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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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]

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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

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]

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]

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.

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!