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

[G.T.]

" Watered Down Political Science For Simpletons "

* Sanction By Government Not Required *

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 .

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

 

[mdk]

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

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.]

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

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.

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 *

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.]

" No Skin Off My Knows "

* Gnats And Knit Wits *

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 .

Ill stick with not using the needless w, thanks

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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.

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.

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 *

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.]

" Go Four It "

* Rules Of Ambiguous Homonym *

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 .

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 *

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

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 *

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]

" Could Not Be Blamed For Trying "

* Read The Warning Label *

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]

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