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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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?

MY favorite topic? Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.

Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest. Why?

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

Good grief Progressive Patriot meet your mirror

 

[jillian]

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.

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 .

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

Not religious bigots? You’re delusional

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

MY favorite topic? Hardly....but there's an awful lot of CRCs who have pedophilia as THEIR favorite subject.

Again, you didn't address polygamy and incest. Why?

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

Good grief Progressive Patriot meet your mirror

Do you have any more brilliant retorts up your …...cape? Seems that you don't have much of an understanding of logical fallacies .

 

[Terri4Trump]

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]

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

Brilliant Bobby Boy. Pretty much what I expected of you. You can't deal with the truth so you do this instead.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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]

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.........

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]

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.

People who hate for the sake of hate are mentally ill.........

Thats you. You hate the truth and you hate people who tell the truth, like me.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

Gays can carry guns
Equal access

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yea
Liberals believe in fake science like the earth is round, cigarettes cause cancer and we are experiencing climate change

 

[Terri4Trump]

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]

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.

This is not about transexualism. It is about homosexuals.

 

[Correll]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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?

I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.

.
"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.

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.]

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

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?

I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.

.
"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.

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.

Youre 0 for like 3 or 4 convoes in this very thread. Bottom tier.

 

[Correll]

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?

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?

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.

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]

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

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?

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.

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.