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

[mudwhistle]

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

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.

You can believe anything you want
You can hate anyone you want

You just can’t force the government to do the same

OH really?
Why can people be put out of business because of their beliefs?

Because of their beliefs?? Really.? They can be put out of business for their BEHAVIOR. Now back to the topic. Same sex marriage

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]

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.

You can believe anything you want
You can hate anyone you want

You just can’t force the government to do the same

OH really?
Why can people be put out of business because of their beliefs?

Because of their beliefs?? Really.? They can be put out of business for their BEHAVIOR. Now back to the topic. Same sex marriage

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.

The topic is marriage

 

[Correll]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.

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.

It's muh society and muh duty! The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

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.

It's muh society and muh duty! The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.

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]

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.

And yet here you are fussing over other people getting married. Worry about your own roof.

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.

It's muh society and muh duty! The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.

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.

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]

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.

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.

It's muh society and muh duty! The last refuge of the cowardly and nosy.

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.

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.

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.]

get off my lawwwnnn!!!!

 

[Correll]

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?

 

[G.T.]

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?

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