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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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!

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls. Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

 

[Correll]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

Right! The courts are not democratic and this is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic and the courts job is to enforce the constitution which is what they did. You don't get to vote on the rights of other people.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for well over a decade now. Longer that that in some other countries. Please list all of the social ills and horror stories that you can find as a result of MARRIAGE EQUALITY

 

[G.T.]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.

calm the fuck down, grampa

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.

calm the fuck down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

 

[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!

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls. Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

Sufficiently blurred? By what?

 

[Correll]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

Right! The courts are not democratic and this is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic and the courts job is to enforce the constitution which is what they did. You don't get to vote on the rights of other people.

We have had same sex marriage in some states for well over a decade now. Longer that that in some other countries. Please list all of the social ills and horror stories that you can find as a result of MARRIAGE EQUALITY

1. The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.


2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.

 

[Correll]

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

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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.

calm the fuck down, grampa

Your utter inability to address my points seriously or honestly, continues. Thank for playing.

 

[Correll]

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 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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
calm the fuck down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.

I think it is important to point out that traditional does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b]. Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.

Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.

Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.

The LIbEral attacks on “traditional” marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.

 

[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.

So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,

while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.



And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls. Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

Sufficiently blurred? By what?

Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life. Men and women do essentially the same things both domestically and outside of the home. Women go off to war, they are cops and fire fighters . Men are nurses and social workers. At home men stay at home with children and cook. Women are bread winners and pay the bills .There is no basis for the idiotic contention that at marriage must be based on gender rolls. The basis in modern society is that each individual- regardless of what they have between their legs in relation to the other person- brings their unique talents , abilities and interests to the relationship and make it work. You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up. Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences is ridiculous and demonstrably false.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.

Horseshit.. Only if you are living in the Ozzy and Harriet world of the 50's. See post 572

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.

So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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 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.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.

calm the fuck down, grampa

Your utter inability to address my points seriously or honestly, continues. Thank for playing.

Exactly what points did anyone not address.? The fact that you are unable to understand or accept what is being said does not mean that your points were not addressed- and disseminated

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. Calling my points "idiotic" is just spin on your part.

2. I care because you are remaking my society, without consent, and without any real thought to the results, which considering your sides other works, is likely to be harmful.

3. I also care because the means you used, was not only insanely divisive, but are still there to be used on the next bullshit issue, that you invent.

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other pussy while married to his nude model.
calm the fuck down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

 

[Crixus]

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

Your the only only honky I hear bitching about it honestly.

 

[Correll]

The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.

I think it is important to point out that traditional does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b]. Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.

Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.

Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.

The LIbEral attacks on “traditional” marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.

Thank you. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between me and Progressive on that.

 

[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!

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls. Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

Sufficiently blurred? By what?

Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life... You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up. Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences is ridiculous and demonstrably false.

Wow. Your reading comprehension is not so great.


I said that Marriage, an ancient institution was based, note paste tense, on traditional gender roles.


Ok. so now you are making the point, finally, that in the modern age, that gender roles have changed, or lessened in importance. (you are still very poor at communicating)


Ok, that is a fair point. BUT.


1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.


2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.

3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.



It is sad not only that I have to lead you to your own points, to have a real discussion, but that it takes so long to do so, because normally all you can do is spout various logical fallacies. I really get the feeling that when you finally made your point, that you sort of did so by accident.

 

[Correll]

2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.

So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.

Most likely result, imo, massive rate of divorce, with all the problems that the brings.

BUT, as we have seen with other social changes brought by progressives, the connections and results of such progressive social changes are often surprising and generally negative.


Generally, it is on the person advocating the change, that has to make the case that the change will be good.


Quite clever the way you dodged that. Very divisive and dishonest and harmful to the nation as as whole, but effective.