what happened with some of my extended family. I didn't shun them for supporting it....they shunned me for not supporting it. All over some deviant perverts...well, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The behavior is one way. Liberals have convinced themselves, that anyone that disagrees with them, must be Evul. And more and more, they are being serious about this shit.
> 
> 
> The rest of US normal Americans, do not do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is they shunned me because of my bi-sexual uncle, who knows my views and didn't shun me. Still see him every Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's more important to them than it is to him. He doesn't want to get married and according to what he has said to me; "Gays don't want to get married for the most part, that's not what the lifestyle is about". He also says no gays actually believe they were born gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard similar shit from actual gay people, about the gay community.
> 
> 
> NOt the tale the libs want to present.
Click to expand...

Older gays are more honest about stuff like that than the millenials and gen x ones. The rhetoric of being "born gay" wasn't around like it is today, so they never thought to tell that lie.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Lysistrata said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay Marriage is of significantly great public import that it was argued about in the highest court of the land.    Even hardcore libs like William Clinton and Robert Byrd argued against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why is it of public importance? You have your's, I have mine, they have their's. Go home, kiss your spouse, make love, file joint tax returns.
Click to expand...

Because they made it a political issue. They are the aggressors in this....They are the ones wanting to overthrow traditional morality.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason
> 
> 
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
Click to expand...

That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
Click to expand...

The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous

Google hides this article, FYI.


----------



## Lysistrata

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay Marriage is of significantly great public import that it was argued about in the highest court of the land.    Even hardcore libs like William Clinton and Robert Byrd argued against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why is it of public importance? You have your's, I have mine, they have their's. Go home, kiss your spouse, make love, file joint tax returns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they made it a political issue. They are the aggressors in this....They are the ones wanting to overthrow traditional morality.
Click to expand...


Who made it a political issue? People just went to the court houses and houses of worship to be married. These are not aggressive acts. You are free to pursue your life as a heterosexual with a freely consenting partner, without violence or dominance, of course.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Lysistrata said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of what "great public import" is same-sex marriage? Better to get busy on the amount of domestic-abuse charges and protection orders. Get busy on the misogyny that abounds in heterosexual relationships. As I have said before, I saw some guy from the southern baptist cult bragging on public television that he wins all arguments with his wife because he has a penis. Get busy with the problems among heterosexuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay Marriage is of significantly great public import that it was argued about in the highest court of the land.    Even hardcore libs like William Clinton and Robert Byrd argued against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why is it of public importance? You have your's, I have mine, they have their's. Go home, kiss your spouse, make love, file joint tax returns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they made it a political issue. They are the aggressors in this....They are the ones wanting to overthrow traditional morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who made it a political issue? People just went to the court houses and houses of worship to be married. These are not aggressive acts. You are free to pursue your life as a heterosexual with a freely consenting partner, without violence or dominance, of course.
Click to expand...

The homosexuals did. Deal with it.


----------



## Lysistrata

Let's put the lives of heterosexuals under the same micro-examination. How many heterosexual males were virgins when they went to bed with their new wives after the ceremony? They have been committed thereafter? Husbands who gave up their virginity to their wives on their wedding night step forward. It's a Christian thing.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Lysistrata said:


> Let's put the lives of heterosexuals under the same micro-examination. How many heterosexual males were virgins when they went to bed with their new wives after the ceremony? They have been committed thereafter? Husbands who gave up their virginity to their wives on their wedding night step forward. It's a Christian thing.


Christian doctrine does not promote promiscuity...faggot ideology does.
Secular idiot ideology preaches promiscuity.

So try again.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?
> 
> 
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
Click to expand...

OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society

My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
Click to expand...

I don't know how people can do the whole polyamory thing without a bunch of drama. When I was a libertarian, there was a big push for polyamory and polygamy to be a front and center issue for the party. I don't know enough about polyamory and the like to discuss it very intelligently, but it doesn't sound appealing to me. If that's what floats you and your wife's boat and keeps you two together, more power to you, I guess.

The problem with homosexuals is many have sex with total strangers, so they do not know if they're infected or not...and the level of STDs and HIV are way higher in their community. 

For religious reasons I disagree with gay marriage, my day to day life does not include walking up to gay couples and telling them what I think. I just SMH and keep walking. That's what they want, right? Tolerance? I think that is exactly what I have been doing and I will continue to conduct myself like that.


----------



## Papageorgio

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how people can do the whole polyamory thing without a bunch of drama. When I was a libertarian, there was a big push for polyamory and polygamy to be a front and center issue for the party. I don't know enough about polyamory and the like to discuss it very intelligently, but it doesn't sound appealing to me. If that's what floats you and your wife's boat and keeps you two together, more power to you, I guess.
> 
> The problem with homosexuals is many have sex with total strangers, so they do not know if they're infected or not...and the level of STDs and HIV are way higher in their community.
> 
> For religious reasons I disagree with gay marriage, my day to day life does not include walking up to gay couples and telling them what I think. I just SMH and keep walking. That's what they want, right? Tolerance? I think that is exactly what I have been doing and I will continue to conduct myself like that.
Click to expand...


It’s really messed up to me. A guy at work had an open marriage. She got pregnant by another guy, decided to keep the child. The sperm donor disappeared, the couple, who had other kids are no divorced. 

Sad for the kids.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Papageorgio said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how people can do the whole polyamory thing without a bunch of drama. When I was a libertarian, there was a big push for polyamory and polygamy to be a front and center issue for the party. I don't know enough about polyamory and the like to discuss it very intelligently, but it doesn't sound appealing to me. If that's what floats you and your wife's boat and keeps you two together, more power to you, I guess.
> 
> The problem with homosexuals is many have sex with total strangers, so they do not know if they're infected or not...and the level of STDs and HIV are way higher in their community.
> 
> For religious reasons I disagree with gay marriage, my day to day life does not include walking up to gay couples and telling them what I think. I just SMH and keep walking. That's what they want, right? Tolerance? I think that is exactly what I have been doing and I will continue to conduct myself like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s really messed up to me. A guy at work had an open marriage. She got pregnant by another guy, decided to keep the child. The sperm donor disappeared, the couple, who had other kids are no divorced.
> 
> Sad for the kids.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Sad story.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well....why would the government have any interest in gay marriage? You guys just spread diseases, your union cannot produce children....what exactly is there not to discriminate against? Your union does nothing positive for society...it just makes you happy. Real marriage produces children and marriages promote well adjusted citizens.
> 
> The discrimination would be perfectly logical and reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
Click to expand...



That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is so fucking hateful and ignorant in so many ways!  Gay people form families and raise children. Often they are biological  children of one of the adults.  They are not sterile!! They are parents! And there are many reasons -other than having children- to get married.
> 
> I have asked this question many times before and have never gotten an answer that was reasonable. You  don't think that gay folks should marry because they cant produce a child one on one, do you also think that heterosexuals who for what ever reason need third party intervention or help to have a child also be barred from marriage?
> 
> As far as disease goes, are you so fucking stupid that you don't understand that married people are less likely to spread STDs?
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
Click to expand...

How is polyamory supposed to help evolution along?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexual marriages are majority non-monogamous. So you're trying to piggy back off of a fact that actually only applies to a minority of homosexual married couples and the majority of heterosexuals married couples. If homosexual marriages were treated as hetero ones, then maybe you'd have a point.
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt anyone besides their own biological children from before they came out and magically were able to be aroused enough by a woman to get her pregnant. There should be no surrogates for them either. You choose to be homosexual, You choose not to have children. Period. You have no right to confuse a child and deprive them of a chance of a mother and father just so you can play house.
> 
> I don't see why governments should treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals is my position. I don't care if they decide to get married or civil unioned. That's not my concern. Personally I think government shouldn't be involved in marriage...but I understand why they got involved in the first place...and a homosexual marriage does not meet any of the reasoning for it to get involved in their "marriages". If y with factsou can find someone to perform the ceremony, go on right ahead and get hitched.
> 
> I'm no more hateful than your average LGBT movement activist.
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
Click to expand...



SO, you don't disagree that the fact that people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage?


I just ask, you know, because you hit the reply button, but nothing in your post addressed my actual point.


----------



## Papageorgio

Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP? 

I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad. 

Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> My wife and I have been non-monagouse [sic] for the 30   years of our marriage.



  Sounds like you sh•t all over your own marriage, cheating on your wife and being cheated on in return.

  I guess it's no surprise that you hold the legitimate institution of marriage in such deep contempt.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is polyamory supposed to help evolution along?
Click to expand...

I am speaking of the evolution of marriage, not the species


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement  that I doubt you can back up.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SO, you don't disagree that the fact that people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage?
> 
> 
> I just ask, you know, because you hit the reply button, but nothing in your post addressed my actual point.
Click to expand...

The fact that I was being sardonic was apparently lost on you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Papageorgio said:


> Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP?
> 
> I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad.
> 
> Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.


How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SO, you don't disagree that the fact that people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage?
> 
> 
> I just ask, you know, because you hit the reply button, but nothing in your post addressed my actual point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that I was being sardonic was apparently lost on you.
Click to expand...

Apparently.


----------



## Papageorgio

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP?
> 
> I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad.
> 
> Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.
Click to expand...


Let's see you start a thread wanting to know why people are against gay marriage. I don't think about gay marriage until some nut on this board brings it up. I thought gay marriage is legal, so I am not sure why this is an issue. I know people that are against marriage, that is good for them, no one gets upset with that. The only conclusion I can come to is that people want to force others to accept gay marriage and agree with it. Which I don't agree with one group forcing beliefs on another group. Nothing changes the law if a people don't accept gay marriage, it doesn't change, why force a non-issue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Papageorgio said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP?
> 
> I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad.
> 
> Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you start a thread wanting to know why people are against gay marriage. I don't think about gay marriage until some nut on this board brings it up. I thought gay marriage is legal, so I am not sure why this is an issue. I know people that are against marriage, that is good for them, no one gets upset with that. The only conclusion I can come to is that people want to force others to accept gay marriage and agree with it. Which I don't agree with one group forcing beliefs on another group. Nothing changes the law if a people don't accept gay marriage, it doesn't change, why force a non-issue.
Click to expand...

We don't need a thread about why people are against gay marriage. I have heard every irrational, selfish, stupid and religiously motivated horseshit to know why. 

Most people are like you and don't think much about it. Gay people don't think much about it until they are targeted by religious bigots, traditionalists and homophobes. They would like it all to be behind them and it could be if they would just be left alone. No body is stupid enough to think that they can force anyone to accept them Just leave them alone  and it won't be an issue


----------



## Papageorgio

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP?
> 
> I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad.
> 
> Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you start a thread wanting to know why people are against gay marriage. I don't think about gay marriage until some nut on this board brings it up. I thought gay marriage is legal, so I am not sure why this is an issue. I know people that are against marriage, that is good for them, no one gets upset with that. The only conclusion I can come to is that people want to force others to accept gay marriage and agree with it. Which I don't agree with one group forcing beliefs on another group. Nothing changes the law if a people don't accept gay marriage, it doesn't change, why force a non-issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need a thread about why people are against gay marriage. I have heard every irrational, selfish, stupid and religiously motivated horseshit to know why.
> 
> Most people are like you and don't think much about it. Gay people don't think much about it until they are targeted by religious bigots, traditionalists and homophobes. They would like it all to be behind them and it could be if they would just be left alone. No body is stupid enough to think that they can force anyone to accept them Just leave them alone  and it won't be an issue
Click to expand...


I don't know of people targeting them, of course not my cup of tea. Like I said, today it is mostly people wanting others to accept their lifestyle, which I disagree with.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Papageorgio said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP?
> 
> I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad.
> 
> Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you start a thread wanting to know why people are against gay marriage. I don't think about gay marriage until some nut on this board brings it up. I thought gay marriage is legal, so I am not sure why this is an issue. I know people that are against marriage, that is good for them, no one gets upset with that. The only conclusion I can come to is that people want to force others to accept gay marriage and agree with it. Which I don't agree with one group forcing beliefs on another group. Nothing changes the law if a people don't accept gay marriage, it doesn't change, why force a non-issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need a thread about why people are against gay marriage. I have heard every irrational, selfish, stupid and religiously motivated horseshit to know why.
> 
> Most people are like you and don't think much about it. Gay people don't think much about it until they are targeted by religious bigots, traditionalists and homophobes. They would like it all to be behind them and it could be if they would just be left alone. No body is stupid enough to think that they can force anyone to accept them Just leave them alone  and it won't be an issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of people targeting them, of course not my cup of tea. Like I said, today it is mostly people wanting others to accept their lifestyle, which I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Really? Did you read to op?


----------



## Papageorgio

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the OP obsessed with what others think of marriage? Just bizarre, millions don’t believe in marriage at all, why doesn’t that bother the OP?
> 
> I myself don’t care what others think of my opinions, they are mine and mine alone, if a person doesn’t like my opinion then too bad so sad.
> 
> Just a bizarre to obsess over such a matter where others opinions don’t matter.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see you start a thread wanting to know why people are against gay marriage. I don't think about gay marriage until some nut on this board brings it up. I thought gay marriage is legal, so I am not sure why this is an issue. I know people that are against marriage, that is good for them, no one gets upset with that. The only conclusion I can come to is that people want to force others to accept gay marriage and agree with it. Which I don't agree with one group forcing beliefs on another group. Nothing changes the law if a people don't accept gay marriage, it doesn't change, why force a non-issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need a thread about why people are against gay marriage. I have heard every irrational, selfish, stupid and religiously motivated horseshit to know why.
> 
> Most people are like you and don't think much about it. Gay people don't think much about it until they are targeted by religious bigots, traditionalists and homophobes. They would like it all to be behind them and it could be if they would just be left alone. No body is stupid enough to think that they can force anyone to accept them Just leave them alone  and it won't be an issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of people targeting them, of course not my cup of tea. Like I said, today it is mostly people wanting others to accept their lifestyle, which I disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Did you read to op?
Click to expand...


Yep, gay politician. Hardly a movement.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Papageorgio said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you ascertain that I am obsessed with what others think of marriage ?  People should only concern themselves with their own marriage and what it means to them, and respect the right of others to do the same. If they did, we would not have all of this horseshit flying about same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see you start a thread wanting to know why people are against gay marriage. I don't think about gay marriage until some nut on this board brings it up. I thought gay marriage is legal, so I am not sure why this is an issue. I know people that are against marriage, that is good for them, no one gets upset with that. The only conclusion I can come to is that people want to force others to accept gay marriage and agree with it. Which I don't agree with one group forcing beliefs on another group. Nothing changes the law if a people don't accept gay marriage, it doesn't change, why force a non-issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need a thread about why people are against gay marriage. I have heard every irrational, selfish, stupid and religiously motivated horseshit to know why.
> 
> Most people are like you and don't think much about it. Gay people don't think much about it until they are targeted by religious bigots, traditionalists and homophobes. They would like it all to be behind them and it could be if they would just be left alone. No body is stupid enough to think that they can force anyone to accept them Just leave them alone  and it won't be an issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you didn't know that there were people targeting gays. Now you do know and there are many more like him
> 
> I don't know of people targeting them, of course not my cup of tea. Like I said, today it is mostly people wanting others to accept their lifestyle, which I disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Did you read to op?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, gay politician. Hardly a movement.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SomeDudeUDunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous
> 
> Google hides this article, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SO, you don't disagree that the fact that people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage?
> 
> 
> I just ask, you know, because you hit the reply button, but nothing in your post addressed my actual point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that I was being sardonic was apparently lost on you.
Click to expand...



You libs have such bizarre and delusional positions and beliefs, that such humor, rarely works for you.


My point stands. 


That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK That's interesting. I'm always willing to learn something. But there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples who are not monogamous either.    Polyamory Society
> 
> My wife and I have been non-monagouse for the 30   years of our marriage. It doesn't mean that you spread disease.  We never had an STD. It is certainly  not a reason to shit all over someone's marriage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SO, you don't disagree that the fact that people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage?
> 
> 
> I just ask, you know, because you hit the reply button, but nothing in your post addressed my actual point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that I was being sardonic was apparently lost on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You libs have such bizarre and delusional positions and beliefs, that such humor, rarely works for you.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
Click to expand...

We  are bizarre.?? Nothing is more bizarre that someone who clings to tradition as an excuse for perpetuating discrimination As for a sense of humor, you are a stale joke without a punch line.

My point stands. You do not have the guts or integrity to answer the questions that I put to you numerous times.  You really can't justify or defend  you position  on same sex marriage using facts and logic so you fall back on tradition and delude yourself into thinking that you somehow won. Answer the fucking questions

1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.

2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?

4. Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the structure and purpose of marriage. One man and one subservient woman of the same race  having lots of babies never to change or evolve for all eternity.  . Sorry. Too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SO, you don't disagree that the fact that people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage?
> 
> 
> I just ask, you know, because you hit the reply button, but nothing in your post addressed my actual point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that I was being sardonic was apparently lost on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You libs have such bizarre and delusional positions and beliefs, that such humor, rarely works for you.
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> That many people fail to live up to the ideal of Marriage, does not invalidate the structure or purpose or legitimacy of Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We  are bizarre.?? Nothing is more bizarre that someone who clings to tradition as an excuse for perpetuating discrimination As for a sense of humor, you are a stale joke without a punch line.
> 
> My point stands. You do not have the guts or integrity to answer the questions that I put to you numerous times.  You really can't justify or defend  you position  on same sex marriage using facts and logic so you fall back on tradition and delude yourself into thinking that you somehow won. Answer the fucking questions
> 
> 1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.
> 
> 2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.
> 
> 3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?
> 
> 4. Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?
> 
> 5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly?
Click to expand...





Yes, you are very fucking bizarre. 



1. Doubtful. Men are not women, and Women are not men. And the family structure same sex people build will not be the same. It is unlikely that the environment created will be nearly as nurturing as the standard. 


2.  By itself? Too early to tell. As part of the general war on marriage? General decay of culture, and society, and massive rises in all types of social and individual dysfunction. 


3. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point. 


4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question. 

5. I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 1. Doubtful. Men are not women, and Women are not men. And the family structure same sex people build will not be the same. It is unlikely that the environment created will be nearly as nurturing as the standard.



You doubt that same sex households can function at the same level as  opposite sex households- and provide the same degree of nurturing for children-  because your bias requires you and for no other reason. The best indicator of the level of functioning of a family is the outcomes for the children and there is ample evidence that the children do as well with same sex parents as other children.  Here is one example of which there are many. More able people than you have tried and failed to refute it.

*New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents **http://www.edgemedianetwork.com/news/family/147523/new_study:_no_difference_between_gay_&_straight_adoptive_parents*

by David  Perry

Contributor

Monday Jul 29, 2013



> A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples.
> 
> "Parents’ sexual orientation is not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes," confirms Williams Visiting Scholar Abbie Goldberg, who co-authored the study with JuliAnna Z. Smith of the University of Massachusetts. A national think tank at University of California, Los Angeles Law, the Williams Institute conducts independent research relating to sexual orientation, gender identity law, and public policy.





> The study, "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents," analyzed 120 two-parent adoptive families, comprising of 40 same-sex female couples, 35 same-sex male, and 45 different-sex couples, looking at aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive developments of the children.
> 
> For all couples, the child was under 1.5 years of age, and was the first and only child adopted. The findings are consistent with an emerging body of research showing that parents’ sexual orientation are not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes, and the Williams Institute study is unique in that it is longitudinal - i.e. follows couples over time - and includes adopted children, as well as includes three types of parents: gay, lesbian, and heterosexual (Goldberg explains how past same-sex parent studies tended to focus on lesbian parents).



You have failed again


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 2. By itself? Too early to tell. As part of the general war on marriage? General decay of culture, and society, and massive rises in all types of social and individual dysfunction.


The question was:
2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

*By claiming that it is too soon to tell you are just avoiding the question instead of admitting that you really cant find any negative consequences. Then you throw in some crap about the war on marriage, and general social decay as a smokescreen to distract from the issue and to imply that real or imaging, they have been caused by same sex marriage

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same sex marriage over 18 years ago. Tell us all about the social decline that is going on there.

Another fail.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> . Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.


The question was:

._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.


The question was 

4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> . I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.


The question was:
_
5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly? _

You used to support what? Interracial marriage?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> ._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_
> 
> You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism
Click to expand...







Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.


Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was
> 
> 4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_
> 
> Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.
Click to expand...





Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> _
> 5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly? _
> 
> You used to support what? Interracial marriage?
Click to expand...



Yes.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> ._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_
> 
> You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.
Click to expand...

Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside

Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!  

You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all.  I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> _
> 5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly? _
> 
> You used to support what? Interracial marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

And  now you don't. Thank you being honest for a change.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was
> 
> 4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_
> 
> Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".
Click to expand...

You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure.  And you STILL have not answered the question.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> ._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_
> 
> You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside
> 
> Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!
> 
> You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all.  I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud
Click to expand...





None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument. 


Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.



There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman. 


Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced. 


THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.



Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> _
> 5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view and their status, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly? _
> 
> You used to support what? Interracial marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And  now you don't. Thank you being honest for a change.
Click to expand...



I am always honest. Your confusion is not me being dishonest.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was
> 
> 4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_
> 
> Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure.  And you STILL have not answered the question.
Click to expand...



1 "Clinging to life" is just spin. 

2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.

3. "hung up" is just spin.

4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> ._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_
> 
> You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside
> 
> Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!
> 
> You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all.  I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.
> 
> 
> Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.
> 
> 
> 
> There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.
> 
> 
> Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.
> 
> 
> THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.
Click to expand...

So I see that you're abandoning your inane "procreation" argument . For the record, you got nailed on that procreation thing when you admitted that producing children is not a requirement for marriage...…..for heterosexuals after saying that gays should not marry because they don't procreate. !!.

 It seems like now you just are going to go with the appeal to tradition of "one man one woman" And you have the nerve to claim that your not " hung up " on tradition.....except as a failed excuse for your blatant  bigotry. You're entitled  to live by what ever traditions you choose to live by. You are not entitled to dictate what traditions others live by.

And you still have not explained your position on gender roles where you contend that people of the same sex should not marry because " men and women are different" while not dealing with the fact that many opposite sex couples to not adhere to traditional roles. The fact is that you are in deep shit here. I know that  you are full of shit. You know that you are full of shit, and anyone with two functioning brain cells who see this knows that you are full  of shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was
> 
> 4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_
> 
> Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure.  And you STILL have not answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?
> 
> 
> 1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.
> 
> 2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.
> 
> 3. "hung up" is just spin.
> 
> 4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> ._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_
> 
> You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside
> 
> Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!
> 
> You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all.  I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.
> 
> 
> Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.
> 
> 
> 
> There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.
> 
> 
> Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.
> 
> 
> THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I see that you're abandoning your inane "procreation" argument . For the record, you got nailed on that procreation thing when you admitted that producing children is not a requirement for marriage...…..for heterosexuals after saying that gays should not marry because they don't procreate. !!.
Click to expand...


A basis is not the same as a requirement. My position on this has been clear. YOu are purposefully muddying the waters to avoid the discussion getting anywhere.



> It seems like now you just are going to go with the appeal to tradition of "one man one woman" And you have the nerve to claim that your not " hung up " on tradition.....except as a failed excuse for your blatant  bigotry. You're entitled  to live by what ever traditions you choose to live by. You are not entitled to dictate what traditions others live by.



Your argument has been that the "restrictions" are arbitrary and thus discrimination. My response was to point out, correctly that ancient reasons for the "restrictions".  That is not me being "hung up" on tradition. 

I keep coming back to it, because you keep going back to your claim that the "restrictions" are arbitrary.

Your confusion on this, does not make sense. You are obviously not a stupid person, so stop acting like you are. 





> And you still have not explained your position on gender roles where you contend that people of the same sex should not marry because " men and women are different" The fact is that you are in deep shit here. I know that  you are full of shit. You know that you are full of shit, and anyone with two functioning brain cells who see this knows that you are full  of shit.




I pointed out that "men and women are different" because you falsely claimed that gender roles are arbitrary.


NO real justification for you to be confused by that. So knock off that shit.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.
> 
> 
> 
> The question was
> 
> 4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_
> 
> Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure.  And you STILL have not answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?
> 
> 
> 1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.
> 
> 2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.
> 
> 3. "hung up" is just spin.
> 
> 4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I have limits to how much of your shit I can put up with.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> I don't know how people can do the whole polyamory thing without a bunch of drama. When I was a libertarian, there was a big push for polyamory and polygamy to be a front and center issue for the party. I don't know enough about polyamory and the like to discuss it very intelligently, but it doesn't sound appealing to me. If that's what floats you and your wife's boat and keeps you two together, more power to you, I guess.


Yes there can be drama. You and your partner have to communicate, be respectful of each other and not forget who you are with at  the end of the night. But there is also drama when people cheat and often much worse. . Monogamous married  couple often have wanderlust, that ends badly


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was
> 
> 4. _Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?_
> 
> Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure.  And you STILL have not answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?
> 
> 
> 1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.
> 
> 2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.
> 
> 3. "hung up" is just spin.
> 
> 4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have limits to how much of your shit I can put up with.
Click to expand...

You're free to go anytime


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> ._ You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so,* do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?*_
> 
> You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples?  And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside
> 
> Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!
> 
> You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all.  I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.
> 
> 
> Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.
> 
> 
> 
> There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.
> 
> 
> Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.
> 
> 
> THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I see that you're abandoning your inane "procreation" argument . For the record, you got nailed on that procreation thing when you admitted that producing children is not a requirement for marriage...…..for heterosexuals after saying that gays should not marry because they don't procreate. !!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A basis is not the same as a requirement. My position on this has been clear. YOu are purposefully muddying the waters to avoid the discussion getting anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like now you just are going to go with the appeal to tradition of "one man one woman" And you have the nerve to claim that your not " hung up " on tradition.....except as a failed excuse for your blatant  bigotry. You're entitled  to live by what ever traditions you choose to live by. You are not entitled to dictate what traditions others live by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument has been that the "restrictions" are arbitrary and thus discrimination. My response was to point out, correctly that ancient reasons for the "restrictions".  That is not me being "hung up" on tradition.
> 
> I keep coming back to it, because you keep going back to your claim that the "restrictions" are arbitrary.
> 
> Your confusion on this, does not make sense. You are obviously not a stupid person, so stop acting like you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still have not explained your position on gender roles where you contend that people of the same sex should not marry because " men and women are different" The fact is that you are in deep shit here. I know that  you are full of shit. You know that you are full of shit, and anyone with two functioning brain cells who see this knows that you are full  of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that "men and women are different" because you falsely claimed that gender roles are arbitrary.
> 
> 
> NO real justification for you to be confused by that. So knock off that shit.
Click to expand...

We'll the courts and all rational people disagree with you. Tradition does not trump the constitution. Traditions evolve even if some people like you don't. It not I who is confused.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> The problem with homosexuals is many have sex with total strangers, so they do not know if they're infected or not...and the level of STDs and HIV are way higher in their community.


Actually, I don't know to what extent that is true anymore. But I will say that I know from experience that may many heterosexuals , including myself have engaged in such things


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> For religious reasons I disagree with gay marriage, my day to day life does not include walking up to gay couples and telling them what I think. I just SMH and keep walking. That's what they want, right? Tolerance? I think that is exactly what I have been doing and I will continue to conduct myself like that.


Good for you.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".
> 
> 
> 
> You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure.  And you STILL have not answered the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?
> 
> 
> 1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.
> 
> 2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.
> 
> 3. "hung up" is just spin.
> 
> 4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have limits to how much of your shit I can put up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're free to go anytime
Click to expand...



I know.


----------



## Lysistrata

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put the lives of heterosexuals under the same micro-examination. How many heterosexual males were virgins when they went to bed with their new wives after the ceremony? They have been committed thereafter? Husbands who gave up their virginity to their wives on their wedding night step forward. It's a Christian thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Christian doctrine does not promote promiscuity...faggot ideology does.
> Secular idiot ideology preaches promiscuity.
> 
> So try again.
Click to expand...


How do people who want to be married preach promiscuity? It seems just the opposite. What we don't want is people who report to their marriage ceremonies who do not actually mean that they intend to commit to their intended spouses for the rest of their lives. I like what I saw on YouTube about those Ultra=Orthodox Jews who fast and pray for days before their marriage ceremonies so that they can focus on what they are about to do. Good plan.The people who showed up to be married the day after same-sex marriage became legal showed their intentions. No matter what sexual orientation, this firmness of intent is what society needs. Commitment. I don't think that people like the guy in the Oval Office ever manifested his commitment to any of the three people he "married."


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.
> 
> 
> Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside
> 
> Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!
> 
> You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all.  I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.
> 
> 
> Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.
> 
> 
> 
> There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.
> 
> 
> Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.
> 
> 
> THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I see that you're abandoning your inane "procreation" argument . For the record, you got nailed on that procreation thing when you admitted that producing children is not a requirement for marriage...…..for heterosexuals after saying that gays should not marry because they don't procreate. !!.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A basis is not the same as a requirement. My position on this has been clear. YOu are purposefully muddying the waters to avoid the discussion getting anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like now you just are going to go with the appeal to tradition of "one man one woman" And you have the nerve to claim that your not " hung up " on tradition.....except as a failed excuse for your blatant  bigotry. You're entitled  to live by what ever traditions you choose to live by. You are not entitled to dictate what traditions others live by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument has been that the "restrictions" are arbitrary and thus discrimination. My response was to point out, correctly that ancient reasons for the "restrictions".  That is not me being "hung up" on tradition.
> 
> I keep coming back to it, because you keep going back to your claim that the "restrictions" are arbitrary.
> 
> Your confusion on this, does not make sense. You are obviously not a stupid person, so stop acting like you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you still have not explained your position on gender roles where you contend that people of the same sex should not marry because " men and women are different" The fact is that you are in deep shit here. I know that  you are full of shit. You know that you are full of shit, and anyone with two functioning brain cells who see this knows that you are full  of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that "men and women are different" because you falsely claimed that gender roles are arbitrary.
> 
> 
> NO real justification for you to be confused by that. So knock off that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll the courts and all rational people disagree with you. Tradition does not trump the constitution. Traditions evolve even if some people like you don't. It not I who is confused.
Click to expand...




We were discussing your continued and willful confusion about my positions. I AGAIN, clarified shit for you.

And you dodged my clarifications, and made an Appeal to Authority, an Appeal to Popularity, and a personal attack.



Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?


Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
Click to expand...



A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for. 


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fine idea.
> 
> 
> INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
> 
> 
> A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
> 
> 
> One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
> 
> 
> Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
Click to expand...

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis.

Lets recap:

You tried the argument that gays people should not marry because they do not reproduce based on your assertion that the central reason for marriage is to "get the father to stick around and provide" .I confronted you with the question of whether or not opposite sex couples who could not reproduce naturally should be allowed to marry to which you responded that fathering children is not a requirement for marriage. Apparently it is only a requirement for gay people according to you.
You then ran like hell from your "procreation "crap" never to revisit it.

You then fell back on your appeal to tradition .Marriage has been between one man and one women for a millennium  bla bla bal....

When asked if you want to preserve all traditions related to marriage such as women as property and marriage being between two people of the same race, you actually, much to my amazment , said that you were opposed to interracial marriage. At least your consistent, but you did not address the role and status of women. I can only imagine.

You stated that you are oppoesed to same sex marriage because of the different traditional roles that men and women bring to a relationship. However, you refused to deal with the fact that in most heterosexual relationships, women are increasingly doing all of the same things that men do, but you have no problem with whatever gender role conflict if any that  might entail

When asked what negative or unexpected consequences same sex marriage has had, you stated  that it is too soon to tell and speculated- without evidence- that you doubt that same sex couples can function as well as opposite sex couples and provide the same level of nurturance to children.. I pointed out that the Netherlands has had same sex marriage for 18 years and asked you to document the societal decline that you predict. I also provided evident that children of same sex couples do just as well as others. You have had nothing further to say on either count.

You have derided the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage claiming that the bans imposed by the states were not arbitrary and that there was a reason for them.. But the only reason that you could come up with was your appeal to tradition fallacy. 


You also claimed that it was an abuse of the courts to go that rout as opposed to legislation which exposed your pathetic and abysmal understanding of constitutional law and our legal system

Dude, you are toast! You are exposed for the mindless bigot that you are. You have no defense and you have no viable argument. My work is done hereby


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fine idea.
> 
> 
> INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
> 
> 
> A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
> 
> 
> One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
> 
> 
> Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
Click to expand...



No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them. 


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fine idea.
> 
> 
> INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
> 
> 
> A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
> 
> 
> One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
> 
> 
> Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
> 
> 
> I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
> 
> 
> No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

More proof of insanity and paranoia on the right:

Franklin Graham warns US may never recover from ‘catastrophic’ Equality Act during insane diatribe



> *Franklin Graham* is waging war against the *Equality Act*, legislation that would merely extend the already-existing Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people in areas such as housing, credit, education, and public accommodations.
> 
> Graham went on an insane diatribe in the July/August edition of his _Decision Magazine_, calling the fight against equality “A Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”





> *According to Graham, were the Equality Act, which passed the House in May and is languishing in the Senate, ever to become law, it would be, he warns, “a nightmare from which this nation may never recove*r.”



The man is one sick mother!


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More proof of insanity and paranoia on the right:
> 
> Franklin Graham warns US may never recover from ‘catastrophic’ Equality Act during insane diatribe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Franklin Graham* is waging war against the *Equality Act*, legislation that would merely extend the already-existing Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people in areas such as housing, credit, education, and public accommodations.
> 
> Graham went on an insane diatribe in the July/August edition of his _Decision Magazine_, calling the fight against equality “A Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *According to Graham, were the Equality Act, which passed the House in May and is languishing in the Senate, ever to become law, it would be, he warns, “a nightmare from which this nation may never recove*r.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The man is one sick mother!
Click to expand...


  Nearly everything that Mr. Graham wrote in his article is entirely correct, albeit with a possible slight touch of hyperbole.

  It is, of course, no surprise at all to see your source, RawStory, engaging in exactly the sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty that we know to expect of such a source, going so far even as to claim that Mr. Graham was _“literally”_ saying something that was not at all what he said.

  What is it about degenerate leftist filth such as yourself, and the word _“literally”_, that you are so damn ignorant that you do not understand what that word actually means.

  An honest reading both of Mr. Graham's original article, and of RawStory's account thereof, is quite sufficient to show any sane reader where the true madness lies.  [_Hint:  It's on the same side that is confused about the differences between men and women, and why these differences matter._]


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fine idea.
> 
> 
> INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
> 
> 
> A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
> 
> 
> One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
> 
> 
> Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
> 
> 
> I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
> 
> 
> No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
Click to expand...




1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!!  To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fine idea.
> 
> 
> INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
> 
> 
> A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
> 
> 
> One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
> 
> 
> Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
> 
> 
> I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
> 
> 
> No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
Click to expand...

Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.

And here again, you are offering nothing that resembles facts or logic that can help your failed argument that there is justification for banning same sex marriage. I called you a mindless bigot because you don't seem to be bright enough to see that pathetic failure of every aspect of your argument. I think that we have to do it again, and keep doing it until it sinks in

You tried the argument that gays people should not marry because they do not reproduce based on your assertion that the central reason for marriage is to "get the father to stick around and provide" .I confronted you with the question of whether or not opposite sex couples who could not reproduce naturally should be allowed to marry to which you responded that fathering children is not a requirement for marriage. Apparently it is only a requirement for gay people according to you.
You then ran like hell from your "procreation "crap" never to revisit it.

You then fell back on your appeal to tradition .Marriage has been between one man and one women for a millennium 

When asked if you want to preserve all traditions related to marriage such as women as property and marriage being between two people of the same race, you actually, much to my amazement , said that you were opposed to interracial marriage. At least your consistent, but you did not address the role and status of women. I can only imagine.

You stated that you are opposed to same sex marriage because of the different traditional roles that men and women bring to a relationship. However, you refused to deal with the fact that in most heterosexual relationships, women are increasingly doing all of the same things that men do, but you have no problem with whatever gender role conflict if any that might entail

When asked what negative or unexpected consequences same sex marriage has had, you stated that it is too soon to tell and speculated- without evidence- that you doubt that same sex couples can function as well as opposite sex couples and provide the same level of nurturance to children.. I pointed out that the Netherlands has had same sex marriage for 18 years and asked you to document the societal decline that you predict. I also provided evident that children of same sex couples do just as well as others. You have had nothing further to say on either count.

You have derided the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage claiming that the bans imposed by the states were not arbitrary and that there was a reason for them.. But the only reason that you could come up with was your appeal to tradition fallacy. 

You also claimed that it was an abuse of the courts to go that rout as opposed to legislation All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe

Have a good day


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fine idea.
> 
> 
> INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.
> 
> 
> A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.
> 
> 
> One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.
> 
> 
> Too bad that your side decided to not do that.
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
> 
> 
> I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
> 
> 
> No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
Click to expand...



I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.


But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
> 
> 
> I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
> 
> 
> No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
Click to expand...

Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. ???You most certainly are  afraid  of the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.
> 
> 
> I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.
> 
> 
> No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
Click to expand...




I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages. 


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest. 


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
Click to expand...

You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.

You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.
> 
> You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.
Click to expand...


I'm pathetic?


Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?


LOL!!!! 


Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.
> 
> You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pathetic?
> 
> 
> Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?
Click to expand...


I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.
> 
> You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pathetic?
> 
> 
> Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



The record  does speak for itself. 


I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.



You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that. 


YOu refused.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.
> 
> You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pathetic?
> 
> 
> Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The record  does speak for itself.
> 
> 
> I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that.
> 
> 
> YOu refused.
Click to expand...


 Horseshit What point was that?  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.
> 
> You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pathetic?
> 
> 
> Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The record  does speak for itself.
> 
> 
> I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that.
> 
> 
> YOu refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit What point was that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




Your point about traditions evolving. 

It was a very good point. I had a good response. 


Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.


So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about. 


We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points  that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where  you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...
> 
> All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
Click to expand...

Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can  see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging  I'll be happy to.
> 
> You are pathetic and your accusations  against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up.  You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and  quitting while your behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pathetic?
> 
> 
> Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The record  does speak for itself.
> 
> 
> I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that.
> 
> 
> YOu refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit What point was that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about traditions evolving.
> 
> It was a very good point. I had a good response.
> 
> 
> Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.
Click to expand...

Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling 

I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights. 

YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.
> 
> 
> 2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.
> 
> 3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.
> 
> 4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me.  Hint: it failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO
Click to expand...


POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?


lol!!!!



I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pathetic?
> 
> 
> Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The record  does speak for itself.
> 
> 
> I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that.
> 
> 
> YOu refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit What point was that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about traditions evolving.
> 
> It was a very good point. I had a good response.
> 
> 
> Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling
> 
> I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights.
> 
> YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.
Click to expand...





You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.

Your support for that, was a collection of assertions supported primarily by your willful obtuseness when presented with the massive, millennium long development of Marriage, with tons of well supported reasons.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude!!  You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly  beaten down.....y
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?
> 
> 
> lol!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
Click to expand...

No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.

All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity 

Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.

I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING! 

I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe it and I also believe that you are either delusional or a pathological liar. I will not continue to engage in this idiotic pissing match. The record speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The record  does speak for itself.
> 
> 
> I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that.
> 
> 
> YOu refused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit What point was that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about traditions evolving.
> 
> It was a very good point. I had a good response.
> 
> 
> Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling
> 
> I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights.
> 
> YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> Your support for that, was a collection of assertions supported primarily by your willful obtuseness when presented with the massive, millennium long development of Marriage, with tons of well supported reasons.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? That is just word salad ! It is not hardly a legal argument and yet another appeal to tradition which does not trump the constitution. What are those "tons of well supported reasons" again? You continue to display your pathetic inability to engage in a rational debate using facts and logic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.


I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.
> 
> 
> But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?
> 
> 
> lol!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.
> 
> All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity
> 
> Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.
> 
> I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!
> 
> I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
Click to expand...



Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The record  does speak for itself.
> 
> 
> I debated these points with your for over a week. For you to conclude that I am suddenly afraid to do so, shows that you are the dishonest one here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a new point, that would actually move the discussion forward. I want(ed) to focus on that.
> 
> 
> YOu refused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit What point was that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about traditions evolving.
> 
> It was a very good point. I had a good response.
> 
> 
> Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling
> 
> I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights.
> 
> YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> Your support for that, was a collection of assertions supported primarily by your willful obtuseness when presented with the massive, millennium long development of Marriage, with tons of well supported reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about? That is just word salad ! It is not hardly a legal argument and yet another appeal to tradition which does not trump the constitution. What are those "tons of well supported reasons" again? You continue to display your pathetic inability to engage in a rational debate using facts and logic.
Click to expand...




They are the reasons we went over, again and again.


There is no reason to rehash them. I presented documentation of the evolution of marriage, and you just sort of dismissed it, and reasserted your original claim(s).


You want to do that again, go ahead, you don't really need me for it. Just reread my old posts and write up "replies".


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?
Click to expand...



THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.


Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.


So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.


----------



## WinterBorn

This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal.  If you don't like it you can leave".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are  afraid  the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?
> 
> 
> lol!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.
> 
> All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity
> 
> Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.
> 
> I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!
> 
> I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".
Click to expand...

Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?

 Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?

You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit What point was that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about traditions evolving.
> 
> It was a very good point. I had a good response.
> 
> 
> Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling
> 
> I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights.
> 
> YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> Your support for that, was a collection of assertions supported primarily by your willful obtuseness when presented with the massive, millennium long development of Marriage, with tons of well supported reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about? That is just word salad ! It is not hardly a legal argument and yet another appeal to tradition which does not trump the constitution. What are those "tons of well supported reasons" again? You continue to display your pathetic inability to engage in a rational debate using facts and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are the reasons we went over, again and again.
> 
> 
> There is no reason to rehash them. I presented documentation of the evolution of marriage, and you just sort of dismissed it, and reasserted your original claim(s).
> 
> 
> You want to do that again, go ahead, you don't really need me for it. Just reread my old posts and write up "replies".
Click to expand...

What??! You presented documentation of the evolution of marriage? You presented your opinion that marriage came about as  a means of getting  the male to provide for the family and be a father to the children that they will have. You also expressed your view that it  should still be that way and that gay couples should not be able to marry because they don't "reproduce"  However, your hypocrisy  was  exposed when you slipped up and stated that it's ok for opposite sex couples who cannot have children to marry  because reproducing is not a requirement for marriage! Remember?

Now, getting back to the history of marriage, the nature of  which you seem to think has always been the same. This is what a documented history looks like.

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

It clearly has been evolving almost constantly and same sex marriage can be seen as a logical next step.



> .....as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]
> 
> That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.
> 
> From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.





> *12. Partnership of equals*
> 
> By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.
> 
> *13. Gay marriage gains ground*
> 
> Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.



Continue reading  History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts


----------



## WinterBorn

The biggest thing about same sex marriage is why are people so adamantly against it?

If a gay couple lives together, I don't see anyone getting mad.   But if they have a ceremony and get the same gov't benefits, people lose their minds.   Why does it matter?  It has absolutely no effect on anyone, especially on anyone elses marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.
> 
> 
> So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.
Click to expand...

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!! 

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

WinterBorn said:


> The biggest thing about same sex marriage is why are people so adamantly against it?
> 
> If a gay couple lives together, I don't see anyone getting mad.   But if they have a ceremony and get the same gov't benefits, people lose their minds.   Why does it matter?  It has absolutely no effect on anyone, especially on anyone elses marriage.


I have asked that question many times in may ways and the number of bullshit answers that I've good could fill a large book- and none of them hold water.


----------



## Correll

WinterBorn said:


> This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal.  If you don't like it you can leave".




Prog is the one that brought it up. He is the one flipping out, because he can't defend his position, not me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal.  If you don't like it you can leave".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prog is the one that brought it up. He is the one flipping out, because he can't defend his position, not me.
Click to expand...

You are so fucking delusional!! Not hardly flipping out. I'm having fun toying with your dumb ass.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?
> 
> 
> lol!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.
> 
> All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity
> 
> Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.
> 
> I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!
> 
> I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?
> 
> Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?
> 
> You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.
Click to expand...



It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time. 

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about traditions evolving.
> 
> It was a very good point. I had a good response.
> 
> 
> Instead of addressing my response, you decided to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> So much that now you are presenting as forgetting what we were talking about.
> 
> 
> We spent over a week on your previous claims. No honest person would claim I was afraid of discussing those.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right. Your "very good point" was that when traditions change - there should be legislation if laws are to be changed to correspond to evolving traditions -as opposed to court ruling
> 
> I countered by citing the long established principle of judicial review, that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights including due process and equal protection under the law to the states, requiring them to abide by the constitution , and the fact that some state legislatures would never act to protect certain constitutional rights.
> 
> YOU responded to NONE of that, So, don't tell me how you are trying to have a serious debate while I'm not. That is just a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> Your support for that, was a collection of assertions supported primarily by your willful obtuseness when presented with the massive, millennium long development of Marriage, with tons of well supported reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about? That is just word salad ! It is not hardly a legal argument and yet another appeal to tradition which does not trump the constitution. What are those "tons of well supported reasons" again? You continue to display your pathetic inability to engage in a rational debate using facts and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are the reasons we went over, again and again.
> 
> 
> There is no reason to rehash them. I presented documentation of the evolution of marriage, and you just sort of dismissed it, and reasserted your original claim(s).
> 
> 
> You want to do that again, go ahead, you don't really need me for it. Just reread my old posts and write up "replies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What??! You presented documentation of the evolution of marriage? You presented your opinion that marriage came about as  a means of getting  the male to provide for the family and be a father to the children that they will have. You also expressed your view that it  should still be that way and that gay couples should not be able to marry because they don't "reproduce"  However, your hypocrisy  was  exposed when you slipped up and stated that it's ok for opposite sex couples who cannot have children to marry  because reproducing is not a requirement for marriage! Remember?
> 
> Now, getting back to the history of marriage, the nature of  which you seem to think has always been the same. This is what a documented history looks like.
> 
> History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
> 
> It clearly has been evolving almost constantly and same sex marriage can be seen as a logical next step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]
> 
> That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.
> 
> From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *12. Partnership of equals*
> 
> By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.
> 
> *13. Gay marriage gains ground*
> 
> Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Continue reading  History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts
Click to expand...





1. Yes. I presented a nice summary of the conventional wisdom on the topic and invited you to ask for further clarification if you doubted anything specific. I don't recall anything of merit in your response.


2. THe ideal of a father and a stay at home mother, is, imo, the best model. 

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me. 

4.  Correct. Producing children has almost never been a requirement of marriage. That does not undermine that fact that Marriage is an institution designed to get the to stay and provide. Your obtuseness here does not reflect well on you. You are unable to even explain why you think this is an issue.


5. You got a point to make about the history of marriage, make it. A link does not cut it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Read post 855 and tell the class how many of those points you actually responded to. Never mind, I will tell them ZERO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?
> 
> 
> lol!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.
> 
> All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity
> 
> Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.
> 
> I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!
> 
> I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?
> 
> Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?
> 
> You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
Click to expand...

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.
> 
> 
> So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!
> 
> And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.
> 
> You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.
Click to expand...




1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where someone should remind the nutcases "It is legal.  If you don't like it you can leave".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prog is the one that brought it up. He is the one flipping out, because he can't defend his position, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so fucking delusional!! Not hardly flipping out. I'm having fun toying with your dumb ass.
Click to expand...




Your hysterical reaction is clear to anyone reading your posts.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> POST EIGHT HUNDRED?! You really pretending to have missed the first couple of dozen times I addressed every single point you made?
> 
> 
> lol!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.
> 
> 
> The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.
> 
> 
> You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.
> 
> All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity
> 
> Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.
> 
> I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!
> 
> I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?
> 
> Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?
> 
> You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
Click to expand...



Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do. 


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.
> 
> 
> So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!
> 
> And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.
> 
> You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.
> 
> 2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.
> 
> 
> 3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.
Click to expand...

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have not discussed the issue honestly at all .You are delusional if you think that you have! You have still not addressed my points regarding the proper role of the courts  and the principal of judiciary review.
> 
> All that you do is whine and complain about how I won't debate honestly while you never have anything meaningful to contribute. Ok, we'll move on from the legal aspects of same sex marriage and the proper way to change the law since that discussion is apparently beyond your intellectual capacity
> 
> Here is another example of your unwillingness and inability to engage in honest debate. At one point you stated something to the effect that you doubt that same sex couples can provide a nurturing environment for children equal to that of opposite sex couples.
> 
> I responded wit factual dated that refuted that claim. You failed to respond at all.!! You had no rebuttal or defense for your baseless assertion so just walked away hoping that it would be forgotten. DO YOU CALL THAT DEBATING!
> 
> I am not  pretending that you are afraid to debate. I am DOCUMENTING the fact that you are afraid to debate and that you have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?
> 
> Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?
> 
> You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
Click to expand...

*Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
*Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> 3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.


Oh really??  You didn’t post this quote in # 636??



> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> *At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. *Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.*


*And....*


> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity*. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.*




If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay* Heritage Foundation*  who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children

And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position

No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".

You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation   I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children. 

In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles -  while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!!   As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy


I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote  regarding the Heritage piece:



> One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as* husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*."



Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim that the judicial review was justified because the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.
> 
> 
> So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!
> 
> And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.
> 
> You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.
> 
> 2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.
> 
> 
> 3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.
> 
> Structure of a Logical Argument
> 
> Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
> 
> Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
> 
> In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
> 
> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
> 
> Learn this and try again fool.
Click to expand...



And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated that the judicial review DETERMIND that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary. Got that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.
> 
> 
> So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!
> 
> And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.
> 
> You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.
> 
> 2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.
> 
> 
> 3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.
> 
> Structure of a Logical Argument
> 
> Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
> 
> Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
> 
> In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
> 
> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
> 
> Learn this and try again fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And many of your premises are false.
> 
> 
> For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.
> 
> 
> That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.
Click to expand...

What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.


----------



## K9Buck

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion



Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism has infected science to the point that we can't trust more recent "science".
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?
> 
> Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?
> 
> You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
Click to expand...




I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really??  You didn’t post this quote in # 636??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> *At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. *Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And....*
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity*. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay* Heritage Foundation*  who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children
> 
> And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position
> 
> No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".
> 
> You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation   I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.
> 
> In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles -  while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!!   As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy
> 
> 
> I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote  regarding the Heritage piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as* husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!
Click to expand...





1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for. 


Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.



2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).


I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument. 


Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?




3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat is also your personal position, that dodge is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Also, I demonstrated that the "restrictions" were not arbitrary, and indeed, does not even seem to have been considerations in the development of Marriage.
> 
> 
> So, that is bullshit, whether it is you saying, it, or the courts, or both.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!
> 
> And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.
> 
> You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.
> 
> 2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.
> 
> 
> 3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.
> 
> Structure of a Logical Argument
> 
> Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
> 
> Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
> 
> In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
> 
> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
> 
> Learn this and try again fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And many of your premises are false.
> 
> 
> For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.
> 
> 
> That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?
> 
> Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.
Click to expand...





Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then? 


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

K9Buck said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?
Click to expand...

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. People are entitled to their opinions.  But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group -  just because  you have some religious or moral bug up your ass. I hope that answers you question.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant  fucking retort! Just brilliant!  Is that supposed to refute the study that I posted showing that children of same sex couples do as well as other kids?
> 
> Is that the entirety of your effort to defend your expressed doubt- based on nothing- that same sex couples can nurture children as well as  others?
> 
> You're just continually embarrassing yourself with this crap  but lack the self awareness to know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit. 

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really??  You didn’t post this quote in # 636??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> *At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. *Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And....*
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity*. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay* Heritage Foundation*  who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children
> 
> And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position
> 
> No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".
> 
> You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation   I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.
> 
> In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles -  while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!!   As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy
> 
> 
> I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote  regarding the Heritage piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as* husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.
> 
> 
> Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).
> 
> 
> I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.
Click to expand...


Is this load of horseshit somehow supposed to be a response to the fact that I exposed you hypocrisy and bigotry by showing that you think that gays should not marry because they can't reproduce, but have not problems with straight couples who can't have a child naturally getting married.?

And you ask:



> Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?



I told you -I never said that!! It is not something that I believe. You are creating a strawman and grossly misrepresenting me!

And you state:



> 3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone



Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency!!  And stupid!  Are you saying that gays being part of "the marriage club" do not serve that interest of marriage? Another admission of bigotry!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!
> 
> And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.
> 
> You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.
> 
> 2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.
> 
> 
> 3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.
> 
> Structure of a Logical Argument
> 
> Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
> 
> Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
> 
> In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
> 
> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
> 
> Learn this and try again fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And many of your premises are false.
> 
> 
> For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.
> 
> 
> That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?
> 
> Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?
> 
> 
> (Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!


----------



## K9Buck

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group -  just because  you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.



I disagree with your definition.  There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs.  I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage.  That doesn't make them a bigot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

K9Buck said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group -  just because  you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your definition.  There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs.  I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage.  That doesn't make them a bigot.
Click to expand...

If they stand in their way, or shun them it most certainly does make them a bigot. By the way, there are also Christians who accept and support gay people.


----------



## K9Buck

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group -  just because  you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your definition.  There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs.  I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage.  That doesn't make them a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they stand in their way, or shun them it most certainly does make them a bigot. By the way, there are also Christians who accept and support gay people.
Click to expand...


Well, now you're changing your definition of bigotry.  First you said that, one who stands in the way of gay-marriage, is a bigot.  Now you're saying that if they ''shun'' gay people, they're a bigot.  

Here is a definition I found and which I believe to be accurate.  Your definition of a bigot seems to be anyone you dislike or who expresses a view that differs from yours.  In fact, you sound like a bigot yourself.  

*Bigot | Definition of Bigot by Merriam-Webster*

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.


----------



## 22lcidw

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
Click to expand...

When all of the agendas have come to pass we were told things would be much better. One agenda after another either passed by law or forced on people. Well they are not better. So traditional marriage is a legit issue. People today and for some decades do not want to put up with marriage. It is difficult at times. It is not pushing it. Give people the choice of not paying for others. At least in a limited fashion. Penalizing someone for following the rules of humanity that has lasted for thousands of years is global suicide. Fixing it by giving more benefits while massively increasing payouts to those who do not follow rules is a death route also in a culture that is moving towards total socialism and communism.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

22lcidw said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When all of the agendas have come to pass we were told things would be much better. One agenda after another either passed by law or forced on people. Well they are not better. So traditional marriage is a legit issue. People today and for some decades do not want to put up with marriage. It is difficult at times. It is not pushing it. Give people the choice of not paying for others. At least in a limited fashion. Penalizing someone for following the rules of humanity that has lasted for thousands of years is global suicide. Fixing it by giving more benefits while massively increasing payouts to those who do not follow rules is a death route also in a culture that is moving towards total socialism and communism.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you jabbering about?  Paying for others? Massive payouts? What exactly is same sex marriage costing you and how?


----------



## K9Buck

My view is that the government should have NOTHING to do with marriage.  Marriage should be a private matter between private citizens and the private organization in which they belong who will recognize their marriage.  I have no problem with same-sex marriage or multiple people being ''married''.  It doesn't affect anyone else but them, so why should anyone else care?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

K9Buck said:


> My view is that the government should have NOTHING to do with marriage.  Marriage should be a private matter between private citizens and the private organization in which they belong who will recognize their marriage.  I have no problem with same-sex marriage or multiple people being ''married''.  It doesn't affect anyone else but them, so why should anyone else care?


Yes, yes. I have heard it all before. Government out of marriage. However, I have never heard anyone explain how that would be accomplished or what it would look like in reality. True, there was a time when marriage was a private affair, but that was then and this is now. Government is inextricably intertwined with marriage for better or worse.

But we are getting off topic here . If you want to discuss the rightful role of government in marriage you should start a thread about it. The topic here is discrimination under the current system that we have.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

K9Buck said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group -  just because  you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your definition.  There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs.  I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage.  That doesn't make them a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they stand in their way, or shun them it most certainly does make them a bigot. By the way, there are also Christians who accept and support gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now you're changing your definition of bigotry.  First you said that, one who stands in the way of gay-marriage, is a bigot.  Now you're saying that if they ''shun'' gay people, they're a bigot.
> 
> Here is a definition I found and which I believe to be accurate.  Your definition of a bigot seems to be anyone you dislike or who expresses a view that differs from yours.  In fact, you sound like a bigot yourself.
> 
> *Bigot | Definition of Bigot by Merriam-Webster*
> 
> Definition of BIGOT
> Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Click to expand...

First of all I changed nothing .I said that anyone who stands in the way of marriage or shuns people....is a bigot. But I am not going to get into a pissing match over the definition of bigot. It's just a worn so save your Webster's stuff. Bottom line is that discriminating-or advocating discrimination is morally reprehensible. That entails anything that seeks to make a persons life harder, to marginalize or demean that person or to deprive a person of  freedoms that other enjoy based on arbitrary and capricious ideas of what you think is acceptable.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

22lcidw said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When all of the agendas have come to pass we were told things would be much better. One agenda after another either passed by law or forced on people. Well they are not better. So traditional marriage is a legit issue. People today and for some decades do not want to put up with marriage. It is difficult at times. It is not pushing it. Give people the choice of not paying for others. At least in a limited fashion. Penalizing someone for following the rules of humanity that has lasted for thousands of years is global suicide. Fixing it by giving more benefits while massively increasing payouts to those who do not follow rules is a death route also in a culture that is moving towards total socialism and communism.
Click to expand...

PS . Where in the constitution does it provide for a cost -benefit analysis as part of determining if a person or a group is entitled to due process and equal protection under the law?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. People are entitled to their opinions.  But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group -  just because  you have some religious or moral bug up your ass. I hope that answers you question.
Click to expand...


  For example, depriving groups of pedophilic perverts of the rights and freedoms to sexually manipulate, brainwash, and exploit other people's children.


----------



## K9Buck

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> [...save your Webster's stuff.



LOL.  Ok.  So everyone in this thread needs to understand that, for the purposes of this thread, the definition of a ''bigot'' is anyone who holds an opinion with which you disagree.  Thanks for the laugh.  I'll ''unwatch'' the thread now.  Good look with your crusade!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

K9Buck said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...save your Webster's stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Ok.  So everyone in this thread needs to understand that, for the purposes of this thread, the definition of a ''bigot'' is anyone who holds an opinion with which you disagree.  Thanks for the laugh.  I'll ''unwatch'' the thread now.  Good look with your crusade!
Click to expand...


Take the time away to work on your reading comprehension 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent.  I want to  keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....
Click to expand...


I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.
> 
> Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
Click to expand...



Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that. 


(rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology. 


And you are dishonest.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really??  You didn’t post this quote in # 636??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> *At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. *Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And....*
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity*. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay* Heritage Foundation*  who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children
> 
> And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position
> 
> No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".
> 
> You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation   I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.
> 
> In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles -  while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!!   As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy
> 
> 
> I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote  regarding the Heritage piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as* husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.
> 
> 
> Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).
> 
> 
> I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this load of horseshit somehow supposed to be a response to the fact that I exposed you hypocrisy and bigotry by showing that you think that gays should not marry because they can't reproduce, but have not problems with straight couples who can't have a child naturally getting married.?
> 
> And you ask:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you -I never said that!! It is not something that I believe. You are creating a strawman and grossly misrepresenting me!
> 
> And you state:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency!!  And stupid!  Are you saying that gays being part of "the marriage club" do not serve that interest of marriage? Another admission of bigotry!
Click to expand...





Dude. Just calling shit, "an admission of bigotry, is not an argument. 


I seriously addressed your points, and you mostly just ranted. 


AND, I know that, in your mind, you refuted everything I said, and will be referencing this later, as " I dealt with those issues,"  or " i proved you were a bigot" or some such shit.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is *ALSO*,  your opinion. Stop being weird.
> 
> 2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.
> 
> 
> 3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.
> 
> 
> 
> I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.
> 
> Structure of a Logical Argument
> 
> Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
> 
> Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
> 
> In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
> 
> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
> 
> Learn this and try again fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And many of your premises are false.
> 
> 
> For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.
> 
> 
> That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?
> 
> Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?
> 
> 
> (Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!
Click to expand...



Your position is not credible. 


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.
Click to expand...


  Indeed.  That's what this thread is about, after all—redefining _“marriage”_ to mean something that it has never meant in all of human history.


----------



## Correll

Bob Blaylock said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  That's what this thread is about, after all—redefining _“marriage”_ to mean something that it has never meant in all of human history.
Click to expand...




He is all over the place. He makes claims about the foundation of marriage, and then is completely confused when I respond with references to when and how marriage, Western Marriage was developed.


Talking to a lib, is like trying to nail fog to a wall.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Correll said:


> Talking to a lib, is like trying to nail fog to a wall.



  It's sometimes rather like competing in the Special Olympics—even when you win, you're still a retard, just for letting yourself be drawn into it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.
> 
> Structure of a Logical Argument
> 
> Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:
> 
> Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C
> 
> In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.
> 
> http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
> 
> Learn this and try again fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many of your premises are false.
> 
> 
> For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.
> 
> 
> That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?
> 
> Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?
> 
> 
> (Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not credible.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.
Click to expand...

You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of  what. ?  Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
Click to expand...

Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  That's what this thread is about, after all—redefining _“marriage”_ to mean something that it has never meant in all of human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the place. He makes claims about the foundation of marriage, and then is completely confused when I respond with references to when and how marriage, Western Marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Talking to a lib, is like trying to nail fog to a wall.
Click to expand...

Talking to you is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how I move, you shit all over the board and strut around as though you won.

Enjoy your banter with your fuck buddy Bob. You deserve each other


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really??  You didn’t post this quote in # 636??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
> 
> The Evolution of Marriage
> 
> *At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. *Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And....*
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity*. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay* Heritage Foundation*  who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children
> 
> And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position
> 
> No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".
> 
> You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation   I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.
> 
> In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles -  while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!!   As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy
> 
> 
> I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote  regarding the Heritage piece:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as* husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.
> 
> 
> Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).
> 
> 
> I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this load of horseshit somehow supposed to be a response to the fact that I exposed you hypocrisy and bigotry by showing that you think that gays should not marry because they can't reproduce, but have not problems with straight couples who can't have a child naturally getting married.?
> 
> And you ask:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you -I never said that!! It is not something that I believe. You are creating a strawman and grossly misrepresenting me!
> 
> And you state:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency!!  And stupid!  Are you saying that gays being part of "the marriage club" do not serve that interest of marriage? Another admission of bigotry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Just calling shit, "an admission of bigotry, is not an argument.
> 
> 
> I seriously addressed your points, and you mostly just ranted.
> 
> 
> AND, I know that, in your mind, you refuted everything I said, and will be referencing this later, as " I dealt with those issues,"  or " i proved you were a bigot" or some such shit.
Click to expand...


----------



## Crixus

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...



But you are the only one who ever says anything about it. Maybe you got a problem with gay marriage?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many of your premises are false.
> 
> 
> For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.
> 
> 
> That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?
> 
> Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?
> 
> 
> (Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not credible.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.
Click to expand...



I'm not going to go back and cut and paste. 


If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.
> 
> 
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
Click to expand...




You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me. 


Your spin on it is noted.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist [sic] my time on your stupid shit



  It's notable that you somehow think you can cover for the inherent wrongness of your position, by presuming to manipulate the rules by which your position is to be debated.

  It doesn't work.  Your position is simply wrong.  It's wrong logically, it's wrong ethically, it's wrong morally—in every way that it is possible to be wrong, it is wrong.  It doesn't matter by what rules you try to defend or debate it; it's still just as wrong.

  About your only argument is to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot; ironic since everyone can see that you are by far, one of the very worst bigots on this entire forum; driven by a rather extreme form of the Dunning-Kruger effect that makes you perceive your intellectual and moral vapidity as some form of superiority.

  This thread, alone, is now approaching a thousand posts, with you trying to argue that black is white, that down is up, that darkness is light, that evil is good; continuing to lose the argument as it is impossible to do otherwise; and yet in your hubris and in your madness, you imagine that you are winning.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What !! I  "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?
> 
> Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that,  and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!!  I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?
> 
> 
> (Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not credible.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?
Click to expand...

You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your  incompetence and stupidity


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Begging the question Logical Fallacy*
> *Definition:* A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed.* Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.* Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.
> 
> You're   SOOOOO lousy at this!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?
> 
> 
> (Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not credible.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your  incompetence and stupidity
Click to expand...



I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games. 


You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word. 


So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.
> 
> 
> My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.
Click to expand...



Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.

That is not "nothing".


Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them. 



Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....



SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Most Liberals are low class amoral people. 
They want to force their backwards culture on to mainstream society.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege.   Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not credible.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your  incompetence and stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.
> 
> 
> You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.
> 
> 
> So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)
Click to expand...

My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not credible.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your  incompetence and stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.
> 
> 
> You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.
> 
> 
> So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays
Click to expand...



Why are you unable to accurately address what I actually say? 


1. I said that Marriage is about getting the Father to stay and provide. 

2. That that is what Marriage is about, does not require that every married couple have children. Just how ignorant of history are you pretending to be?


You are trying to take a founding idea, and pretend that it is a set of regulations, and then claim any imagined violation, is somehow invalidating the founding idea. 



I have netflix for my family. That sometimes, visitors watch it too, does not challenge the fact that I got netflix and pay for it, for my family.


Your logic, has no logic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are no one to talk about credibility! Show me where and when I suggested that childless couples undermine marriage or shut the fuck up! That is so ludicrous!! You are just making shit up to cover the fact that you are loosing this badly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your  incompetence and stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.
> 
> 
> You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.
> 
> 
> So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you unable to accurately address what I actually say?
> 
> 
> 1. I said that Marriage is about getting the Father to stay and provide.
> 
> 2. That that is what Marriage is about, does not require that every married couple have children. Just how ignorant of history are you pretending to be?
> 
> 
> You are trying to take a founding idea, and pretend that it is a set of regulations, and then claim any imagined violation, is somehow invalidating the founding idea.
> 
> 
> 
> I have netflix for my family. That sometimes, visitors watch it too, does not challenge the fact that I got netflix and pay for it, for my family.
> 
> 
> Your logic, has no logic.
Click to expand...

Cut the crap already ! It's really very simple. You endorsed the idea that same sex couples should not be able to marry because they don't reproduce, but give opposite sex coupes who can't reproduce  a pass when it comes to that. You have been exposed for the bigot and hypocrite that you are and you can't squirm out of it.

Now I expect that you will fall back on your gender role horseshit which represents  yet another disconnect between the standards that you apply to gay vs. straight couples.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
> 
> That is not "nothing".
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
> 
> 
> 
> SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
Click to expand...

This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting"   that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observation

I'm  willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to.  There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings

Here is more - complete with links and references. I don't have to defend them ,they speak for themselves. What do you have??

1.      The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

*However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along*. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the _Journal of Marriage and Family. __http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm_

*A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: **http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm*


o    *1997-APR:* Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the _Society for Research on Child Development_ during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the _University of Virginia_ and author of one of the new studies, said _"When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies."_ She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of _Birkbeck College_ in the Netherlands, _"...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples."_ There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

o    *1999-APR: *Researcher Fiona Tasker at _Birkbeck College, _UK, published an article in _Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry._ A summary reads: "_There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families._" *14*

o    *2001-APR:* Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the _University of Southern California _studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the _American Sociological Review_, a peer-reviewed journal. *1* They :

§  Discussed "_...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date._"

§  Examined 21 studies which "_almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents.._."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.
> 
> Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
> 
> That is not "nothing".
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
> 
> 
> 
> SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
Click to expand...


*New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents*

by David  Perry

Contributor

Monday Jul 29, 2013

A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples. 

*"Parents’ sexual orientation is not related* *to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes*," confirms Williams Visiting Scholar Abbie Goldberg, who co-authored the study with JuliAnna Z. Smith of the University of Massachusetts. A national think tank at University of California, Los Angeles Law, the Williams Institute conducts independent research relating to sexual orientation, gender identity law, and public policy.

*The study, "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents," analyzed 120 two-parent adoptive families, comprising of 40 same-sex female couples, 35 same-sex male, and 45 different-sex couples, looking at aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive developments of the children. 
*
For all couples, the child was under 1.5 years of age, and was the first and only child adopted. The findings are consistent with an emerging body of research showing that parents’ sexual orientation are not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes, and the Williams Institute study is unique in that it is longitudinal - i.e. follows couples over time - and includes adopted children, as well as includes three types of parents: gay, lesbian, and heterosexual (Goldberg explains how past same-sex parent studies tended to focus on lesbian parents).


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to go back and cut and paste.
> 
> 
> If that was not your intent, then what was your intent?
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to cut and past because there is nothing to cut and past to support your moronic allegation. This is just another diversion in a failed attempt to mask your  incompetence and stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to cut and paste, because I am not interesting in playing gotcha games.
> 
> 
> You claim that was not your intended point. Fine. I take you at your word.
> 
> 
> So, what was your intended point? (in repeatedly bringing up childless married couples)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point, which I think that you got -but are to dishonest to admit- was to expose your hypocrisy . You have been blathering about how a man and a women making babies together in central to marriage. The was the point of the Heritage Foundation screed that you posted and endorsed. But when it comes to heterosexual couples who do not or cannot have children, you have no problem with them getting married. You promote a double standard for straights and gays
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you unable to accurately address what I actually say?
> 
> 
> 1. I said that Marriage is about getting the Father to stay and provide.
> 
> 2. That that is what Marriage is about, does not require that every married couple have children. Just how ignorant of history are you pretending to be?
> 
> 
> You are trying to take a founding idea, and pretend that it is a set of regulations, and then claim any imagined violation, is somehow invalidating the founding idea.
> 
> 
> 
> I have netflix for my family. That sometimes, visitors watch it too, does not challenge the fact that I got netflix and pay for it, for my family.
> 
> 
> Your logic, has no logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the crap already ! It's really very simple. You endorsed the idea that same sex couples should not be able to marry because they don't reproduce, but give opposite sex coupes who can't reproduce  a pass when it comes to that. You have been exposed for the bigot and hypocrite that you are and you can't squirm out of it.
> 
> Now I expect that you will fall back on your gender role horseshit which represents  yet another disconnect between the standards that you apply to gay vs. straight couples.
Click to expand...




I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again. 


Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.


You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort  of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid. 


I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history. 


Upon that misrepresentation of my position, you then build, your "argument" and declare yourself the "winner" and call me all sorts of names. 


But it is all an imbecilic lie. 


KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.
> 
> 
> (rare exceptions for humor,  but what you did there was not funny)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.
> 
> 
> And you are dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
> 
> That is not "nothing".
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
> 
> 
> 
> SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting"   that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observation
> 
> I'm  willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to.  There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings
> ......"
Click to expand...



No, by the time we got to this point, I'm more about just getting you to be clear about what my and your position is. 


Why argue about supporting facts, when we can't even agree about what our positions are?


There is no point.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.


  At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.


You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.



Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Upon that misrepresentation of my position, you then build, your "argument" and declare yourself the "winner" and call me all sorts of names.


I just presented your position as I understand it. You are free to mount a rebuttal .


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...



You are projecting your concerns onto me. 


I support the concept of the nuclear family and think that national policy should have the aim of making it more possible for more people.


IMO, the Lefties who pushed to expand Marriage to include same sex couples, were motivated primarily by their desire to divide the nation against itself, and did not even really try to make any argument in support of their supposed goal.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.
Click to expand...



Again, you are projecting your concerns onto me.


Marriage is based on the "union" of a mother and father", to get the father to stick around and provide.


The question is not why to oppose same sex marriage, but why to support it.


Your primary argument was "arbitrary", which I showed to be false.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.
Click to expand...




YOu cut and pasted quotes that you did not actually read. You could not see them, though your barriers to communication. 


You instead saw, what you wanted to see.


THose messages, your mind created, are on no concern of mine.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
Click to expand...



Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
> 
> That is not "nothing".
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
> 
> 
> 
> SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting"   that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observation
> 
> I'm  willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to.  There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings
> ......"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, by the time we got to this point, I'm more about just getting you to be clear about what my and your position is.
> 
> 
> Why argue about supporting facts, when we can't even agree about what our positions are?
> 
> 
> There is no point.
Click to expand...

What a fucking pathetic cop out! You won't even address the data that I present because you claim that we don't agree on our respective positions? Seriously?

The data speaks for itself. I posted peer reviewed studies that are widely accepted by the scientific community. Your distrust of science does not negate its validity. If you wish to refute the evidence , the burden of proof is on you. Feel free to try to find flaws in the study or evidence of political bias .

As for our respective positions, I just stated what I understand yours to be and why

My position:

I support marriage equality because  the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts

The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age demonstrably total bullshit and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting your concerns onto me.
> 
> 
> I support the concept of the nuclear family and think that national policy should have the aim of making it more possible for more people.
> 
> 
> IMO, the Lefties who pushed to expand Marriage to include same sex couples, were motivated primarily by their desire to divide the nation against itself, and did not even really try to make any argument in support of their supposed goal.
Click to expand...

More of your bizarre horseshit. How do you want to make marriage possible for more people when you want to exclude people. We were motivated by  the desire for equality. The divisiveness is the result of those who opposed us.

And you keep repeating that ignorant horseshit about how we never tried to make a case for same sex marriage as thought the courts just gave in to a request without evidence. That is really fucking stupid! You have never read an opinion of the court or a brief that was presented to the court. You have no fucking idea about what arguments were presented.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are projecting your concerns onto me.
> 
> 
> Marriage is based on the "union" of a mother and father", to get the father to stick around and provide.
> 
> 
> The question is not why to oppose same sex marriage, but why to support it.
> 
> 
> Your primary argument was "arbitrary", which I showed to be false.
Click to expand...

I told you what I support it. You're claim that the bans were not arbitrary are bullshit as I have documented and as are supported by the court


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu cut and pasted quotes that you did not actually read. You could not see them, though your barriers to communication.
> 
> 
> You instead saw, what you wanted to see.
> 
> 
> THose messages, your mind created, are on no concern of mine.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the fuck this means except that you are possibly loosing your mind, Your know, I've decided that your not stupid. To the contrary, you are probobly quite bright and clever, and know exactly what you're doing here. You problem is that I am smarter than you and see through your manipulative games


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
Click to expand...

The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
> 
> 
> Your spin on it is noted.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
> 
> That is not "nothing".
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
> 
> 
> 
> SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting"   that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observation
> 
> I'm  willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to.  There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings
> ......"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, by the time we got to this point, I'm more about just getting you to be clear about what my and your position is.
> 
> 
> Why argue about supporting facts, when we can't even agree about what our positions are?
> 
> 
> There is no point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a fucking pathetic cop out! You won't even address the data that I present because you claim that we don't agree on our respective positions? Seriously?
> 
> The data speaks for itself. I posted peer reviewed studies that are widely accepted by the scientific community. Your distrust of science does not negate its validity. If you wish to refute the evidence , the burden of proof is on you. Feel free to try to find flaws in the study or evidence of political bias .
> 
> As for our respective positions, I just stated what I understand yours to be and why
> 
> My position:
> 
> I support marriage equality because  the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age demonstrably total bullshit and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny .
Click to expand...



The reasons I gave were sound, and I demonstrated that. Your stonewalling in the face of obvious truth, is just dishonesty on your part.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting your concerns onto me.
> 
> 
> I support the concept of the nuclear family and think that national policy should have the aim of making it more possible for more people.
> 
> 
> IMO, the Lefties who pushed to expand Marriage to include same sex couples, were motivated primarily by their desire to divide the nation against itself, and did not even really try to make any argument in support of their supposed goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More of your bizarre horseshit. How do you want to make marriage possible for more people when you want to exclude people. We were motivated by  the desire for equality. The divisiveness is the result of those who opposed us......
Click to expand...




1. Re:Increased nuclear family.  You favor policy to make the one income family more doable, better jobs, less taxes, less celebration of single mother hood, ect. 

2. YOu were not motivated by your desire for "equality" YOu show in your thread title, this is about attacking your enemies, and dividing America.


3. Your motive was made clear by the way you went about it. Opening up, with declaring your position "equality" defines anyone that does not immediately agree with you, as a "bigot" and deserving of being personally attacked and destroyed.  That was NOT the way to actually get results, but more to cause damage to your enemies.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are projecting your concerns onto me.
> 
> 
> Marriage is based on the "union" of a mother and father", to get the father to stick around and provide.
> 
> 
> The question is not why to oppose same sex marriage, but why to support it.
> 
> 
> Your primary argument was "arbitrary", which I showed to be false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I support it. You're claim that the bans were not arbitrary are bullshit as I have documented and as are supported by the court
Click to expand...



Your "Documentation" consisted of purposefully misunderstanding me, and then presenting your misunderstanding as proof of some shit.

And other equally false "points".


You are dishonest, because you know that your position is in the wrong. That is why you are so evasive and muddled all the time, to give yourself wiggle room, when I nail you down, and show your true positions. 


Like when you admitted that part of your argument was that "Society evolves". 


YOu really flipped out, when I called you on that one.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
> 
> 
> You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means"  …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu cut and pasted quotes that you did not actually read. You could not see them, though your barriers to communication.
> 
> 
> You instead saw, what you wanted to see.
> 
> 
> THose messages, your mind created, are on no concern of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what the fuck this means except that you are possibly loosing your mind, Your know, I've decided that your not stupid. To the contrary, you are probobly quite bright and clever, and know exactly what you're doing here. You problem is that I am smarter than you and see through your manipulative games
Click to expand...



I'm not trying to manipulate you. But I will not coddle you for your poor reading comprehension.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime
Click to expand...



THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.


SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
> 
> 
> SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
Click to expand...

I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over


To be clear on my position:


*I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.

* Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.


*Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented


*Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.


Regarding your position


The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.

You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.


You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*


*Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!


*From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*


*It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.


 You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*


*You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.


*You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*

People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit


I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.

Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
> 
> 
> SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over
> 
> 
> To be clear on my position:
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> * Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
> 
> 
> *Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
> 
> 
> Regarding your position
> 
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
> 
> You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
> 
> 
> You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*
> 
> 
> *Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
> 
> 
> *From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> *It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
> 
> 
> You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*
> 
> 
> *You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
> 
> 
> *You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*
> 
> People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
> 
> 
> I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
> 
> Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
Click to expand...




You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
> 
> 
> SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over
> 
> 
> To be clear on my position:
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> * Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
> 
> 
> *Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
> 
> 
> Regarding your position
> 
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
> 
> You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
> 
> 
> You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*
> 
> 
> *Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
> 
> 
> *From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> *It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
> 
> 
> You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*
> 
> 
> *You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
> 
> 
> *You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*
> 
> People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
> 
> 
> I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
> 
> Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.
Click to expand...








Try Again, Dude.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
Click to expand...


Why is it all you faggots attack Christians?  Can't you just stay in your little faggot closets and leave the Christians alone?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
> 
> 
> 
> The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
> 
> 
> SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over
> 
> 
> To be clear on my position:
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> * Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
> 
> 
> *Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
> 
> 
> Regarding your position
> 
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
> 
> You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
> 
> 
> You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*
> 
> 
> *Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
> 
> 
> *From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> *It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
> 
> 
> You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*
> 
> 
> *You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
> 
> 
> *You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*
> 
> People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
> 
> 
> I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
> 
> Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Again, Dude.
Click to expand...




The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
> 
> 
> SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over
> 
> 
> To be clear on my position:
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> * Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
> 
> 
> *Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
> 
> 
> Regarding your position
> 
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
> 
> You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
> 
> 
> You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*
> 
> 
> *Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
> 
> 
> *From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> *It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
> 
> 
> You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*
> 
> 
> *You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
> 
> 
> *You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*
> 
> People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
> 
> 
> I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
> 
> Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Again, Dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.
Click to expand...

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> 
> *An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
> Edited*
> 
> 
> Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
> USMB Rules and Guidelines
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it all you faggots attack Christians?  Can't you just stay in your little faggot closets and leave the Christians alone?
Click to expand...

I don't attack Christians. I attack extremist bigots. And you assumption about by sexuality based on my politics, and support for LGBT people tells me exactly how fucking stupid that you are.

Why don't you bigots and trolls stay under your rocks and bridges and leave gay people alone?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
> 
> 
> SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
> 
> 
> 
> I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over
> 
> 
> To be clear on my position:
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> * Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
> 
> 
> *Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
> 
> 
> Regarding your position
> 
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
> 
> You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
> 
> 
> You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*
> 
> 
> *Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
> 
> 
> *From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> *It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
> 
> 
> You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*
> 
> 
> *You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
> 
> 
> *You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*
> 
> People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
> 
> 
> I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
> 
> Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Again, Dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.
> 
> The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.
> 
> In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with
Click to expand...




If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense, 


then the structure was not arbitrary. 


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics. 


There is a price to paid.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit.  I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is over
> 
> 
> To be clear on my position:
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.*  The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> * Same sex couples’ function as families and  responsible  members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better* than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
> 
> 
> *Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries.* There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
> 
> 
> Regarding your position
> 
> 
> The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
> 
> You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “*men and women are different” *and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, *you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles.* Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
> 
> 
> You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters *“just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process.* In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic  as to why it was an “abuse  of the courts” as you put it,  and in fact *ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.*
> 
> 
> *Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases.* It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage.  Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
> 
> 
> *From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children*.  Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted.   However,  even if you are telling the truth about that, * it’s clear that you  use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as  a reason why they should not marry, At the same time  giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!*
> 
> 
> *It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others*.  When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
> 
> 
> You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me  prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. *Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.*
> 
> 
> *You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children.* The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage”  that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
> 
> 
> *You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination*.  *That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.*
> 
> People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, !* It is people like you who create the division. *You probobly also think that black  people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
> 
> 
> I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here.  I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day _do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to t_ry engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
> 
> Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Again, Dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.
> 
> The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.
> 
> In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,
> 
> 
> then the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.
> 
> 
> Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.
> 
> 
> There is a price to paid.
Click to expand...

That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.

You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Grade: Fail


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument



  Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
Click to expand...

Can you dumb it down a little more. ??  Applying the law includes  striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional  as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage

What is the origin of judicial review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Again, Dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.
> 
> The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.
> 
> In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,
> 
> 
> then the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.
> 
> 
> Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.
> 
> 
> There is a price to paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> Grade: Fail
Click to expand...





Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people, 

that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.


AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.



And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Again, Dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.
> 
> The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.
> 
> In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,
> 
> 
> then the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.
> 
> 
> Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.
> 
> 
> There is a price to paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> Grade: Fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
Click to expand...

Fail

You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review 

Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way

As I said , the  pissing match is over.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.
> 
> The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.
> 
> In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,
> 
> 
> then the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.
> 
> 
> Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.
> 
> 
> There is a price to paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> Grade: Fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
Click to expand...




YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.


Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.


If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.

It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.


And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.


Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary. 



That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you dumb it down a little more. ??  Applying the law includes  striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional  as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage
> 
> What is the origin of judicial review
> 
> Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.
> 
> Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.
Click to expand...


  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at allowing or requiring a sick homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized or treated as being comparable to genuine marriage.  There is not a single word in the Constitution that was written by anyone who would have found the idea to be anything but bizarre, immoral, and unthinkable.

  This was an act of willful corruption, usurpation, and overreach on the part of the courts.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.
> 
> The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact  arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place  that does not exist anymore.
> 
> In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,
> 
> 
> then the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.
> 
> 
> Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.
> 
> 
> There is a price to paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> Grade: Fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
Click to expand...

I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.

The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you dumb it down a little more. ??  Applying the law includes  striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional  as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage
> 
> What is the origin of judicial review
> 
> Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.
> 
> Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at allowing or requiring a sick homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized or treated as being comparable to genuine marriage.  There is not a single word in the Constitution that was written by anyone who would have found the idea to be anything but bizarre, immoral, and unthinkable.
> 
> This was an act of willful corruption, usurpation, and overreach on the part of the courts.
Click to expand...

They executed homosexuals for a long time.


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno

Obergefel was a bad ruling. Just like Roe V. Wade.


----------



## Cosmos

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you dumb it down a little more. ??  Applying the law includes  striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional  as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage
> 
> What is the origin of judicial review
> 
> Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.
> 
> Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at allowing or requiring a sick homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized or treated as being comparable to genuine marriage.  There is not a single word in the Constitution that was written by anyone who would have found the idea to be anything but bizarre, immoral, and unthinkable.
> 
> This was an act of willful corruption, usurpation, and overreach on the part of the courts.
Click to expand...


Like most leftist socialist bullshit, homosexual "marriage" is so good it has to be shoved down our throats by the courts.


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
Click to expand...

So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.
Click to expand...

Nice try using the Rules for Radicals, but I am on to you, you worthless piece of excrement.  
The will of God, I know you dont know what it means, because you hate Christians as much as you hate Jews. but when Lucifer was allowed to walk the land and "tempt" mankind away from God, that was the free will choice.  So over the centuries, man has moved farther away from God, thus allowing Lucifer to get stronger.  We see it really going full force back in the 1960's with rampant sex, drugs and rock and roll, which were all choices, but moving man more towards the barbaric periods of time.  Gays was normalized when it always was a mental illness, because Hollyweird money was going into the government to allow the queers to be seen as typical people.  Then sister wives came on TV normalizing polygamy, then other "reality" tv shows sprung up with children being shown as sex symbols.  Dont try that Sharia Law bull shit, that is just liberalism on steroids, but typical a liberal they are too stupid to know better.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.
Click to expand...

oh as for 2 dudes poking each others ass, or 2 women muff diving, I couldn't give a shit, but when they start parading around, strutting their immoral actions, then demanding I accept them as normal, then I have an issue.  It used to be that they didnt want anyone knowing what they did in their bedroom, so much for that bullshit baldfaced lie.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,
> 
> 
> then the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.
> 
> 
> YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.
> 
> 
> Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you  marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.
> 
> 
> There is a price to paid.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> Grade: Fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...





You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> Obergefel was a bad ruling. Just like Roe V. Wade.


Thank you for sharing your vast legal wisdom and knowledge with us all. I feel so enlightened


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not  the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> Grade: Fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
Click to expand...

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.

Another Fail.

It appears that you are not interested in trying to back up your inane horseshit where you claimed  that m that children raised by same sex couple are not as well nurtured......or that there will be long term negative consequences over gay marriage.


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh as for 2 dudes poking each others ass, or 2 women muff diving, I couldn't give a shit, but when they start parading around, strutting their immoral actions, then demanding I accept them as normal, then I have an issue.  It used to be that they didnt want anyone knowing what they did in their bedroom, so much for that bullshit baldfaced lie.
Click to expand...

What lie are you speaking of? Do you listen to your self? It sounds as though you agree with me. By your own words if they do it in thier bedroom no skin off your nose. As far as offending god travel at your own risk. Judgement is mine sayith the lord. I will let the lord judge, you and I are not qualified. If you do not want to end up in the pit you will let the lord judge as instructed in the bible. I will take the advice of Jesus and practice infinate forgiveness.
Matthew 7:5
Luke 6:37
John 8:7
James 4:11-12
Romans 14:3
Romans 14:10
Galatians 6:1-2


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
> 
> 
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
Click to expand...




Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment. 


A very good reason. 


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there. 


Booyah!


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,
> 
> that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.
> 
> 
> AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.
> 
> 
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> 
> Another Fail.
> 
> It appears that you are not interested in trying to back up your inane horseshit where you claimed  that m that children raised by same sex couple are not as well nurtured......or that there will be long term negative consequences over gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Because of disagreeing BELIEFS about the gender roles and definitions,
that's what makes this a faith based issue.

Thus if you and I are going to be consistent and ethical
about NOT imposing faith based institutions through GOVERNMENT,
then we would treat the beliefs about LGBT orientation and gender
as we insist on keeping Christian beliefs, practices and traditions out of 
public schools and institutions.

Not only are there CHANGES in cultural context,
but there are DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS.

The more consistent way to defend the beliefs and cultural contexts/changes
is to recognize these under FREE EXERCISE AND EXPRESSION under the
First Amendment, where these can neither be prohibited nor established
by govt, so there is NO Discrimination by anyone's beliefs on these matters.

That protects you and others AUTOMATICALLY using arguments that
any Conservative, Christian or Constitutionalist already respects and agrees to uphold.

End of argument. Make it a First Amendment religious freedom issue
and all people of all views and beliefs are already protected. Period.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage.  Meet Brian Brown  of the National Organization for (Straight )  Marriage who is obsessing about  Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that  he can get marriage equality reversed:
> 
> Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch
> 
> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I  guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by  obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.
> 
> The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage.  Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.
> 
> If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.
> 
> However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right.  He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .
> 
> So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're  at it .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
> I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
> It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission.  And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them.  I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east.  Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?
> 
> View attachment 266175
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh as for 2 dudes poking each others ass, or 2 women muff diving, I couldn't give a shit, but when they start parading around, strutting their immoral actions, then demanding I accept them as normal, then I have an issue.  It used to be that they didnt want anyone knowing what they did in their bedroom, so much for that bullshit baldfaced lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lie are you speaking of? Do you listen to your self? It sounds as though you agree with me. By your own words if they do it in thier bedroom no skin off your nose. As far as offending god travel at your own risk. Judgement is mine sayith the lord. I will let the lord judge, you and I are not qualified. If you do not want to end up in the pit you will let the lord judge as instructed in the bible. I will take the advice of Jesus and practice infinate forgiveness.
> Matthew 7:5
> Luke 6:37
> John 8:7
> James 4:11-12
> Romans 14:3
> Romans 14:10
> Galatians 6:1-2
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> 
> Another Fail.
> 
> It appears that you are not interested in trying to back up your inane horseshit where you claimed  that m that children raised by same sex couple are not as well nurtured......or that there will be long term negative consequences over gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear TheProgressivePatriot
> Because of disagreeing BELIEFS about the gender roles and definitions,
> that's what makes this a faith based issue.
> 
> Thus if you and I are going to be consistent and ethical
> about NOT imposing faith based institutions through GOVERNMENT,
> then we would treat the beliefs about LGBT orientation and gender
> as we insist on keeping Christian beliefs, practices and traditions out of
> public schools and institutions.
> 
> Not only are there CHANGES in cultural context,
> but there are DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS.
> 
> The more consistent way to defend the beliefs and cultural contexts/changes
> is to recognize these under FREE EXERCISE AND EXPRESSION under the
> First Amendment, where these can neither be prohibited nor established
> by govt, so there is NO Discrimination by anyone's beliefs on these matters.
> 
> That protects you and others AUTOMATICALLY using arguments that
> any Conservative, Christian or Constitutionalist already respects and agrees to uphold.
> 
> End of argument. Make it a First Amendment religious freedom issue
> and all people of all views and beliefs are already protected. Period.
Click to expand...

Speak English or go back to your planet


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail
> 
> You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review
> 
> Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way
> 
> As I said , the  pissing match is over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
Click to expand...

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.  
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.  
4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.  

Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
Click to expand...

So you do sdupport sharia law!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do sdupport sharia law!
Click to expand...

So you repeat yourself once again, when you know it is the Demonrats who support Sharia and the Bitches of Islam.  You want to be proud in your gayness, go for it, when some Radical decides to attack a bar in Orlando, because you flamers show that this is where you can get bunches of queers together, then suffer the consequences.  If you morons would keep quite about what you do, then no one would know.  But alas liberals love to flaunt their immorality and shove in the face of everyone, even if it kills them.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
Click to expand...



Nor is there anything in the Constitution that mandates obeying the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



*2. Strong executives make their own decisions.



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.” 
Brutus, March 20, 1788 
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do sdupport sharia law!
Click to expand...

Who are you addressing?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

PoliticalChic said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is there anything in the Constitution that mandates obeying the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
> 
> So saith the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Strong executives make their own decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
> 
> So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
> None.
> 
> 
> 
> 4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
> Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
> 
> 
> 5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
> 
> “…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
> Brutus, March 20, 1788
> http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm*
Click to expand...

*Lino Graglia.* Graglia is "one of the most conservative legal academics in the United States.". He is a well known critic of affirmative action and racial quotas, and a critic of some aspects of judicial review, believing that the courts are an illegitimate avenue for securing social change.
*Lino Graglia - Wikipedia*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino_Graglia


----------



## evenflow1969

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.


----------



## PoliticalChic

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also need to make a  case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nor is there anything in the Constitution that mandates obeying the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
> 
> 1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
> 
> So saith the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Strong executives make their own decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.
> 
> So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
> None.
> 
> 
> 
> 4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
> Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.
> 
> 
> 5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:
> 
> “…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
> Brutus, March 20, 1788
> http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Lino Graglia.* Graglia is "one of the most conservative legal academics in the United States.". He is a well known critic of affirmative action and racial quotas, and a critic of some aspects of judicial review, believing that the courts are an illegitimate avenue for securing social change.
> *Lino Graglia - Wikipedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino_Graglia
Click to expand...




*"Lino Graglia.* Graglia is "one of the most conservative legal academics in the United States.".

Only a moron would imagine that a pejorative.
Raise your paw.




"He is a well known critic of affirmative action and racial quotas, and a critic of some aspects of judicial review, believing that the courts are an illegitimate avenue for securing social change."

And now that we have noted that he is correct, accurate, and astute......what's your point?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.
> 
> 
> Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.
> 
> 
> If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.
> 
> It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.
> 
> 
> And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
Click to expand...





Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations. 


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked, 


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
Click to expand...

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.


----------



## evenflow1969

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do sdupport sharia law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you addressing?
Click to expand...

aarondumbassjim


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

evenflow1969 said:


> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.


Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals


> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”





> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."


 One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
Click to expand...

Because 2 men cannot provide a motherly instinct, or 2 women cannot tell a boy how to be a man.  Faggots cant tell a boy how to be a man either, not when they are eating the shithole or sucking dick.


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
Click to expand...

blah,blah,blah.dumbass


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blah,blah,blah.dumbass
Click to expand...

Run away little girl...


----------



## Cosmos

andaronjim said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.
> 
> The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
Click to expand...


Funny how all this nonsense keeps welling up further and further each year and becomes more outrageous and offensive each year.  But when this can of worms was opened during the gay marriage debate, the pervs all claimed that their privacy was being violated and what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms had no effect on anyone.

If they took it back in the closet and left the rest of us out of it, we wouldn't have a problem.  They cannot force people to accept their vile and perverted behavior, bordering on pedophilia, as normal.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
Click to expand...






Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge. 


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously. 





> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.




Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.





> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.




Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection. 






> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.




Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who.



  I guess such a bizarre and outrageously false statement as that should not be surprising coming from someone who believes in the madness of _“transgenderism”_, meaning that you deny the fundamental biological differences between men and women, much less the crucial, unique roles that each sex brings into making a marriage and a family.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how all this nonsense keeps welling up further and further each year and becomes more outrageous and offensive each year.  But when this can of worms was opened during the gay marriage debate, the pervs all claimed that their privacy was being violated and what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms had no effect on anyone.
> 
> If they took it back in the closet and left the rest of us out of it, we wouldn't have a problem.  They cannot force people to accept their vile and perverted behavior, bordering on pedophilia, as normal.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you blathering about? "In the privacy of the  the bedroom? " That's right it has nothing to do with you except to the extent that you are obsessed with gay sex which is usually an indication that you have issues with your own sexuality.When was that last time that you saw a gay couple having sex in public? To you jerks its all about sex with no understanding that you are maligning people who are more alike than different from you and I. They just want to go about their lives  and have the same rights as everyone else. Get a fucking grip on yourself, What effect has gay marriage had on you, really? Tell us more about how the gays have been "bothering you" except in the dark recesses of your strange mind. Gays will not go back in the closet and be invisible. They are part of the fabric of society and members of the community. Get used to it .


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blah,blah,blah.dumbass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Run away little girl...
Click to expand...

no one is going to run for your idiot ass not even a little girl. you are hillarious.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
Click to expand...

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor  in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not  dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
> 1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
> 2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
> 3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
> 4.  At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
> 5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
> 6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage.  But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
> 7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
> 8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.
> 
> Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you.  May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…
> 
> View attachment 270815
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how all this nonsense keeps welling up further and further each year and becomes more outrageous and offensive each year.  But when this can of worms was opened during the gay marriage debate, the pervs all claimed that their privacy was being violated and what they did in the privacy of their bedrooms had no effect on anyone.
> 
> If they took it back in the closet and left the rest of us out of it, we wouldn't have a problem.  They cannot force people to accept their vile and perverted behavior, bordering on pedophilia, as normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck are you blathering about? "In the privacy of the  the bedroom? " That's right it has nothing to do with you except to the extent that you are obsessed with gay sex which is usually an indication that you have issues with your own sexuality.When was that last time that you saw a gay couple having sex in public? To you jerks its all about sex with no understanding that you are maligning people who are more alike than different from you and I. They just want to go about their lives  and have the same rights as everyone else. Get a fucking grip on yourself, What effect has gay marriage had on you, really? Tell us more about how the gays have been "bothering you" except in the dark recesses of your strange mind. Gays will not go back in the closet and be invisible. They are part of the fabric of society and members of the community. Get used to it .
Click to expand...

now the belligerent queer shows up, when no one will bow down to his will.  Of course back in the day, no one gave a crap what the fags did, as long as it was in their bedroom not being FORCED upon children who have a hard enough time, learning math and science.  So in comes the insane teachers, who indoctrinate these young minds of mush saying "oh it is okay for you to put your dick in another boys ass, go for it, we dont care.  Again when someone doesnt tow the party line, then the faggots go on the attack and shut down the business, even when it is owned by a "woman". The Liberal War on Women has escalated to the next level.  You  fudge packers are disgusting.

Salon forced to close after refusing to wax transgender woman's male genitalia


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with it and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
Click to expand...

and dont forget the liberals working with Muzzies.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
Click to expand...



Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
Click to expand...

Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.


----------



## Correll

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.
Click to expand...




You don't get to assault us for not supporting you in your agenda, and claim it is because we judged you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
Click to expand...

Coward! Deal with your allegations that same sex parents are not adequately nurturing .Deal with your predictions that same sex marriage is bringing about a  decline in society .You said those things. Own them .


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

evenflow1969 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.
Click to expand...

There was nothing in the bible that stated that putting a man's dick in another man's ass was okay with Jesus.  Also there was some scripture that did point out how immoral actions caused 2 cities to just disappear.  But you go ahead and keep using the Rules for Radicals, I know how you think, it is all about turning this great country into a 3rd world shithole.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coward! Deal with your allegations that same sex parents are not adequately nurturing .Deal with your predictions that same sex marriage is bringing about a  decline in society .You said those things. Own them .
Click to expand...

Mom and Dad Fill Different Roles - NYTimes.com


> In 50 years, our society has gone from “father knows best” to “father knows nothing” to “who needs a father?” While some may view this as a modern advancement, I see it as a disastrous erosion of how family best operates.
> There have always been single moms – women who sacrifice everything for the welfare of their children. In past times, the circumstances were identified as tragic, calling for the support of family and community. When did we make tragedy the accepted norm?
> No woman can be mom and dad to her children. Children who grow up without a father are more likely to suffer from a gamut of ills, from poverty to suicide.


 Same goes for men trying to be a mom, just doesnt fucking work.  Are you for children growing up mentally ill and then commit suicide?  Is that your agenda?  Do post birth abortion on children because you hate them for trying to be normal?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coward! Deal with your allegations that same sex parents are not adequately nurturing .Deal with your predictions that same sex marriage is bringing about a  decline in society .You said those things. Own them .
Click to expand...



I have and will be happy to again, (deal with them that is)


but not at the cost of allowing you to use those points, to muddy the waters on the central point(s) of this issue.


The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.


----------



## evenflow1969

andaronjim said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
> 
> 
> 
> Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom —   Lucifer.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.* You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing I learned in the military is that you dont go into a war with a slingshot.  You dickheads who only use the bible when it is useful to your argument, otherwise you are out there hating Christians with a passion, promoting acts of Lucifer, and definately trying to destroy this country, that is blessed by God.  It is the Marxist way, and this is why more people hate you.  Do you support the ANTIFA who the Demonrats dont condemn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your dumb ass who can not even follow his own logic. You get laughed at alot don't you. Take out the bible when it is convenient? I take it out every day you obviously do not. You know about as much about the bible as a rock. Keep on judging when the lord sais it is the lords job and see where it gets you or repent and listen to the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing in the bible that stated that putting a man's dick in another man's ass was okay with Jesus.  Also there was some scripture that did point out how immoral actions caused 2 cities to just disappear.  But you go ahead and keep using the Rules for Radicals, I know how you think, it is all about turning this great country into a 3rd world shithole.
Click to expand...

You are a dumbass and I tire of your idiocy. good luck dumb ass. there are rules for judging. As far as dude on dude or girl on girl that is upto god not you. Go love yourself dumbass


----------



## Vandalshandle

Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.




If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve. 


Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
Click to expand...

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from post 964.
> 
> 
> 
> "The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "
> 
> 
> It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.
> 
> 
> A very good reason.
> 
> 
> And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.
> 
> 
> Booyah!
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
Click to expand...


It's in our schools.  It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media.  It's parading down the street.  And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women.  You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash.  People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.
> 
> Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .
> 
> The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.
> 
> In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.
> 
> I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.
> 
> That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!
Click to expand...



Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately. 





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who
> 
> You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.
> 
> For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.
> 
> Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in our schools.  It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media.  It's parading down the street.  And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women.  You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash.  People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.
Click to expand...

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.
> 
> 
> 
> When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,
> 
> 
> you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.
> 
> 
> When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?
> 
> 
> Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron.  Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in our schools.  It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media.  It's parading down the street.  And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women.  You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash.  People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.
> 
> Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .
> 
> The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.
> 
> In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.
> 
> I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.
> 
> That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. I accept. *
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.
> 
> 
> 2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.
Click to expand...


This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves. Are you saying that all of those Lesbian couples are starving because they don’t have a man to protect them and to provide for them? You need to provide some actual evidence. In case you don’t know, a debate consists of backing up your assertions with facts


And what about male- male couples. With all of their might and testosterone, they must be doing pretty well!


And you still have not backed up your inane assertion about children not being adequately nurtured. I assumed that you meant emotionally and just being starved of food by the Lesbians.


Then there is the negative impact on wider society that you alluded to but still have not dealt with Oh right, the stunted growth children of gay couples. Show us some.

And what the hell was that about two incomes??  A Lesbian couple  can't both work??

Footnote: You really suck at this and have no clue as to how to debate and are clearly out of touch with reality. I'm beginning to pity you.



Yet another FAILURE


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron.  Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles "   and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.
> 
> You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but  when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.
> 
> You are truly a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in our schools.  It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media.  It's parading down the street.  And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women.  You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash.  People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.
> 
> 
> Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.
Click to expand...


No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?



  It is all part of the same broad category of madness and evil.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.



5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?



They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?
Click to expand...


I sense that you are carry a heavy load of sexual insecurity....


----------



## Cosmos

Vandalshandle said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sense that you are carry a heavy load of sexual insecurity....
Click to expand...


It's got nothing to do with me you idiot.  I sense that you're a faggot.  Amiright?


----------



## Cosmos

What the hell is the matter with you queers?  You think on account of one court decision that says you can buttfuck each other the rest of the world is supposed to forget everything we've been taught for the last 5000 years?  Ain't happenen'.  Go back in your faggot closets.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
Click to expand...

It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.
Click to expand...


What makes you think you can force your "evolution" on other people?  That's rather fascistic and arrogant.  Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> What the hell is the matter with you queers?  You think on account of one court decision that says you can buttfuck each other the rest of the world is supposed to forget everything we've been taught for the last 5000 years?  Ain't happenen'.  Go back in your faggot closets.


My question is what the hell is that matter with you bigots who just hate for the sake of hate, and so that you can feel superior. Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think you can force your "evolution" on other people?  That's rather fascistic and arrogant.  Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
Click to expand...

No one is forcing anything. It just happens. The fact that some knuckle draggers are left behind is not my problem


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.
Click to expand...


Good grief.  You're equating your fucking sexual perversions to slavery?    You're an imbecile.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell is the matter with you queers?  You think on account of one court decision that says you can buttfuck each other the rest of the world is supposed to forget everything we've been taught for the last 5000 years?  Ain't happenen'.  Go back in your faggot closets.
> 
> 
> 
> My question is what the hell is that matter with you bigots who just hate for the sake of hate, and so that you can feel superior. Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no valid argument so you try and insult me with your sick problems.  That's the standard defense mechanism of all faggots I've encountered on this forum.  I don't accept weird sick sexual perversions so there must be something the matter with me, not the pervert.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think you can force your "evolution" on other people?  That's rather fascistic and arrogant.  Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forcing anything. It just happens. The fact that some knuckle draggers are left behind is not my problem
Click to expand...


You convinced a mealy-mouthed leftist court to make queer marriage the law of the land.  And as if that isn't outrageous enough you've opened to way for boys against girls in high school sporting events like wrestling and track.


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Same sex couples’ function as families and responsible members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.



No they are not.  They are mentally deranged perverts that should be registered as sex offenders and be kept thousands of yards away from any child.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief.  You're equating your fucking sexual perversions to slavery?    You're an imbecile.
Click to expand...

First of all, you don't know anything about my sexuality and make such assumptions is as stupid as stupid gets. Secondly, I am not equating it. You are bitching about changes in culture and tradition and I am asking an appropriate question.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Same sex couples’ function as families and responsible members of the community just like everyone else* and are entitled to equal treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not.  They are mentally deranged perverts that should be registered as sex offenders and be kept thousands of yards away from any child.
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts.* The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5000 years of cultural development be damned.  Right.  Fuck the people who built our civilization.  Let's support the perverts instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think you can force your "evolution" on other people?  That's rather fascistic and arrogant.  Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is forcing anything. It just happens. The fact that some knuckle draggers are left behind is not my problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You convinced a mealy-mouthed leftist court to make queer marriage the law of the land.  And as if that isn't outrageous enough you've opened to way for boys against girls in high school sporting events like wrestling and track.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, you don't know anything about my sexuality…



  It's not like you aren't very obvious about it.

  If the insufficiently-massive item of slip-on footwear is the correct size, put it on.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Cosmos said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sense that you are carry a heavy load of sexual insecurity....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's got nothing to do with me you idiot.  I sense that you're a faggot.  Amiright?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I suspect that you have some unresolved issues with sex. A counselor can help you with that.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.
> 
> 
> THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.
> 
> Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .
> 
> The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.
> 
> In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.
> 
> I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.
> 
> That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. I accept. *
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.
> 
> 
> 2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
Click to expand...




Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed. 


Obviously. 


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.
> 
> 
> Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.
Click to expand...



Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.  


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?


----------



## karpenter

TheProgressivePatriot said:
			
		

> You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up  shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision.


Funny Thing That
When Progs Lose
They Just Re-File And Re-File, Like Nothing Happened
Until They Get Their Way No Matter How Long It Takes
They Win One Case About Anything
Then It's Suddenly Decided Forever And Law Of The Land

BTW
Marriage Is Not A Concern In The Constitution
Neither Is Abortion
The 'Establishment Clause' As We Commonly Use It
Does Not Exist

'An Establishment Of Religion'
As Used In The First Amendment Is Clearly A Noun
Not A Verb

So When You Say Trumpified Courts
What You Really Mean
Is Jurists That Don't See What Isn't There
And Ignore Or Re-Interpret What Plainly Is

Which Is What You've Gotten Used To Over The Last 60yrs
So Naturally You Think That's How It's Supposed To Work


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.
> 
> 
> Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that I am right?
Click to expand...


I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.
> 
> 
> Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that I am right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.
Click to expand...



I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.


Asking for clarification was completely called for.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.
> 
> 
> Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that I am right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.
> 
> 
> Asking for clarification was completely called for.
Click to expand...


Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.
> 
> 
> Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that I am right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.
> 
> 
> Asking for clarification was completely called for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....
Click to expand...


YOu going to explain your intent, or just play silly games?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that I am right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.
> 
> 
> Asking for clarification was completely called for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu going to explain your intent, or just play silly games?
Click to expand...


I think that the problem is that you are not old enough to remember how things were in the "good old days." That being the case, never mind.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.
> 
> 
> Is that your way of admitting that I am right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.
> 
> 
> Asking for clarification was completely called for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu going to explain your intent, or just play silly games?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the problem is that you are not old enough to remember how things were in the "good old days." That being the case, never mind.
Click to expand...



Got it, silly games.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.



  That's rich.  Someone who is rather obviously a degenerate  faggot, and worse, is telling normal people that we _“…have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.”_


----------



## Correll

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's rich.  Someone who is rather obviously a degenerate  faggot, and worse, is telling normal people that we _“…have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.”_
> 
> View attachment 271102
Click to expand...



I can only assume that at some point in the past, this "you must be compensating or hiding something, blah, blah, blah," must have been fresh and funny.



If so, it was well before I was born. As long as I can remember, it has been old and tired and weak, and is increasingly so, every time it is dragged out again.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it.  Unfortunately  your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it
> 
> You can continue to dismiss my  assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change  that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.
> 
> You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory.  The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.
> 
> Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .
> 
> The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.
> 
> In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.
> 
> I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.
> 
> That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. I accept. *
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.
> 
> 
> 2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
Click to expand...


I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

 It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.
> 
> "Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".
> 
> That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.
> 
> Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .
> 
> The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.
> 
> In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.
> 
> I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.
> 
> That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. I accept. *
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.
> 
> 
> 2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
Click to expand...




1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed. 

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.
> 
> Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined,  have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .
> 
> The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably  tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.
> 
> In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.
> 
> I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.
> 
> That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away.    Check mate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. I accept. *
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.
> 
> 
> 2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
Click to expand...


Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory

All that you have come up with is a bizarre specter of starving Lesbians and emaciated children because they do not have a man to protect and provide for them. I do not have to prove that gender roles have no relevance. You are making the claim that they are relevant with respect to marriage and you have to show that it matters, which you have failed miserably to do.

I stand by my assertion that you are pushing the legislation angle knowing that without court action, we may never have had marriage equality nationwide. There is a  lot more to the country than California and New England.  You know full well that there is no justification for bans on marriage given the current realities which is the only reason that you are pushing this ridiculous "when marriage was developed" crap. 

Again, you have completely failed to demonstrate that there is any compelling government or societal reason, or even a rational basis, stemming from gender roles or anything else to justify restrictions on marriage. Do not bother me again until you have something that resembles an argument. It’s pretty laughable that after accusing me of avoiding serious debate, that you can't do better than this.

Grade: Fail


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad. I accept. *
> 
> 
> 1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.
> 
> 
> 2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
Click to expand...



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

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


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



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


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




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



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


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
Click to expand...

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


The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children


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

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

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


We are so fucking done here!


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children



No stupid.  Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman.  We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy.  You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach.  Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted.  To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.


----------



## Vandalshandle




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stupid.  Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman.  We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy.  You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach.  Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted.  To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that brilliant, articulate and scholarly essay on the history of marriage. As always you have raised the bar on the level of intellectual and civil discourse on the USMB. God bless


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
Click to expand...

Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stupid.  Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman.  We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy.  You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach.  Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted.  To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.
Click to expand...

124 Words From Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

*Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.*

Today’s 5-4 decision in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.




But it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizationâ€™s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”


----------



## Cosmos

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stupid.  Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman.  We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy.  You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach.  Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted.  To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 124 Words From Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever
> 
> *Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.*
> 
> Today’s 5-4 decision in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.
> 
> “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizationâ€™s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
Click to expand...



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






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




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




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




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




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












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




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


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




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




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


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


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






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




I never claimed that gay people are not real.  


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


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


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



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


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.
> 
> 
> Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.
> 
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie
Click to expand...



So much of a lie that 100 pages in, and you have not even tried to back up your claim.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cosmos said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stupid.  Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman.  We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy.  You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach.  Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted.  To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 124 Words From Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever
> 
> *Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.*
> 
> Today’s 5-4 decision in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.
> 
> “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilizationâ€™s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Wow, yet another brilliant and well informed essay....this time on the Constitution, God and marriage. You must have attended the finest universities and pursued multiple majors in areas such as theology, Constitutional law, and human sexuality. I'm so impressed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So much of a lie that 100 pages in, and you have not even tried to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

Dude, you made the claim that they did not make a case for marriage. All of the court proceedings and briefs outlining the cases are of public record. But apparently you are too lazy and incurious and invested in relying on dogma to have researched it. The burden of proof that they did not make a case. It is extraordinarily  stupid to even think that a case was not made since multiple courts struck down bans on same sex marriage.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So much of a lie that 100 pages in, and you have not even tried to back up your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you made the claim that they did not make a case for marriage. All of the court proceedings and briefs outlining the cases are of public record. But apparently you are too lazy and incurious and invested in relying on dogma to have researched it. The burden of proof that they did not make a case. It is extraordinarily  stupid to even think that a case was not made since multiple courts struck down bans on same sex marriage.
Click to expand...




All I heard from them and from you, for that matter, is the assumption that Marriage to whom you want, is a right, loudly reasserted again and again and again, with no effort to actually make the case, seriously or honestly.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I challenged you to back up your position that bans  on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre  bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition  and the history and structure of marriage .  It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society
> 
> You are saying that  laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary   because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane  argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!
> 
> I know what will come next. You will say that   changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles  will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage.  You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.
> 
> It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.
> 
> And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the  past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane!  Another major FAIL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
Click to expand...

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

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. That is the real reason why you wanted the matter to be legislated and not litigated. That and the fact that legislation would fail in many states- not because it did not have merit-but because of bigoted law makers in the south and mid west.

Farming and other physical jobs has nothing to do with two women who are married to each other who work in the medical or aerospace industry.

You claim that you never said that marriage does not evolve but you continually blather about how it has always been based on traditional gender roles and that those differences between men and women are still relevant

Same sex couples get married , have families and do all of the same things in life as others. They are parents, and their kids are just fine, despite your "doubts " about that.  I presented extensive evidence to support my position and you ran like hell from it. I don't care if what you said was "just an opinion" When an opinion disparages others it needs to be backed up with facts. If not an outright lie, it's just as egregious .

The reality of marriage equality has not had any negative or unintended consequences for society . They have gained the ability to marry and no one else has lost anything.

Most people have moved on from the issue but here you are being an hysterical fool, and making up shit, to fabricate a case against marriage equality.

For the record- and this is a good example of  how you twist things- I never said that marriage was, in and of itself a right. I sid that it has been treated as a right for heterosexuals who could take it for granted-while being denied to gays who, in the language of the court, are "similarly situated" which amounted to discrimination. So there is another one of your lies debunked.

True, you never said that gay people were not real. The fact is that you never said anything about them that indicates they you have any appreciation for their humanity and give every indication that you are willing to deprive them of full participation in society, makes their lives harder than need be, and punish their children, all in the name of tradition and your bigoted ideology.

Same sex marriage is now part of the fabric of society. It's no longer "gay marriage" it is just marriage. Get used to it and get over it

Game over


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.
> 
> 2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.
> 
> 3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?
> 
> 4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
Click to expand...



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

LOL!!!


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


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


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


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”.  And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
> ....il
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## G.T.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.
> 
> If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.
> 
> 
> Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.
> 
> 
> Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
Click to expand...




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


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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
Click to expand...




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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> 
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

It does make sense, you just neener about it. 

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does make sense, you just neener about it.
> 
> There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.
Click to expand...




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


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


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


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

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


That makes no sense.


ANd here is what you are going to do now.


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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> 
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does make sense, you just neener about it.
> 
> There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.
> 
> 
> If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.
> 
> He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ANd here is what you are going to do now.
> 
> 
> You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does make sense, you just neener about it.
> 
> There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.
> 
> 
> If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.
> 
> He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ANd here is what you are going to do now.
> 
> 
> You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.
Click to expand...



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


Makes sense. 


*NOT!
*
And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does make sense, you just neener about it.
> 
> There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.
> 
> 
> If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.
> 
> He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ANd here is what you are going to do now.
> 
> 
> You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> 
> *NOT!
> *
> And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive is the one outraged here, that I would dare to point out that his position doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> It does make sense, you just neener about it.
> 
> There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.
> 
> 
> If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.
> 
> He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ANd here is what you are going to do now.
> 
> 
> You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> 
> *NOT!
> *
> And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.
> 
> You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.
> 
> That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.
> 
> Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.
Click to expand...



You just said what I said, with different wording.


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

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


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


----------



## G.T.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does make sense, you just neener about it.
> 
> There's no...<zero>...not a single compelling reason to prevent any 2 consenting same sex adults from Civil Marriage to one another so long as it's an institution... and you certainly have been a big fat failure in providing one. The crux of the issue is that you bloviate...you declare yourself a winner and you think youve proven something. Conversely...the facts on the field are that youve lost in court...you're insecure about it as evidenced by your obsessively guarding and grandstanding in this thread on the internet...and finally -- no well-adjusted human being gives two single shits if gay people get married. Its a backwards, bigotted mindset to hold that position and there's no reason anyone who's not a scumcvnt should have a vested interest in sitting their fat ass on the internet arguing tooth and nail against another family's freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.
> 
> 
> If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.
> 
> He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ANd here is what you are going to do now.
> 
> 
> You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> 
> *NOT!
> *
> And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.
> 
> You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.
> 
> That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.
> 
> Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just said what I said, with different wording.
> 
> 
> YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.
> 
> That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.
> 
> 
> ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.
Click to expand...

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

No value.

No substance.

Empty bloviation.


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


----------



## G.T.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> 
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You destroyed yourself. Perhaps the defining moment was when you invoked the ridiculous  specter of starving Lesbians and their stunted growth children because they don't have a man to protect and provide for them as an argument against same sex marriage. Have a good day
Click to expand...

you quoted the wrong guyyyy

hey noww


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


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




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





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



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


LOL!!




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




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




> That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.
> 
> Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.




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


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex  marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage  and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING
> 
> 
> We are so fucking done here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you could ignore me, except that some little voice, deep down, keeps telling you, "his argument is so wrong, destroy him" but then you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> And at another level, you know why you can't.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> His position is that the structure of Marriage was set up to be discriminatory because the structure, or as he put it, the "Restrictions" were arbitrary.
> 
> 
> BUT, he admits that the structure of Marriage, based on gender roles, at least used to work.
> 
> 
> If they worked, then calling them arbitrary, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ALSO, he claims to not understand why I keep discussing the past, ever time he makes a claim about the development of Marriage.
> 
> He wants to discuss it, as though Marriage was created just a few years ago, instead of thousands of years.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> ANd here is what you are going to do now.
> 
> 
> You will attack me, and say that what I said, is not true, and is bigoted somehow, but you will not explain how or why, because you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> 
> *NOT!
> *
> And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.
> 
> You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.
> 
> That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.
> 
> Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just said what I said, with different wording.
> 
> 
> YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.
> 
> That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.
> 
> 
> ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.
> 
> No value.
> 
> No substance.
> 
> Empty bloviation.
> 
> 
> Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the last, previous change, in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.
> 
> Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.
Click to expand...

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

You missed that?

Wow!

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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument over arbitrary vs inarbitrary is uninformative and uninteresting. The restrictions are arbitrary to KEEP without compelling reason to DO SO...you have failed to provide compelling reason to do so...the State has decided that without compelling reason to keep the restrictions, they become arbitrary. Youve yet to provide compelling reason. Case is dismissed, just like in Court...and you can whine all day about being labeled a bigot but you are one. Raise your paw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> 
> *NOT!
> *
> And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.
> 
> You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.
> 
> That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.
> 
> Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just said what I said, with different wording.
> 
> 
> YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.
> 
> That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.
> 
> 
> ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.
> 
> No value.
> 
> No substance.
> 
> Empty bloviation.
> 
> 
> Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the loser that still has not addressed either of my points, I made to you, when you entered the thread.
Click to expand...

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

Keep failing!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.
> 
> 
> You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> View attachment 271234
> 
> 
> 
> It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".
> 
> 
> Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?
> 
> 
> YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?
> 
> 
> How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?
> 
> 
> THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that gay people are not real.
> 
> 
> Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.
> 
> 
> That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.
> 
> 
> You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.
> 
> 
> 
> Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.
> 
> 
> 
> We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:
> 
> Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
> it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.
> 
> 
> *
> EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE. *
> 
> 
> You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you could ignore me, except that some little voice, deep down, keeps telling you, "his argument is so wrong, destroy him" but then you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> And at another level, you know why you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You destroyed yourself. Perhaps the defining moment was when you invoked the ridiculous specter of starving Lesbians and their stunted growth children because they don't have a man to protect and provide for them as an argument against same sex marriage. Have a good day
Click to expand...



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


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


Now, it is kind of sad. 



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


----------



## G.T.

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

Correll, same post: you call names!

 what a cuck


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the last, previous change, in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.
> 
> Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.
> 
> You missed that?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.
Click to expand...



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


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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THe person arguing for change, is not the one that has to make the case for change, it is the job of those just standing there minding their own business, that have to make the case against change.
> 
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> 
> *NOT!
> *
> And like I said you would do, you stated that my arguments were wrong, without explaining why, and attacked me.
> 
> 
> 
> That was a strawman. The case for change was that the restrictions are arbitrary absent compelling reason to maintain them. Do you know how to read? Seems like you dont.. your logic is immaculate when you dont have to consider its holes.
> 
> You've failed to provide compelling reason, as did your bestest legal minds who had their dicks all over the case, in Court...and as obsessively as you do, but theyre a touch smarter than "correll" on the internetzz.
> 
> That means the opposition established a case, and you haven't.
> 
> Also, that is not saying you are wrong without explanation...it is an explanation, and one youre unable to answer to. No compelling reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just said what I said, with different wording.
> 
> 
> YOur side asserted that the structure was "restrictions" and "arbitrary" and put in on the other side to argue against change.
> 
> That is not making the case. That is an incredibly powerful con job.
> 
> 
> ANd that you accuse me of using a "strawman" and then restate exactly what I said, shows that you are either part of the con, or one of it's victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ this wasnt a counter argument to the claim that the restrictions are arbitrary without compelling reason to uphold them.
> 
> No value.
> 
> No substance.
> 
> Empty bloviation.
> 
> 
> Correll, this is why I said that youre a bottom-tier debater. Sub par for even this weak-ass debate site. Its why I rarely engage...theres no challenge in this...your skills are dogshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the loser that still has not addressed either of my points, I made to you, when you entered the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt make a point. You failed to compel anyone from blocking gays from the civil institution of Marriage.
> 
> Keep failing!
Click to expand...



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


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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the last, previous change, in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.
> 
> Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.
> 
> You missed that?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.
Click to expand...

The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.

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


----------



## G.T.

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll to random guy hes never met on the internet: Lib. lib...lib...lib....(name name name name)
> 
> Correll, same post: you call names!
> 
> what a cuck





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


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


Big difference and fuck you.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the last, previous change, in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.
> 
> Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.
> 
> You missed that?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.
> 
> Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.
Click to expand...




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


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



YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *


Thanks.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There's no legitimate reason that a free society shouldn't re-visit Civil Institutions for evaluation, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Civil Marriage, when revisited, provides no compelling reason to restrict said institution from homesexuals marrying one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Civil institution of Marriage revisited, and updated appropriately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was the last, previous change, in your mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty simple, and shy a bigotted mind...even the lay-man can understand that it's a perfectly valid syllogism.
> 
> Corell can fail all he'd like, it matters not because society's made the adjustment to his whining and screaming and wondering how or why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.
> 
> You missed that?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.
> 
> Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *
> 
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possible evolution. You aren't assuming a conclusion before a discussion are you?
> 
> 
> 
> And there we are again. Your position asserted and it is the job of other people to argue AGAINST your desired change, not you to argue for it.
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> What was the last, previous change, in your mind?
> 
> 
> And no lib post, would be complete without attacking the person they are arguing against. Lets, see, I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 insults. Mmm, no race card? That's a pretty weak play, for a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.
> 
> You missed that?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.
> 
> Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
Click to expand...



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


Gays and their issues are not relevant to that. 


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


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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument FOR the change is the absence of the compelling reason to withold an adult from engaging in a Civil Institution.
> 
> You missed that?
> 
> Wow!
> 
> And im not a lib, I dont engage in your fruity paradigm of us vs them. Its more of your dogshit bigotry, youre obsessive and a recluse...why else would you bother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.
> 
> Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.
> 
> 
> Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.
> 
> 
> Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the one advocating change, it is on you to make the case, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> YOu are still turning that around, while denying that you are doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.
> 
> Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.
> 
> 
> Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.
> 
> 
> Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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


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


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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The case is theres no compelling reason for the restriction.
> 
> Your non answer makes the case...nitwit. Go back to logic 101 for fuck's sake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.
> 
> 
> Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.
> 
> 
> Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

You are bottom tier, Correll.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. All you did there was repeat yourself. AFTER I had already, TWICE explained the flaw in that argument.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating the dishonestly and flawed logic, AND THE SPECIFIC TACTICS, that I have accused your side of.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE MADE MY CASE.  *COMPLETELY. *
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.
> 
> 
> Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.
> 
> 
> Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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


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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You thought you explained a flaw, you didnt.
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thafs how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.
> 
> 
> Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.
> 
> 
> Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

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

No wonder you desperate cucks were laughed out of Court.

No compelling reason for your bigotry, Liberty won.

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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage was developed, primarily to get the man to stay and be a Father.
> 
> 
> Gays and their issues are not relevant to that.
> 
> 
> If you want to change the institution of Marriage to include your interests, it should have been on you make that case.
> 
> 
> Now, demonstrate what I accused you of, again please.
> 
> 
> 
> Since marriage doesnt ensure, and gay marriage doesnt prevent - fathers from staying and being fathers -your argument is not compelling enough to cause the State to prevent a Liberty.
> 
> I'll field your next try whenever you're ready, but be prepared to be more compelling if you want to use my tax dollars to prevent gays from a Civil Institution that I pay towards, and so do they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...





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


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


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


HOWEVER, 

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




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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

You seriously are THIS inept, cognitively? Holy shit.

Do you need to look up "non sequitur?"


----------



## mdk

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


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


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


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


----------



## mdk

G.T. said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that my marriage to a dude made your dad leave your mother for his side cooze.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone alert Ding and give this old coot his logic training wheels.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## G.T.

mdk said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that my marriage to a dude made your dad leave your mother for his side cooze.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone alert Ding and give this old coot his logic training wheels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to pry his hands from his neighbor's window jambs first. These busybodies thrive on being up in everyone's business.
Click to expand...

Thia makes my mind feel so radically free. 

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

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

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


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Religious Right Wing Bigots Still Obsessing About Marriage*



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

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?"
Click to expand...



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


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



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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Wow, here come the training wheels, then.

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

You said fathers staying.

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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, here come the training wheels, then.
> 
> I said youve no compelling reason to prevent gays from marriage.
> 
> You said fathers staying....o.
Click to expand...



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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, here come the training wheels, then.
> 
> I said youve no compelling reason to prevent gays from marriage.
> 
> You said fathers staying....o.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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
Click to expand...

Invalidated by  Windsor and  Obergefell


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Correll said:


> 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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 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

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Cosmos said:


> 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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?!!
Click to expand...


  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

Bob Blaylock said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, here come the training wheels, then.
> 
> I said youve no compelling reason to prevent gays from marriage.
> 
> You said fathers staying....o.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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. )
Click to expand...




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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...



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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, here come the training wheels, then.
> 
> I said youve no compelling reason to prevent gays from marriage.
> 
> You said fathers staying....o.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.
Click to expand...



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

Correll said:


> 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

Correll said:


> 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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...




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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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!!


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.


----------



## Jitss617

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this gibberish supposed to be a response to what I just posted?
Click to expand...

When was the last time you had man take you?


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invalidated by  Windsor and  Obergefell
Click to expand...



Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invalidated by  Windsor and  Obergefell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Jitss617 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this gibberish supposed to be a response to what I just posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last time you had man take you?
Click to expand...

When was the last time that you had something relevant and intelligent to contribute smiley ?


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invalidated by  Windsor and  Obergefell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
Click to expand...



Think what you want, you ain't married.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!!
Click to expand...



The laws came AFTER the structure.


If you have a problem with the Laws, you are having a problem with the Structure.



Sorry, if I keep not letting you have your conclusion accepted as the premise. I know that is all you libs know.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invalidated by  Windsor and  Obergefell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
Click to expand...

Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position is that the state has no compelling reason to block gays from engaging in marriage. Try 'gain, blockhead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

G.T. said:


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



  Neither does the state have any compelling interest in radically redefining marriage into something that it never has been and never can be.

  You could argue that the state has no compelling interest in defining two plus two to equal four, and that therefore, there is a right for some to establish that two plus two can also equal ten.

  It's nonsense, of course.  Two plus two does equal four, no matter what the state may claim, no matter what interests the state may claim, no matter what laws the state might try to pass to establish what two plus two may or may not equal.  The state has no say in the matter.  Two plus two equals four, and it does not, under any circumstances, equal any other value.

  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  The state has no say in it.  The state can no more establish that marriage can be between two men, or between two women, than the state can establish that two plus two may equal ten.


----------



## Jitss617

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
Click to expand...

Why do you have earrings ?


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
Click to expand...



YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invalidated by  Windsor and  Obergefell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
Click to expand...

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,


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless it is written into the U.S. Federal Code, it really isn't national law.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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,
Click to expand...



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


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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate my position poindexter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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. Thats a reason, and one you havent refuted.

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


hurrr deee durrrrrrrr

You are lost.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that brilliant appeal to ignorance fallacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.
> 
> 
> I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.
Click to expand...

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

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.
> 
> 
> I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want, you ain't married.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am.. To a woman you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu upset some one thought you were gay? Mmm, that is strange. Do you consider it shameful to be gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.
> 
> 
> I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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."
> .....
Click to expand...



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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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."
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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."
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
Click to expand...



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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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."
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!
Click to expand...



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


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.
Click to expand...

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

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with *NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM* is the definition of discrimination.
> ....l.
Click to expand...


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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just dipped, ducked and dodged that which was actually presented Correll. That shit was weak AF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with *NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM* is the definition of discrimination.
> ....l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Cause you know, "you moron" sounds like you were upset.
> 
> 
> I generally dont' call people morons, unless I'm pissed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm just not going to let you have your conclusion, ie that tradition marriage is discrimination, as the premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with *NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM* is the definition of discrimination.
> ....l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with *NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM* is the definition of discrimination.
> ....l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Traditional Marriage's EXCLUSION of gays with *NO COMPELLING REASON TO EXCLUDE THEM* is the definition of discrimination.
> ....l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## toobfreak

G.T. said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



Do try to keep up before you make a total ass of yourself!  It isn't "my" definition," sweetheart, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL DEFINITION.   Now go crawl back in that tiny hole you crawled out of!


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?


----------



## G.T.

toobfreak said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do try to keep up before you make a total ass of yourself!  It isn't "my" definition," sweetheart, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL DEFINITION.   Now go crawl back in that tiny hole you crawled out of!
> 
> View attachment 271582
Click to expand...

The federal gov't recognizes gay marriages, numb nuts...nobody quite gives or ever gave a fuck about you nosey neeners recognizing it at all. My tax dollars recognize it, so - ya lost! Cry bout dattt

_Same-sex marriages are now legal across the entirety of the United States after a historic supreme court ruling that declared attempts by conservative states to ban them unconstitutional.

Four liberal justices and Kennedy rejected claims made by lawyers during the legal argument in April that marriage was defined by law solely to encourage procreation within stable family units – and therefore could only meaningfully apply to men and women.
_
*“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” wrote Kennedy.

“The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex,” he added.

Crucially, the majority ruling argues that the court has frequently exercised jurisdiction over the definition of marriage in previous cases and is not overstepping its constitutional role by intervening now.

“This Court’s cases have expressed constitutional principles of broader reach. In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond,” wrote Kennedy.


*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?
Click to expand...

Yea I lowered myself to your level


----------



## Bob Blaylock

G.T. said:


> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre [sic] always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats [sic] how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are



  No rational concept of freedom or liberty compels sane people to treat an obvious falsehood as truth, or supports government acting to uphold falsehood as truth.

  There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a  marriage between women or between two women.  That is not what marriage is, that is not what marriage has ever been, and that is not what marriage ever can or ever will be.  _“Same-sex marriage”_ is a falsehood, a lie.

  Government can no more make such a fake _“marriage”_ real, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten.

  The only thing that is truly accomplished by abusing the power of government to uphold a lie, is to undermine the authority and credibility of that government.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre [sic] always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats [sic] how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No rational concept of freedom or liberty compels sane people to treat an obvious falsehood as truth, or supports government acting to uphold falsehood as truth.
> 
> There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a  marriage between women or between two women.  That is not what marriage is, that is not what marriage has ever been, and that is not what marriage ever can or ever will be.  _“Same-sex marriage”_ is a falsehood, a lie.
> 
> Government can no more make such a fake _“marriage”_ real, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten.
> 
> The only thing that is truly accomplished by abusing the power of government to uphold a lie, is to undermine the authority and credibility of that government.
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

Bob Blaylock said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Country is Liberty-based. The STATE has to make a compelling argument to RESTRICT a liberty.
> 
> You lost, get over it, and youre [sic] always free to provide the compelling case for restriction. Thats [sic] how liberty works - freedom is not prevented without compelling reason to do so.
> 
> You lost, douche-bag. Fuggin rdean is a smarter "debater" than you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No rational concept of freedom or liberty compels sane people to treat an obvious falsehood as truth, or supports government acting to uphold falsehood as truth.
> 
> There is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as a  marriage between women or between two women.  That is not what marriage is, that is not what marriage has ever been, and that is not what marriage ever can or ever will be.  _“Same-sex marriage”_ is a falsehood, a lie.
> 
> Government can no more make such a fake _“marriage”_ real, than it can cause two plus two to equal ten.
> 
> The only thing that is truly accomplished by abusing the power of government to uphold a lie, is to undermine the authority and credibility of that government.
Click to expand...

Thats an assertion, not an argument poindexter. Grow up. Gays arent hurting you.


----------



## OldLady

Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home.  It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs.  Take the time to read this; it is interesting.

The origins of marriage

*How old is the institution?*

_The best available evidence suggests that its about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

*What was it about, then?*

Marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a mans property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else
_
Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.

Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either.  At least not here.  So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I lowered myself to your level
Click to expand...


You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I lowered myself to your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.
Click to expand...

Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950. 
If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.

Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I lowered myself to your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
> If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.
> 
> Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it
Click to expand...


You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I lowered myself to your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
> If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.
> 
> Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.
Click to expand...

Holy matrimony ??


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your substitution for a cogent argument, Gaydo?
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I lowered myself to your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
> If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.
> 
> Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy matrimony ??
Click to expand...


Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read.  ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I lowered myself to your level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
> If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.
> 
> Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy matrimony ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read.  ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.
Click to expand...

A few years ago??


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



ANd that is the crux of the matter. YOu libs insist on being able to define the debate, with your conclusion as the premise.


You are cheaters.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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*.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...




But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion. 


That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.


That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




And thus we see the end of the idea of government by consensus and the rise of rule by force. 


You don't agree with the agenda? Well, then you are bigot, and you can fuck off.


Soon, such hate speech will result in jail time. Won't it Prog? 


Great future you're building.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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*.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
Click to expand...

You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry. 

Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

toobfreak said:


> You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy matrimony ??





toobfreak said:


> Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read.  ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.



Matthew 7:6…
_Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you._​


----------



## Correll

OldLady said:


> Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home.  It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs.  Take the time to read this; it is interesting.
> 
> The origins of marriage
> 
> *How old is the institution?*
> 
> _The best available evidence suggests that its about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
> 
> *What was it about, then?*
> 
> Marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a mans property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else
> _
> Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.
> 
> Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either.  At least not here.  So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.




1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups? 

2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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*.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
Click to expand...



Not why, how. 


And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?


Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.


----------



## OldLady

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home.  It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs.  Take the time to read this; it is interesting.
> 
> The origins of marriage
> 
> *How old is the institution?*
> 
> _The best available evidence suggests that its about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
> 
> *What was it about, then?*
> 
> Marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a mans property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else
> _
> Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.
> 
> Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either.  At least not here.  So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?
> 
> 2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?
Click to expand...

I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around.  All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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*.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
Click to expand...

You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.

Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same. 

To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage. 

This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.

This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that. 

Your narrative is desperate, and failed.


----------



## Correll

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home.  It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs.  Take the time to read this; it is interesting.
> 
> The origins of marriage
> 
> *How old is the institution?*
> 
> _The best available evidence suggests that its about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
> 
> *What was it about, then?*
> 
> Marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a mans property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else
> _
> Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.
> 
> Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either.  At least not here.  So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?
> 
> 2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around.  All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.
Click to expand...




Is that based on real information from the time or is that just revealing the focus of the researchers in question?


if the men of the group, don't know which kids are theirs, you don't think that would discourage the sharing of resources?


I give a lot of thought to the inheritance I am going to be leaving my child. If it was less than 10 per cent change it is my child, I don't see myself feeling that way.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
Click to expand...




As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.


Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.


NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.


This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force. 


YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never been that high in all your life.  Quit hiding behind your schoolyard deflections.  Man up and admit the obvious in B&W, if you've got the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
> If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.
> 
> Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy matrimony ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read.  ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years ago??
Click to expand...



Tell us, fudge-packer, how many years do YOU think it has been?  HERE, let me help you:





 

First state, uber-liberal Massachusetts, who would sanction marriage between a horse and a goat if they thought it would get them votes!  They found the definition of marriage that has existed as self-evident since the dawn of civilization, to be "unconstitutional."  Mass law does not supersede federal law nor the US Code,  All you gaybos are living in civil unions, they just tortured the law into allowing to call it "marriage" to shut all of you the fuck up and so they could continue the attacks on religion, morality and Christianity!

Aside from the fact that you've made an ass of yourself by claiming 9 years ago wasn't a few years ago in the history of human civilization, what's your next thing to champion, child pedophilia as the next frontier for legalization?  I bet you would love that!


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
Click to expand...

The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.

Done, and done.

Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..

Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admit what freakazoid? Your problem is that you think that being gay is something to "admit" as thought it were 1950.
> If I were gay I would say so straight up But I won't deny it because doing so would validate your bigotry.
> 
> Now maybe you can come up with something relevant and intelligent to say that is on topic, but I doubt it
> 
> 
> 
> You're so gay that is why you're on EVERY gay thread defending homos.  Personally, I don't care, I just don't want you too close to me.  I don't want you checking out my ass.  And whatever you think or any state passes, the federal definition of marriage remains the same.  You can have a civil union, but it cannot be true holy matrimony BY DEFINITION, Ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy matrimony ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your ignorance and that you don't even read.  ALL matrimony was considered holy until just a few years ago when leftfucks like you went in and tried to write new laws overwriting that so you could justify fudge-packing as a legitimate social norm rather than as the state of depravity and perversion it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few years ago??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us, fudge-packer, how many years do YOU think it has been?  HERE, let me help you:
> 
> 
> View attachment 271761
> 
> First state, uber-liberal Massachusetts, who would sanction marriage between a horse and a goat if they thought it would get them votes!  They found the definition of marriage that has existed as self-evident since the dawn of civilization, to be "unconstitutional."  Mass law does not supersede federal law nor the US Code,  All you gaybos are living in civil unions, they just tortured the law into allowing to call it "marriage" to shut all of you the fuck up and so they could continue the attacks on religion, morality and Christianity!
> 
> Aside from the fact that you've made an ass of yourself by claiming 9 years ago wasn't a few years ago in the history of human civilization, what's your next thing to champion, child pedophilia as the next frontier for legalization?  I bet you would love that!
Click to expand...


Son, you are way too demented, angry and ignorant to bother with. You spew hate as though gay people, just by virtue of their existence, are making your life miserable

You can blather all you want about the US Code, the fact is that same sex marriage is the law. Deal with it

And the point of my ridicule directed at your "holy matrimony" horseshit was that it was not holy matrimony before gay marriage for most people . It was just marriage and it is still marriage that is now inclusive of same sex couples​


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
> 
> 
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
Click to expand...

It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Son, you are way too demented, angry and ignorant to bother with.


Yet it is you who seems obsessed with marriage, spewing all ignorance and hate.


> You spew hate as though gay people, just by virtue of their existence, are making your life miserable


I don't ask anyone their orientation.  How would I know unless they make a showcase of it?  I don't walk around with a sign saying:  HETERO AND DAMN PROUD OF IT.  I don't know anyone who I know is gay, so how can they make me miserable?  Only one making my life miserable is you and your pathetic rationalizations.


> You can blather all you want about the US Code, the fact is that same sex marriage is the law. Deal with it


It's not FEDERAL LAW.   And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.



 




> And the point of my ridicule directed at your "holy matrimony" horseshit was that it was not holy matrimony before gay marriage for most people . It was just marriage and it is still marriage that is now inclusive of same sex couples


​If you say so, Gaybo.  You might be a couple, but a couple of what?  From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman.  PERIOD DUDE.

A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved

That is for at least 98.875% of the known recorded history of marriage.  Liberal fucks like you then forced a change in some state laws out of political greed and fear to not only secularize the institution, but to devalue the roles of husband and wife, mother and father.  Now you are raising a bunch of poor kids in some godless, confused world where mommy is a daddy and daddy is a mommy.

We've gone from a wholesome normal society



 


to THIS:




 

Hope you're happy.


----------



## Cosmos

_The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The ruling is as clear an example of judicial activism as we’ve had in a generation. Nothing in the Constitution justified the redefinition of marriage by judges. The Court simply imposed its judgment about a policy matter that the Constitution left to the American people and their elected representatives. In doing so, it got marriage and the Constitution wrong, just as it had gotten abortion and the Constitution wrong in Roe v. Wade.

Marriage and the Constitution: What the Court Said and Why It Got It Wrong | RealClearPolitics
_

The Court had no right to overturn thousands of years of cultural development and impose their own vile and filthy definition of marriage.  The decision should be overturned.


----------



## G.T.

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you are way too demented, angry and ignorant to bother with.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it is you who seems obsessed with marriage, spewing all ignorance and hate.
> 
> 
> 
> You spew hate as though gay people, just by virtue of their existence, are making your life miserable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't ask anyone their orientation.  How would I know unless they make a showcase of it?  I don't walk around with a sign saying:  HETERO AND DAMN PROUD OF IT.  I don't know anyone who I know is gay, so how can they make me miserable?  Only one making my life miserable is you and your pathetic rationalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> You can blather all you want about the US Code, the fact is that same sex marriage is the law. Deal with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not FEDERAL LAW.   And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.
> 
> View attachment 271768
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the point of my ridicule directed at your "holy matrimony" horseshit was that it was not holy matrimony before gay marriage for most people . It was just marriage and it is still marriage that is now inclusive of same sex couples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​If you say so, Gaybo.  You might be a couple, but a couple of what?  From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman.  PERIOD DUDE.
> 
> A Brief History of Marriage and How It Has Evolved
> 
> That is for at least 98.875% of the known recorded history of marriage.  Liberal fucks like you then forced a change in some state laws out of political greed and fear to not only secularize the institution, but to devalue the roles of husband and wife, mother and father.  Now you are raising a bunch of poor kids in some godless, confused world where mommy is a daddy and daddy is a mommy.
> 
> We've gone from a wholesome normal society
> 
> View attachment 271771
> 
> 
> to THIS:
> 
> 
> View attachment 271772
> 
> Hope you're happy.
Click to expand...

Im happy. Gay marriage has had no effect on my ability to Marry and raise kids...or, my happiness. Sounds like a you problem, to me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> I don't ask anyone their orientation. How would I know unless they make a showcase of it? I don't walk around with a sign saying: HETERO AND DAMN PROUD OF IT. I don't know anyone who I know is gay, so how can they make me miserable? Only one making my life miserable is you and your pathetic rationalizations.


Hey, all I know is that you are angry and miserable.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.


Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.


Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.
Click to expand...



Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.
> 
> 
> 
> Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.
Click to expand...



I'm all for interracial marriage.  My father was an Austrian Pole and my mother a German.  We also had one black and one white cat.  I'm even for equality of the felines.  They both ate the same cat food.  Neither had to eat from the back of the can.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!
Click to expand...


Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.
> 
> 
> 
> Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for interracial marriage.  My father was an Austrian Pole and my mother a German.  We also had one black and one white cat.  I'm even for equality of the felines.  They both ate the same cat food.  Neither had to eat from the back of the can.
Click to expand...

I see so you think that the issue of interracial marriage was a big fucking joke too. 
OK


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?
Click to expand...


Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, Gaybo. You might be a couple, but a couple of what? From the beginning of time until a few years ago (at least 800 years or longer), marriage was ostensibly meant a man and a woman. PERIOD DUDE.
> 
> 
> 
> Just get over it! There were fuck heads like you who were bitching about interracial marriage just a few decades ago using the language and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for interracial marriage.  My father was an Austrian Pole and my mother a German.  We also had one black and one white cat.  I'm even for equality of the felines.  They both ate the same cat food.  Neither had to eat from the back of the can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see so you think that the issue of interracial marriage was a big fucking joke too.
> OK
Click to expand...



Not at all.  Just you.  You have the NERVE to start a thread attacking the Right calling everyone a bigot and obsessed with marriage when it turns out the only obsessed bigot on marriage here is YOU.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?
Click to expand...


----------



## OldLady

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home.  It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs.  Take the time to read this; it is interesting.
> 
> The origins of marriage
> 
> *How old is the institution?*
> 
> _The best available evidence suggests that its about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
> 
> *What was it about, then?*
> 
> Marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a mans property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else
> _
> Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.
> 
> Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either.  At least not here.  So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?
> 
> 2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around.  All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that based on real information from the time or is that just revealing the focus of the researchers in question?
> 
> 
> if the men of the group, don't know which kids are theirs, you don't think that would discourage the sharing of resources?
> 
> 
> I give a lot of thought to the inheritance I am going to be leaving my child. If it was less than 10 per cent change it is my child, I don't see myself feeling that way.
Click to expand...

Not everyone used to think of children as being their property.


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not FEDERAL LAW. And its not "law" in at least 26% of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Only if it turns you on.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

toobfreak said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that you are too fucking ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?   Constitutional law, which includes binding precedents of the court is federal law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if it turns you on.
Click to expand...

I'm  ignoring your juvenile delinquent  stupidity . Get outa my face


----------



## toobfreak

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me if I actually HAVE A LIFE which does not include worrying about what strange gay people in other states are doing to themselves?  Being gay obviously is a LOT more important to you than normal people!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: Yes I am too ignorant to know that gay people are getting MARRIED in EVERY state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me, does a hairy ass tickle your little pee pee?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if it turns you on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm  ignoring your juvenile delinquent  stupidity . Get outa my face
Click to expand...


I bet you'd LOVE me in your face.  All ten inches of me!


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was revisited on the false premise of your conclusion.
> 
> 
> That is a not a honest and serious discussion of the issue.
> 
> 
> That was a cheat, and you people being bullies and tyrants.
> 
> 
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
Click to expand...



As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.


An effective tactic, as we have seen.


At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
Click to expand...




THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept. 


For you.


----------



## Correll

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I disagree with your opinion that marriage was designed to keep Dads at home.  It was so men could legally "own" a woman who bore him heirs.  Take the time to read this; it is interesting.
> 
> The origins of marriage
> 
> *How old is the institution?*
> 
> _The best available evidence suggests that its about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
> 
> *What was it about, then?*
> 
> Marriages primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a mans children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a mans property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else
> _
> Maybe that's why you're having trouble winning this one--you're starting with a false premise.
> 
> Of course, men can't 'own' women anymore, either.  At least not here.  So whatever the roots of the institution of marriage thousands of years ago, they no longer apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How free or equal were the women in those communal groups?
> 
> 2. How well were the children cared for? When no one knew who the fathers were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see it mentioning anything about the large family groups having trouble getting the men to stick around.  All the changes involving marriage included making the woman the "exclusive" property of one man, while he was free to engage in nooky with as many women as he wished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that based on real information from the time or is that just revealing the focus of the researchers in question?
> 
> 
> if the men of the group, don't know which kids are theirs, you don't think that would discourage the sharing of resources?
> 
> 
> I give a lot of thought to the inheritance I am going to be leaving my child. If it was less than 10 per cent change it is my child, I don't see myself feeling that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone used to think of children as being their property.
Click to expand...


Being more willing to provide resources to your own children, instead of to children that might possibly be yours, is not "thinking of them as your property".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all

Strict Scrutiny

*A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.*

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the *equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. *Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. *The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.*

The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. *The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision*. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. *The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex.* As articulated in _Craig v. Boren,_ 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve _important_ governmental objectives and must _be substantially related_ to the achievement of those objectives."

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as _suspect classifications_ that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. *The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.* If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

The case of roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), which invalidated state laws that prohibited Abortion, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny. The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that this right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Based on these grounds, the Court applied strict scrutiny. The state of Texas sought to proscribe all abortions and claimed a compelling State Interest in protecting unborn human life. Though the Court acknowledged that this was a legitimate interest, it held that the interest does not become compelling until that point in pregnancy when the fetus becomes "viable" (capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). The Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but the Texas law was not narrowly tailored to achieve this objective. Therefore, the state did not meet its Burden of Proof and the law was held unconstitutional.

___________________________________________________________________

Bans on same sex marriage could not pass even the lowest level of scrutiny-a rational basis review

Levels Of Scrutiny In The Equal Protection Clause


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You whining about why something was revisited isnt pertinent. 1st. there's no actual fucking grievance I can think of that re-evaluating Marriage has caused the Country, apart from bigotry.
> 
> Thats the first...HUGE fucking clue that you're a bigot with an age-addled mind. Like I said, the train's not looking at you, it's looking past you ya fuggin goof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> An effective tactic, as we have seen.
> 
> 
> At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.
Click to expand...

No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?

I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.


_*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. *_


----------



## G.T.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> Strict Scrutiny
> 
> *A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.*
> 
> The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the *equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. *Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. *The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.*
> 
> The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. *The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an Arbitrary or irrational decision*. When employed, the Rational Basis Test usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. *The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex.* As articulated in _Craig v. Boren,_ 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve _important_ governmental objectives and must _be substantially related_ to the achievement of those objectives."
> 
> Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as _suspect classifications_ that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.
> 
> Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. *The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.* If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.
> 
> The case of roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), which invalidated state laws that prohibited Abortion, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny. The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that this right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Based on these grounds, the Court applied strict scrutiny. The state of Texas sought to proscribe all abortions and claimed a compelling State Interest in protecting unborn human life. Though the Court acknowledged that this was a legitimate interest, it held that the interest does not become compelling until that point in pregnancy when the fetus becomes "viable" (capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). The Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but the Texas law was not narrowly tailored to achieve this objective. Therefore, the state did not meet its Burden of Proof and the law was held unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

He's the one yelling liberal this and liberal that and doesn't understand the concept of Liberty - thanks for posting that. Hopefully, he might read it and learn something.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
Click to expand...


And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.


Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, how.
> 
> 
> And why don't you explain why it does not matter that you libs are setting national policy based on cheat and bullying, without giving other people a real chance for input?
> 
> 
> Cause, I'd really like to hear your explanation on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> An effective tactic, as we have seen.
> 
> 
> At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?
> 
> I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.
> 
> 
> _*Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - .... *_
Click to expand...



Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not talking to a lib, buttercup.
> 
> Address me like a normal human and I'll begin doing same.
> 
> To answer your question, your question is a false premise. Youve been GIVEN a chance for input. You've been unable to come up with any compelling reason to prevent gays from civil marriage.
> 
> This whole time, even....and not just in Court...you are just empty/vacuous.
> 
> This, and in Court...WAS your chance...and youve got no legitimate argument. The majority of the Nation actually SUPPORTS gay marriage...might should take a peek at that.
> 
> Your narrative is desperate, and failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> An effective tactic, as we have seen.
> 
> 
> At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?
> 
> I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.
> 
> 
> _*Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - .... *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.
Click to expand...

No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions. 

You're obfuscating, yet again. 

The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.

No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.

You're unable to refute that.


----------



## DGS49

Sorry for not reading this entire thread, but I have a few thoughts on the issue.

Several decades ago, the USSC created a "Constitutional right of Privacy."  There is no such right, and it is insidious.  While sounding quite innocuous and even beneficial, it is undefinable, which leads to judicial mischief.  That is to say, if people have an undefinable "right," then lawyers can make it include ANYTHING.  Buggery, baby-killing, and now the biologically and culturally absurd institution called "gay marriage."

A legal change of this magnitude MUST be implemented by Constitutional Amendment AT THE STATE LEVEL. The Fed's have no powers in the area of marriage, and their interest in the institution is limited to how it affects taxes, and benefits conferred on married and/or single people.  The Constitutional amendment process in each state ensures that this drastic change to the laws and culture is made formally and by more than a simple majority of the popular voters.

But in this country, it has been forced upon us by JUDICIAL DECREE, which is a legal abomination.  And that judicial decree was based on the non-existent Constitutional Right of Privacy.  In fact, if the same case were to come up today, it would be decided otherwise.  But this is a classic case of the horse being out, making closing of the barn door irrelevant and pointless.

I have no problem with a State deciding formally to permit or sanction "gay marriage," but it is noteworthy that when the question came up to a popular vote before the USSC stepped in, IT LOST IN EVERY SINGLE STATE, *including California*.

It is really pointless arguing about it now.


----------



## G.T.

DGS49 said:


> Sorry for not reading this entire thread, but I have a few thoughts on the issue.
> 
> Several decades ago, the USSC created a "Constitutional right of Privacy."  There is no such right, and it is insidious.  While sounding quite innocuous and even beneficial, it is undefinable, which leads to judicial mischief.  That is to say, if people have an undefinable "right," then lawyers can make it include ANYTHING.  Buggery, baby-killing, and now the biologically and culturally absurd institution called "gay marriage."
> 
> A legal change of this magnitude MUST be implemented by Constitutional Amendment AT THE STATE LEVEL. The Fed's have no powers in the area of marriage, and their interest in the institution is limited to how it affects taxes, and benefits conferred on married and/or single people.  The Constitutional amendment process in each state ensures that this drastic change to the laws and culture is made formally and by more than a simple majority of the popular voters.
> 
> But in this country, it has been forced upon us by JUDICIAL DECREE, which is a legal abomination.  And that judicial decree was based on the non-existent Constitutional Right of Privacy.  In fact, if the same case were to come up today, it would be decided otherwise.  But this is a classic case of the horse being out, making closing of the barn door irrelevant and pointless.
> 
> I have no problem with a State deciding formally to permit or sanction "gay marriage," but it is noteworthy that when the question came up to a popular vote before the USSC stepped in, IT LOST IN EVERY SINGLE STATE, *including California*.
> 
> It is really pointless arguing about it now.


The right to privacy and 6 million other rights DO exist, they're implied until argued and vetted otherwise...that's how freedom works - the State's just there to assure your freedom is maximized versus it (your freedom) imposing on someone else's(freedom).


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have demonstrated, the premise of the discussion was false.
> 
> 
> Thus, the chance for real discussion, real input, was never there.
> 
> 
> NOt to mention that the issue was taken to the COURTS, and not the legislature where discussion of policy is supposed to take place.
> 
> 
> This is a failure of govern by consensus and the success of rule by force.
> 
> 
> YOu don't like the agenda? YOu get no say. YOu don't like it? Keep your mouth shut, or we destroy you. Soon, it will be we arrest you for hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> An effective tactic, as we have seen.
> 
> 
> At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?
> 
> I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.
> 
> 
> _*Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - .... *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
Click to expand...



If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit. 

They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.

NEXT!


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
Click to expand...



Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy. 


Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise was not false...the premise was that unless there's a compelling interest to exclude gays from Marriage - we should re-visit the institution from a Legal perspective and perhaps include them.
> 
> Done, and done.
> 
> Nothing about the premise is false. You are just bitter, and completely incapable of providing the compelling argument..
> 
> Still waiting on that, too...and instead you continue to bloviate and whine that the discussion was started to begin with. Thats not an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> An effective tactic, as we have seen.
> 
> 
> At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?
> 
> I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.
> 
> 
> _*Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - .... *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
Click to expand...

uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.

Wow you're recklessly obtuse.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you refuse to even discuss the issue, unless we start with your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> An effective tactic, as we have seen.
> 
> 
> At the cost of removing the chance of government by consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?
> 
> I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.
> 
> 
> _*Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - .... *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
Click to expand...



You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".


They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I posted my premises and a conclusion that was not equivalent to my premises and you've yet to address them, directly. You merely obfuscated, as you are now. Do I need to teach you that p1, p2, c is the proper form of a logical syllogism, and that my p1 and my p2 were not my c?
> 
> I mean - words have meaning? I don't know how else to explain these simple concepts to Correll on the internet.
> 
> 
> _*Premise 1: Gays have expressed the right to want to Marry, Civilly - .... *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
Click to expand...

That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.

All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake. 

Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.

#winning4liberty


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that we have made zero progress with Correll and I'm pretty certain that it is futile. He is convinced that the burden of proof is on gay folks to justify marriage ], and even at that, no matter what is presented to him it would not be enough. And he certainly wont-or does not want to understand that the government must justify restrictions on rights when challenged,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
Click to expand...

May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably.

At least you abandoned the horseshit about the premise being the conclusion


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which assumes YOUR definition of Marriage. One that you and yours just made up within the last few years vs definitions that are literally thousands of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
Click to expand...




Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic. 


You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination. 


Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.


I've nothing to concede.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
Click to expand...

The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineptitude in addressing the compelling reasons to exclude them - it's yet another concession, and absent a compelling reason to exclude them it then BECOMES a case for discrimination, and of your own doing in refusing to give any compelling reason to exclude them.

Is it because you know "theyre icky" is too obvious?

More icing. More winning.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe burden of proof on the people who want to make the change? What a radical concept.
> 
> 
> For you.
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
Click to expand...


True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology. 


Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination. 


This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
Click to expand...


"You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination."


it IS discrimination.

and greed
and unfair
and immoral

It is WRONG to deny gays the  right to marry.

What words can I use that won't piss a conservative off?


you want to feel GOOD about denying people rights so you spin the discussion as though LIBERALS are BAD because they "deny you your right to discriminate against and punish gays without anyone daring to call it discrimination"

gays  deserve the right to marry.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
Click to expand...



The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise. 


That is all you have here. 


And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.

AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.


----------



## Correll

anynameyouwish said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination."
> 
> 
> it IS discrimination.
> 
> and greed
> and unfair
> and immoral
> 
> It is WRONG to deny gays the  right to marry.
> 
> What words can I use that won't piss a conservative off?
> 
> 
> you want to feel GOOD about denying people rights so you spin the discussion as though LIBERALS are BAD because they "deny you your right to discriminate against and punish gays without anyone daring to call it discrimination"
> 
> gays  deserve the right to marry.
Click to expand...




You're jumping in pretty late. Go back about 50 pages, and read it. We covered this issue very well. Trump me, Prog did as well as any lib could have done.



It is not his fault that he lost so badly.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
Click to expand...

If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...

and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..

then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."


----------



## anynameyouwish

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
Click to expand...



I see. 
you DEMAND that liberals discuss the issue the way YOU frame it!

by accusing THEM of discussing it THEIR WAY!

very tricky of you....

cleverly forcing liberals to discuss the issue the way you frame it by accusing them of your own crimes!


tricky evil conservatives......

why don't you just admit that you want to feel GOOD about denying gays rights.


admit it.

don't be PC.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
Click to expand...

No, thats a mere reading for comprehension issue, and yet ANOTHER concession and failure to address the issue, on your part. Back to your corner.  dont melt down, now


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...
> 
> and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..
> 
> then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."
Click to expand...




Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently. 


That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.


----------



## G.T.

anynameyouwish said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> you DEMAND that liberals discuss the issue the way YOU frame it!
> 
> by accusing THEM of discussing it THEIR WAY!
> 
> very tricky of you....
> 
> cleverly forcing liberals to discuss the issue the way you frame it by accusing them of your own crimes!
> 
> 
> tricky evil conservatives......
> 
> why don't you just admit that you want to feel GOOD about denying gays rights.
> 
> 
> admit it.
> 
> don't be PC.
Click to expand...

Aside from your lumping in all conservatives...you're about right ... Correll is failing quite miserably and also has no nuts to adequatly express his real bone to pick.


----------



## Correll

anynameyouwish said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> you DEMAND that liberals discuss the issue the way YOU frame it!
> 
> by accusing THEM of discussing it THEIR WAY!
> 
> very tricky of you....
> 
> cleverly forcing liberals to discuss the issue the way you frame it by accusing them of your own crimes!
> 
> 
> tricky evil conservatives......
> 
> why don't you just admit that you want to feel GOOD about denying gays rights.
> 
> 
> admit it.
> 
> don't be PC.
Click to expand...



What is my assumption that I am asking them to accept before discussion?


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...
> 
> and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..
> 
> then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.
> 
> 
> That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, thats a mere reading for comprehension issue, and yet ANOTHER concession and failure to address the issue, on your part. Back to your corner.  dont melt down, now
Click to expand...


Exclude: deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.

definition exclude - Google Search

Nope. Looks like my reading comprehension is just fine. When you use the word, "exclude" you are assuming the premise that a same sex couple is only barred from Marriage due to the action of someone, not due to the form and purpose of the institution not fitting them.



My example about the football club, still stands.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> 
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...
> 
> and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..
> 
> then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.
> 
> 
> That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.
Click to expand...




I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, thats a mere reading for comprehension issue, and yet ANOTHER concession and failure to address the issue, on your part. Back to your corner.  dont melt down, now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exclude: deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.
> 
> definition exclude - Google Search
> 
> Nope. Looks like my reading comprehension is just fine. When you use the word, "exclude" you are assuming the premise that a same sex couple is only barred from Marriage due to the action of someone, not due to the form and purpose of the institution not fitting them.
> 
> 
> 
> My example about the football club, still stands.
Click to expand...

I think you're chasing your tail, Correll. Its "revisit to include" if there's "no compelling reason to exclude."

You're forgetting the first part in the quotations, there.

How derp are you if this is seriously how desperate you are to avoid the issue...merely to hide that you're just a fuckin bigot?

What the fuck Logic...lets try this...forget the State, Laws...forget all that shit youre getting your ass beat on and tell me YOUR, PERSONAL argument for not reframing civil marriage to include gays.

Maybe your fucking honesty might come and play.

Let's not forget gays are fathers & that gay couples are families before you hurr dee durr your previously failed commentary on fatherhood.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...
> 
> and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..
> 
> then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.
> 
> 
> That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.
Click to expand...

The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.

That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.

Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.

The Cake has been tasty.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it assumes the traditional, legal definition of marriage and the notion that there's no compelling reason not to revisit and change it to be including of gays since they've asked for its re-visitation and - as you've conceded - a citizenry has a right to revisit and change its public institutions.
> 
> You're obfuscating, yet again.
> 
> The notion is not that Marriage was always supposed to have included gays by its definition...and that's why you're confused and think the premises = the conclusion.
> 
> No, the notion is that they've expressed the right to want access and inclusion in civil marriage - and if there's no compelling reason to prevent such - the request should be granted.
> 
> You're unable to refute that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
Click to expand...

This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.

The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do

At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.

Game over


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof on the people who want to restrict rights. Not radical at all
> 
> ....al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
Click to expand...

Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.

Game over


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> 
> 
> The way you framed that is just a comfort blanket for your ineotitude in addressing the comoelling reasons to exclude them - .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The moment you say "exclude" you are doing it again. Insisting on your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> That is all you have here.
> 
> 
> And even if you were to admit that, and be willing to move the discussion forward, it would not matter, because historically the Left won by this tactic, and that is the basis of our national policy now.
> 
> AND of course, the Left will use that tactic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, thats a mere reading for comprehension issue, and yet ANOTHER concession and failure to address the issue, on your part. Back to your corner.  dont melt down, now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exclude: deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.
> 
> definition exclude - Google Search
> 
> Nope. Looks like my reading comprehension is just fine. When you use the word, "exclude" you are assuming the premise that a same sex couple is only barred from Marriage due to the action of someone, not due to the form and purpose of the institution not fitting them.
> 
> 
> 
> My example about the football club, still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're chasing your tail, Correll. Its "revisit to include" if there's "no compelling reason to exclude."
> 
> You're forgetting the first part in the quotations, there.
> 
> How derp are you if this is seriously how desperate you are to avoid the issue...merely to hide that you're just a fuckin bigot?
> 
> What the fuck Logic...lets try this...forget the State, Laws...forget all that shit youre getting your ass beat on and tell me YOUR, PERSONAL argument for not reframing civil marriage to include gays.
> 
> Maybe your fucking honesty might come and play.
> 
> Let's not forget gays are fathers & that gay couples are families before you hurr dee durr your previously failed commentary on fatherhood.
Click to expand...




Yeah, you try to sound like you're up for a serious discussion, 


but this gives it away.


"merely to hide that you're just a fucking bigot?"


Merely NOT agreeing immediately, is characterized as being a bigot. And that only works, if you are working with your conclusion as the premise.



This policy was not decided on by consensus, or debate, or even legal tactics.


The primary process was a con.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...
> 
> and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..
> 
> then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.
> 
> 
> That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.
> 
> That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.
> 
> Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.
> 
> The Cake has been tasty.
Click to expand...



You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you assume the traditional definition of marriage, which is your claim, then you are stating the gays wanted to participate in an institution where one man and one women would form a family unit.
> 
> They could always do that. And many did. No change needed.
> 
> NEXT!
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
Click to expand...



I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).


This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, all you have, is a demand that your conclusion, be taken as the premise, before discussion starts.
> 
> 
> Do you see how this is a tactic that is certain to cause massive resentment in those you outmaneuver?
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
Click to expand...



Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".


That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.


You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.


Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.



The basis of this policy, was a con.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If youre seeing stonewalling from the guys providing you with valid reasons to include gays into the institution...i.e. Liberty, and the State having no compelling reason to prevent their access...
> 
> and calling what YOURE doing...which is whining that there's a discussion at all, and failing to address the merit - which is that there ARENT compelling reasons for the States to deny said liberty..
> 
> then you belong in a "special" corner, all to yourself. Its not below the bottom-tier debaters.. Id like to name it "Correll's corner."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.
> 
> 
> That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.
> 
> That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.
> 
> Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.
> 
> The Cake has been tasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.
Click to expand...

You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's _actually_ an argument.

For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.

You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?

Here, let me demonstrate:

Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.

Correll: <_*We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >*_
_*
premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage. 

Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage. 
*_
That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.

Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:

GT:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.*
*P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.*
*P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.*
*C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships. *




Correll's response:

nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.







"Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no, I assume(actually explicitly stated, but heck...you're you)...that they wanted to CHANGE the institution, i.e. its DEFINITION, to be inclusive of THEIR relationships.
> 
> Wow you're recklessly obtuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
Click to expand...

Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The premise is that the burden of proof is on the government AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. The conclusion is that bans on same  sex marriage are unconstitutional because that did not meet the threshold  of a rational basis review. So what the fuck are you jabbering about. Discussion has started and ended and has left you in the dust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
Click to expand...

Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.

It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships. *_

Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.

Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".


An admission? It was a statement of fact. The restrictions were arbitrary and the courts  agreed


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.


You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story


----------



## G.T.

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
Click to expand...

We are on post #1, 274 - the mud is concrete.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is just the assumptions of your conclusion, phrased differently.
> 
> 
> That you and yours insisted on that, invalidated the discussion and discredited the legal process that did take place.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.
> 
> That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.
> 
> Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.
> 
> The Cake has been tasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's _actually_ an argument.
> 
> For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.
> 
> You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?
> 
> Here, let me demonstrate:
> 
> Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.
> 
> Correll: <_*We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >*_
> _*
> premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.
> *_
> That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.
> 
> Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:
> 
> GT:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.*
> *P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.*
> *P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.*
> *C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll's response:
> 
> nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.
Click to expand...



Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no. Your misaprehension of them, and not the premises themselves might be...but any viewer can read and decide for themselves and uh...pretty certain you haven't found any compelling reason not to revisit Marriage Law to include gay marriages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.
> 
> That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.
> 
> Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.
> 
> The Cake has been tasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's _actually_ an argument.
> 
> For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.
> 
> You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?
> 
> Here, let me demonstrate:
> 
> Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.
> 
> Correll: <_*We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >*_
> _*
> premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.
> *_
> That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.
> 
> Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:
> 
> GT:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.*
> *P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.*
> *P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.*
> *C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll's response:
> 
> nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.
Click to expand...

How is bigotry not assumed your motive when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason to disallow the re-structure of the institution?

Beuller? Beuller?

Sit down already, you goof. If you had an argument and weren't just a goober hiding his bigotry, you'd fucking present it. Grow up.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You opened wrong then. You opened saying that they wanted to "Marry".
> 
> 
> They could always marry. Plenty of gays married for thousands of years. Rarely a peep said about it.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
Click to expand...



Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?


Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
Click to expand...

^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example of Appeal to Authority as a Logical Fallacy.
> 
> 
> Now you are jumping back and forth between two arguments. I guess you were getting worried how obvious your stonewalli was getting?
> 
> 
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships. *_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.
Click to expand...




It is on the person wanting change to make the case for the change. 


Your side's primary tactic for this, was the con of insisting that your conclusion be the premise for the discussion. And you succeeded.


That invalidates the result.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.

It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_

Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.


Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> 
> An admission? It was a statement of fact. The restrictions were arbitrary and the courts  agreed
Click to expand...



The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated. 


Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy. 


We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.


And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying. 



Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
Click to expand...



IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.


To bad we didn't have one.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> 
> An admission? It was a statement of fact. The restrictions were arbitrary and the courts  agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated.
> 
> 
> Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy.
> 
> 
> We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.
> 
> 
> And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.
Click to expand...

That's a misapprehension of the argument. 

The reasons not to change marriage in the eyes of the state are what's arbitrary, and you've failed to address it. More deflection, more obfuscation, more crying "liberal."

Vacuous.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.
> 
> 
> To bad we didn't have one.
Click to expand...

too*

Of course you aren't.

You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through. 

Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' see how we can have such a discussion, when you libs will, as already demonstrated, will constantly be asserting your conclusion as a premise, and be shocked each and ever time, that I call you on it.
> 
> 
> 
> The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.
> 
> That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.
> 
> Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.
> 
> The Cake has been tasty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's _actually_ an argument.
> 
> For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.
> 
> You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?
> 
> Here, let me demonstrate:
> 
> Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.
> 
> Correll: <_*We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >*_
> _*
> premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.
> *_
> That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.
> 
> Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:
> 
> GT:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.*
> *P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.*
> *P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.*
> *C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll's response:
> 
> nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is bigotry not assumed your motive when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason to disallow the re-structure of the institution?
> 
> Beuller? Beuller?
> 
> Sit down already, you goof. If you had an argument and weren't just a goober hiding his bigotry, you'd fucking present it. Grow up.
Click to expand...



Your inability to not assume ill motives of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,


is your issue, not mine.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "your conclusion= your premises" argument was debunked. You misframed the argument and then argued that all by yourself.
> 
> That Im a lib was also debunked. I tell you my politics, you dont tell me, Correll.
> 
> Correll, there's an inverse relationship with how highly you view your "performance" here, and your actual intellectual reputation.
> 
> The Cake has been tasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's _actually_ an argument.
> 
> For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.
> 
> You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?
> 
> Here, let me demonstrate:
> 
> Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.
> 
> Correll: <_*We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >*_
> _*
> premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.
> *_
> That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.
> 
> Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:
> 
> GT:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.*
> *P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.*
> *P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.*
> *C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll's response:
> 
> nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is bigotry not assumed your motive when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason to disallow the re-structure of the institution?
> 
> Beuller? Beuller?
> 
> Sit down already, you goof. If you had an argument and weren't just a goober hiding his bigotry, you'd fucking present it. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to not assume ill motives of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,
> 
> 
> is your issue, not mine.
Click to expand...

When you're inept @ addressing arguments head-on, and instead spend over 1, 000 posts misapprehending the (very basic) nature of the arguments...and then whining about your straw-man misapprehension as opposed to addressing why gay marriage should be prevented...it's logical to assume you're a dyed in the wool, cowardly bigot. Raise your paw


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> 
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion
Click to expand...


I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.

That is not avoidance.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.
> 
> That is not avoidance.
Click to expand...

It is avoidance.

You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.

Deflect to your corner, bigot. 

Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
Click to expand...



They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.

your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.
> 
> your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.
Click to expand...

Which premise are you having trouble with?

Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...

Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> 
> An admission? It was a statement of fact. The restrictions were arbitrary and the courts  agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated.
> 
> 
> Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy.
> 
> 
> We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.
> 
> 
> And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a misapprehension of the argument.
> 
> The reasons not to change marriage in the eyes of the state are what's arbitrary, and you've failed to address it. More deflection, more obfuscation, more crying "liberal."
> 
> Vacuous.
Click to expand...



The person requesting the change, has to make the case for the change. In a real policy debate.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.
> 
> 
> To bad we didn't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too*
> 
> Of course you aren't.
> 
> You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
Click to expand...




I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised. 

For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.
> 
> 
> To bad we didn't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too*
> 
> Of course you aren't.
> 
> You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised.
> 
> For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.
Click to expand...

Which premise? Sorry, all I've see you do is whine. You're a bigot, I don't respect you as a result and I'm not naive enough to presume that somebody in 2019 arguing against gay marriage is NOT a bigot, let alone have you presented a single fucking reason to prevent it with any meat on it (pun intended) whatsoever.

You're becoming a meme.

Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You libs stonewalling, is not debunking my argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have an argument, you have derp and bloviating and have been conceding this with each post where you're presented with what's _actually_ an argument.
> 
> For example, you've invented in your mind, merely to rationalize your bigotry (mind you which you're not man enough to admit)...that the other side's premise assumes its conclusion.
> 
> You've been dismantled on that issue strategically, but know what I haven't done yet - because I wanted to see how many posts you'd blather non-arguments for? Eviscerating yourself?
> 
> Here, let me demonstrate:
> 
> Folks at home, which of these premises assumes its conclusion, with no argument.
> 
> Correll: <_*We are free to re-visit our social institutions and amend them. >*_
> _*
> premise 1: Gays are not included in the definition of marriage.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, we should not amend the definition of marriage to include gay marriage.
> *_
> That was painful to even type! Correll thinks that this is an argument, and fails to recognize that his blathering this entire time is doing exactly what he's whining about these invisible "libs" in his head.
> 
> Here's what an actual argument, that doesn't assume its conclusion in its premises, looks like. I report, y'all decide:
> 
> GT:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.*
> *P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.*
> *P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.*
> *C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll's response:
> 
> nuh uhh......grrr libs....grrrr youre assuming your conclusions in the premise but i cant explain how....durrr fathers.......durrr libs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Correll's Corner" slips another flight below the bottom-tier usmb debaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the actual discussing looked nothing like that, as you demonstrate with your constant assumption of bigotry as my motive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is bigotry not assumed your motive when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason to disallow the re-structure of the institution?
> 
> Beuller? Beuller?
> 
> Sit down already, you goof. If you had an argument and weren't just a goober hiding his bigotry, you'd fucking present it. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your inability to not assume ill motives of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda,
> 
> 
> is your issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you're inept @ addressing arguments head-on, and instead spend over 1, 000 posts misapprehending the (very basic) nature of the arguments...and then whining about your straw-man misapprehension as opposed to addressing why gay marriage should be prevented...it's logical to assume you're a dyed in the wool, cowardly bigot. Raise your paw
Click to expand...




No, I think I spent a lot of time seriously and honestly discussing the issue with Prog, and managed to weed though the chaff, to find the crux of the matter. 


That your response to me, discussing your inability to assume ill motives (specifically bigotry) of anyone that does not immediately conform to your agenda, 


is to just accuse me of being a bigot, 


sort of sums it all up.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.
> 
> That is not avoidance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is avoidance.
> 
> You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.
> 
> Deflect to your corner, bigot.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
Click to expand...



You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago. 


AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.


You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.
> 
> your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which premise are you having trouble with?
> 
> Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
Click to expand...



Better, you managed to not call me a bigot, FOR ONE WHOLE POST IN A ROW!!!


Good for you.


Now, the issue is, that your presentation of the debate is false, because such as debate would never have been taken to the courts, it would have taken place in the legislatures.


To take it to the courts, you have to assume as a premise, that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary, and thus discrimination.


The very venue your side choose, based the discussion on a false premise, ie your conclusion.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.
> 
> That is not avoidance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is avoidance.
> 
> You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.
> 
> Deflect to your corner, bigot.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.
> 
> 
> AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.
Click to expand...

More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging. 

It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument. 

Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:

Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.
> 
> 
> To bad we didn't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too*
> 
> Of course you aren't.
> 
> You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised.
> 
> For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which premise? Sorry, all I've see you do is whine. You're a bigot, I don't respect you as a result and I'm not naive enough to presume that somebody in 2019 arguing against gay marriage is NOT a bigot, let alone have you presented a single fucking reason to prevent it with any meat on it (pun intended) whatsoever.
> 
> You're becoming a meme.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
Click to expand...




you could save time typing, by just saying "BIGOT".


Cause that is all you have.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.
> 
> That is not avoidance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is avoidance.
> 
> You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.
> 
> Deflect to your corner, bigot.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.
> 
> 
> AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.
> 
> It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.
> 
> Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
Click to expand...




You don't get to try to pretend to be reasonable., when you open a debate with defining opposition to you, as bigotry.


That corrupts and invalidates the process.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.
> 
> your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which premise are you having trouble with?
> 
> Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Better, you managed to not call me a bigot, FOR ONE WHOLE POST IN A ROW!!!
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> 
> Now, the issue is, that your presentation of the debate is false, because such as debate would never have been taken to the courts, it would have taken place in the legislatures.
> 
> 
> To take it to the courts, you have to assume as a premise, that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary, and thus discrimination.
> 
> 
> The very venue your side choose, based the discussion on a false premise, ie your conclusion.
Click to expand...

That's an assertion, not an argument. The lack of reasoning behind the continued exclusion when there's a represented segment of society presenting it - is a case. You're unable to address it as one, nevertheless. That's because instead of advising why you're personally against gay marriage, all you're doing is whining about how it was presented in the 1st place. You've provided no argument against changing marriage.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ more avoidance, more inability to compel the state to prevent the inclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.
> 
> That is not avoidance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is avoidance.
> 
> You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.
> 
> Deflect to your corner, bigot.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.
> 
> 
> AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.
> 
> It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.
> 
> Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to try to pretend to be reasonable., when you open a debate with defining opposition to you, as bigotry.
> 
> 
> That corrupts and invalidates the process.
Click to expand...

I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.
> 
> your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which premise are you having trouble with?
> 
> Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Better, you managed to not call me a bigot, FOR ONE WHOLE POST IN A ROW!!!
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> 
> Now, the issue is, that your presentation of the debate is false, because such as debate would never have been taken to the courts, it would have taken place in the legislatures.
> 
> 
> To take it to the courts, you have to assume as a premise, that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary, and thus discrimination.
> 
> 
> The very venue your side choose, based the discussion on a false premise, ie your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an assertion, not an argument. The lack of reasoning behind the continued exclusion when there's a represented segment of society presenting it - is a case......
Click to expand...




1. NO, there is an argument there. It is one me and prog went over many, many times. Look closer.

2. ANd boom. You claim "exclusion", that assumes your conclusion as the premise.



hypothetical example. I show up at a football club, wearing my "football is stupid" t-shirt. They don't accept my membership, because it is club for football fans, and I am not a football fan.

I don't fit the purpose of the institution. 


NOw, If I go and sue, and I win, it is no longer a club for Football fans. It is just a social club, that has been forced by the power of the state, to give up it's purpose.


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a serious, open ended question about his post.
> 
> That is not avoidance.
> 
> 
> 
> It is avoidance.
> 
> You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.
> 
> Deflect to your corner, bigot.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.
> 
> 
> AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.
> 
> It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.
> 
> Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to try to pretend to be reasonable., when you open a debate with defining opposition to you, as bigotry.
> 
> 
> That corrupts and invalidates the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.
Click to expand...



You are a blind man, outraged that the bird watching club, doesn't have a spot for him.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships.*_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were deemed arbitrary. That does not mean that judgment was correct.
> 
> your inability to support that conclusion, without having your conclusion accepted as the premise, strongly implies that is was not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which premise are you having trouble with?
> 
> Put on your big boy pants, and tackle it head-on instead of continuing your obfuscations...
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Better, you managed to not call me a bigot, FOR ONE WHOLE POST IN A ROW!!!
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> 
> Now, the issue is, that your presentation of the debate is false, because such as debate would never have been taken to the courts, it would have taken place in the legislatures.
> 
> 
> To take it to the courts, you have to assume as a premise, that the structure of Marriage is arbitrary, and thus discrimination.
> 
> 
> The very venue your side choose, based the discussion on a false premise, ie your conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an assertion, not an argument. The lack of reasoning behind the continued exclusion when there's a represented segment of society presenting it - is a case......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. NO, there is an argument there. It is one me and prog went over many, many times. Look closer.
> 
> 2. ANd boom. You claim "exclusion", that assumes your conclusion as the premise.
> 
> 
> 
> hypothetical example. I show up at a football club, wearing my "football is stupid" t-shirt. They don't accept my membership, because it is club for football fans, and I am not a football fan.
> 
> I don't fit the purpose of the institution.
> 
> 
> NOw, If I go and sue, and I win, it is no longer a club for Football fans. It is just a social club, that has been forced by the power of the state, to give up it's purpose.
Click to expand...

No, my conclusion is to change Marriage as a civil institution and my premises, none of the 3 of them(take a peek), state that conclusion as a premise. You have really hard reading comprehension problems, bigot. Here it is again for you...

Try again, kiddy corner:

*P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is avoidance.
> 
> You've been presented with arguments, and instead of addressing them you whine about reasons why you can't...and when you express these reasons, they're clearly born of your inability to grasp the argument to begin with.
> 
> Deflect to your corner, bigot.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.
> 
> 
> AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.
> 
> It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.
> 
> Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to try to pretend to be reasonable., when you open a debate with defining opposition to you, as bigotry.
> 
> 
> That corrupts and invalidates the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a blind man, outraged that the bird watching club, doesn't have a spot for him.
Click to expand...

What are you, 90 with that "joke?"

You can't logic.
You can't joke.
You can't comprehend.

What CAN you do, kiddie corner?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just a reach, now. Now you're onto desperation, I'll consider it a concession. Youve failed to provide a compelling reason to prevent gays from participating in the institution with one another.
> 
> All this bblabbity blah and illogic you're deflecting with is icing on the concession cake.
> 
> Now Im gunna paint ya with a downright assertion: there IS no compelling reason.
> 
> #winning4liberty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
Click to expand...

The side that is constantly shouting down the other is you.. We have presented extensive and detailed information on how the law works. I have posted documentation on the fact that gay folks make just as good parents as others. I have discussed the fact that children benefit from having married parents and pointed out that gay people are fathers and mothers and form families and that same sex couples are the same as everyone else except perhaps what  they have between their respective legs

You have not countered any of that, but rather ignore all of the evidence that shows there is no rational reason to keep gays from marrying and that there is, in fact some very good reasons to allow it. Rather, all that you seem to do is to repeat the same crap about traditional marriage as an ancient institution and place blame for excluding gays from marriage on these shadowy figures instead of taking responsibility for your own bigotry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I remind you that you had previously admitted that all appeals to authority are not invalid. You are grasping at straws and failing miserably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships. *_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is on the person wanting change to make the case for the change.
> 
> 
> Your side's primary tactic for this, was the con of insisting that your conclusion be the premise for the discussion. And you succeeded.
> 
> 
> That invalidates the result.
Click to expand...

Same shit different post


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.
> 
> 
> To bad we didn't have one.
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> 
> An admission? It was a statement of fact. The restrictions were arbitrary and the courts  agreed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The structure of marriage was not arbitrary, as I demonstrated.
> 
> 
> Your assertion is the con that is the basis of this national policy.
> 
> 
> We have identified the fundamental point of contention between the Right and the Left on this issue.
> 
> 
> And it is those that refuse to accept the lie, vs those that did the lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks prog. YOu did an excellent job of representing your side in this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a misapprehension of the argument.
> 
> The reasons not to change marriage in the eyes of the state are what's arbitrary, and you've failed to address it. More deflection, more obfuscation, more crying "liberal."
> 
> Vacuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The person requesting the change, has to make the case for the change. In a real policy debate.
Click to expand...

Actually they did by filing law suits against the states that had restricted marriage to a man  and a woman. But there is a difference between requesting change and the burden of proof

It was up to the states to defend against those suits by establishing a rational basis for the restriction. They failed . End of story


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Correll said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck in the mud on this ancient institution of marriage. I hold people today responsible for arbitrary restrictions on marriage and the resulting discrimination. Period, end of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IN no way am I stuck in the past. I am, or was, completely open to a discussion on this issue.
> 
> 
> To bad we didn't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too*
> 
> Of course you aren't.
> 
> You've been presented with multiple cogent arguments, and all you've done is whine that you're having a discussion at all. You're see through.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seriously addressed all the arguments you people have raised.
> 
> For you to deny that, and dismiss it all as "whining" shows your lack of seriousness and honesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which premise? Sorry, all I've see you do is whine. You're a bigot, I don't respect you as a result and I'm not naive enough to presume that somebody in 2019 arguing against gay marriage is NOT a bigot, let alone have you presented a single fucking reason to prevent it with any meat on it (pun intended) whatsoever.
> 
> You're becoming a meme.
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you could save time typing, by just saying "BIGOT".
> 
> 
> Cause that is all you have.
Click to expand...

That is all that you are


----------



## Correll

G.T. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not bringing up anything that me and prog didn't go over weeks ago.
> 
> 
> AND you are still NEEDING to slander me as a bigot, before you even get to the supposed debate.
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating my point, with nearly every post.
> 
> 
> 
> More deflecting, ^ dipping, ducking and dodging.
> 
> It's because you're a bigot, Correll. The lack of an argument is not an argument.
> 
> Here's what an argument looks like. Dip, duck and dodge bigot:
> 
> Try again, kiddy corner:
> 
> *P1. Gays have expressed the desire to re-visit the definition of Marriage, and amend it to include their relationships in the eyes of the State.
> P2. Society is free to re-visit its institutions and amend them.
> P3. There exists no compelling reason the State shouldn't grant their request.
> C. Marriage has been changed to accommodate gay relationships.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to try to pretend to be reasonable., when you open a debate with defining opposition to you, as bigotry.
> 
> 
> That corrupts and invalidates the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call a spade a spade, and you're a spineless bigot. If you dont like the label, move the fuck on because there's no logical reason that someone minding their own business gives any fucks whatsoever that gays can marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a blind man, outraged that the bird watching club, doesn't have a spot for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you, 90 with that "joke?"
> 
> You can't logic.
> You can't joke.
> You can't comprehend.
> 
> What CAN you do, kiddie corner?
Click to expand...



Just trying to find a way past your barriers to communication.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen it took a long time to get here, but we have uncovered the basis of the conflict between the Right and the Left on this topic.
> 
> 
> You wanted to change the Institution of Marriage, for your gay friends, and you did it, by dishonestly insisting that anyone that disagreed with you was supporting discrimination.
> 
> 
> Cleverly done. Very dishonest. but clever.
> 
> 
> I've nothing to concede.
> 
> 
> 
> This dishonesty that you keep blathering about is like the monster under the bed of a 5 year old. It ain't really there.
> 
> The opponents  of same sex marriage were given ample opportunity to make a case for rational basis for bans on same sex marriage. They failed time and again. The only dishonesty was on the part of those seeking to exclude gays by making up all sorts of shit, just like you do
> 
> At the same time, considerable evidence that shows how marriage benefits families and children was presented. You yourself presented such evidence, only you -DISHONESTLY- claimed that it did not apply to gay people, ignoring the fact that they too are families that have children.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you accuse me of dishonesty, and then dishonestly present my argument(s).
> 
> 
> This ironically supports my conclusion that there was, and indeed, cannot be any real discussion, with liberals on this issue, because you have/are insisting on your conclusion as a premise for any discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just more debunked, meaningless bullshit .Talk about stonewalling!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why my point regarding the impossibility of having a read debate, while on side is constantly shouting down the other with various forms of insisting that it's conclusion be taken as a premise?
> 
> 
> Hint: Stating you disagree, is not "debunking".  You have to find and explain a real flaw in the argument. This is a rhetorical statement by the way. I know you got nothing but white noise out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The side that is constantly shouting down the other is you.. ....
Click to expand...



Now you're just being silly.


----------



## Correll

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. But the courts are not much of an Authority on ancient sociology.
> 
> 
> Which is what you are referencing when you claim that Marriage is discrimination.
> 
> 
> This has been a very productive and educational discussion. Your constant stonewalling, has enabled me to distill the issue down to the crux of the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships. *_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is on the person wanting change to make the case for the change.
> 
> 
> Your side's primary tactic for this, was the con of insisting that your conclusion be the premise for the discussion. And you succeeded.
> 
> 
> That invalidates the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same shit different post
Click to expand...



Agreed. We are pretty much done here. YOu should request the thread to be closed.


----------



## G.T.

Correll said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude! We had been all through this days and days ago! The courts are expert in constitutional law and that is all that matters. You are the one who is stonewalling with this ancient sociology and the origins of marriage crap.
> 
> Game over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Days? It was weeks ago that you admitted that the basis for taking this case to the courts was that the "restrictions" were "ARBITRARY".
> 
> 
> That argument rests on the motives and intent of those that developed the institution of Marriage, thousands of years ago.
> 
> 
> You don't get to hold people today, responsible for decisions made literally thousands of years before they were born.
> 
> 
> Once again, we see the dishonesty of the Liberal, that prevents any real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this policy, was a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is a clear indication that you misapprehend the argument.
> 
> It's arbitrary reasoning, I.E. a lack of any compelling reasoning (as proven by your inability to provide any) _*not to amend this institution to include gay relationships. *_
> 
> Hey dumb dumb: When you can't compel me or the courts with your reasons not to Amend Civil Marriage, that means they're deemed arbitrary by definition and we should go ahead and amend it on that basis.
> 
> Like PP is telling you: you're confused that anyone is arguing with some invisible ancients who framed marriage how THEY saw fit. NO. The argument is that there's only arbitrary reasons not to amend it how WE see fit - and that's where you're utterly boring, and confused, because you're deflecting for 100s of posts from the crux of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is on the person wanting change to make the case for the change.
> 
> 
> Your side's primary tactic for this, was the con of insisting that your conclusion be the premise for the discussion. And you succeeded.
> 
> 
> That invalidates the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same shit different post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are pretty much done here. YOu should request the thread to be closed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Even when it has nothing to do with religion…

  Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…

  Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…

TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a _“Religious Right Wing Bigot”_.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> Even when it has nothing to do with religion…
> 
> Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…
> 
> Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…
> 
> TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a _“Religious Right Wing Bigot”_.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Even when it has nothing to do with religion…
> 
> Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…
> 
> Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…
> 
> TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a _“Religious Right Wing Bigot”_.


Funny how I have known many homosexual people and they seemed more decent than most straight people


----------



## G.T.

Bob Blaylock said:


> Even when it has nothing to do with religion…
> 
> Even when it has nothing to do with political alignment…
> 
> Even when it has nothing to do with bigotry…
> 
> TheRegressivePervert is quick to condemn anyone who holds to any basic standards of decency as a _“Religious Right Wing Bigot”_.


decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, like a fuckin lunatic?

My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Funny how *I have known many homosexual people* and they seemed more decent than most straight people



  Judging by the company that you choose to keep, you certainly don't seem like one to credibly speak of decency.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

G.T. said:


> decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, like a fuckin lunatic?
> 
> My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple



  Your vulgar lack of appreciation for the beauty that I shared there is about you, not about me.


----------



## G.T.

Bob Blaylock said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, like a fuckin lunatic?
> 
> My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your vulgar lack of appreciation for the beauty that I shared there is about you, not about me.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhh it's about hypocrisy.

You're wagging your fingers at gays for being "indecent" while you're the kinda odd-ass posting semi-nudes of his wife to anonymous internet strangers.

Most folks might say, "what the fuck is wrong with you?"


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how *I have known many homosexual people* and they seemed more decent than most straight people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by the company that you choose to keep, you certainly don't seem like one to credibly speak of decency.
Click to expand...

And how do you know what company I keep?

Just because I know a person in no way means they are part of my inner circle.

In my experience the so called religious people are the most judgmental assholes on the planet


----------



## Cosmos

Just want to live nice peaceful lives and raise families and take care of their children just like everybody else.  How could they possibly hurt?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

G.T. said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, [sic] like a fuckin lunatic?
> 
> My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your vulgar lack of appreciation for the beauty that I shared there is about you, not about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhh it's about hypocrisy.
> 
> You're wagging your fingers at gays for being "indecent" while you're the kinda odd-ass posting semi-nudes of his wife to anonymous internet strangers.
> 
> Most folks might say, "what the fuck is wrong with you?"
Click to expand...


  Hmmm…

  It seems your reaction was different at the time that thread was active.



G.T. said:


> Dont [sic] listen to the haters, Bob.
> Nice pictures.



  I guess you're as much a _“hater”_ as anyone, when it suits your purpose.

  In any event, there are no pictures of my wife in that thread that can honestly be described as _“semi-nude”_.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> In my experience the so called religious people are the most judgmental assholes on the planet



  I have never claimed being _“non-judgemental”_ among my virtues, and I deny that it is, in most cases, a virtue at all.


----------



## G.T.

Bob Blaylock said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> decency, like posting near nudes of his wife on a political messageboard, [sic] like a fuckin lunatic?
> 
> My Wife Posing in Lingerie — Beyond Purple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your vulgar lack of appreciation for the beauty that I shared there is about you, not about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhhhhhhh it's about hypocrisy.
> 
> You're wagging your fingers at gays for being "indecent" while you're the kinda odd-ass posting semi-nudes of his wife to anonymous internet strangers.
> 
> Most folks might say, "what the fuck is wrong with you?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm…
> 
> It seems your reaction was different at the time that thread was active.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont [sic] listen to the haters, Bob.
> Nice pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you're as much a _“hater”_ as anyone, when it suits your purpose.
> 
> In any event, there are no pictures of my wife in that thread that can honestly be described as _“semi-nude”_.
Click to expand...

I don't bully people, Bob.

But now that youre being a hypocrite, its time to really talk about it, Bob.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience the so called religious people are the most judgmental assholes on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed being _“non-judgemental”_ among my virtues, and I deny that it is, in most cases, a virtue at all.
> 
> View attachment 272177
Click to expand...

And yet the bible tells you what?

Judge not......


----------

