Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Now I know what your problem is. Your being fed crap by the Heritage foundation. What do I disagree with? It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage and is not inclusive of many from LGBT people, to those who marry for reasons other than having children, to those who adapt no traditional gender rolls.You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interestThank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crapMore horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry
You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
So far you have only made two actual points.
1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
The Evolution of Marriage
"
At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.
Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.
If a man does not commit to a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship, the likelihood of creating fatherless children and fragmented families increases. The more sexual partners a man has, and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chance he creates children with multiple women. When his attention and resources are thus divided, a long line of consequences unfolds for both mother and child, and for society as a whole."
"The idea is that high-status males are the big winners of polygamy, but an alpha male who mates exclusively with an alpha female gets assurance that she’ll bear his — and only his — offspring, and she gets assurance that he’ll stick around for the long haul to help raise the child and protect her from aggressors. The same is then true for the beta male and beta female, and gamma, “and so on down the line — much the way it happens in high school.” Monogamy is a form of what game theorists call “Nash equilibrium”: It does not maximize the outcome for each and every individual, but it does “optimize everyone’s individual outcome in a way that maintains the integrity of the entire society.”
For starters. What do you disagree with about this?
You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?. You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient
RolEs*
roles
roles
Not dinner ones
It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage and is not inclusive of many from LGBT…
It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage and is not inclusive of many from LGBT…
The LGBpbiWTF are a tiny, degenerate fringe of society. There is no rational reason to corrupt society's most essential institutions just to pander to them. No reason to weaken and degrade the whole of society, just to be “inclusive” of an insignificant but noisy minority of immoral perverts.
I think he's an alright dude...i was just busting his balls over rolls/roles.RolEs*
roles
roles
Not dinner ones
I keep seeing that too. TheRegressivePervert keeps using that word, but not once, has he spelled it correctly. That's just one example, out of many others, that seems to be particularly prominent in this thread, demonstrating his general level of literacy to be well below the level of education and intelligence that he wants us to to believe he has.
A failure?? Really. Then how come you found it necessary to my central question regarding the equal application of gender role requirements to both same sex and opposite sex couples who wish to marry? You avoided it because you have no answer. There is not answer.Actually, it was a complete failure.
My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
YOu agreed with that.
I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
Allow me to rephrase the question. If you are so concerned about the respective gender rolls of two people of the same sex who get married because those rolls might be in conflict rather than complimentary - why are you not concerned about a heterosexual couple where, as in the example that I gave, both parties have assumed what is arguably traditional male rolls? It is clearly a double standard if you don't.
And continuing to blather about "traditional gender rolls" which few people concern themselves with anymore, is not doing you any good. And to call us dishonest because we convinced the courts that restrictions on same sex marriage were in fact arbitrary is just plane stupid. We made the case . Deal with it. Lastly, the matter of traditional gender rolls in relation to same sex marriage never even came up as far as I know, and if it did , it would not have rendered those restrictions as anything less than arbitrary. You just made that shit up.
your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancientHey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crapYou have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
So far you have only made two actual points.
1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Actually, it was a complete failure.
My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
YOu agreed with that.
I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall we say a CEO who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now. You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
Now I know what your problem is. Your being fed crap by the Heritage foundation. What do I disagree with? It is a narrow, ridged ,traditionalist view of marriage and is not inclusive of many from LGBT people, to those who marry for reasons other than having children, to those who adapt no traditional gender rolls.You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interestThank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crapYou have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.
So far you have only made two actual points.
1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.
2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.
Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.
The Evolution of Marriage
"
At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.
Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.
If a man does not commit to a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship, the likelihood of creating fatherless children and fragmented families increases. The more sexual partners a man has, and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chance he creates children with multiple women. When his attention and resources are thus divided, a long line of consequences unfolds for both mother and child, and for society as a whole."
"The idea is that high-status males are the big winners of polygamy, but an alpha male who mates exclusively with an alpha female gets assurance that she’ll bear his — and only his — offspring, and she gets assurance that he’ll stick around for the long haul to help raise the child and protect her from aggressors. The same is then true for the beta male and beta female, and gamma, “and so on down the line — much the way it happens in high school.” Monogamy is a form of what game theorists call “Nash equilibrium”: It does not maximize the outcome for each and every individual, but it does “optimize everyone’s individual outcome in a way that maintains the integrity of the entire society.”
For starters. What do you disagree with about this?
You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?. You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.
We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
Bullshit ! You have not answered anything clearly and further , you don't seem to know what a non sequitur actually is. Where and when did I propose a premise that dies not support my conclusion? For your part, you have claimed that gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples the ability to marry but have been woefully unable to make a connection between your premise and that conclusion,I answered it clearly. That something is not rigid does not mean that it is arbitrary. Everything you have said, along those lines, has been a non sequitur.
Give me a fucking break!! What did you seriously and honestly address? Your contention that traditional gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples marriage? What exactly is it that I can't refute? YOU can't refute the fact that same sex couples- regardless of any gender role issues real or imagined - function just fine. They form families and maintain households like everyone else. You cant refute my contention that this whole gender role thing is made up horseshit by you and you alone. You cant refute my observation tat while you concern yourself with the gender roles of gay couples- austensibley because there is come conflict or lack of complimentary function, you ignore the fact that heterosexual couples who do nott adhere to traditioan gender rolews also may lake that complimentary elemt.your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancientHey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap
Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Actually, it was a complete failure.
My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
YOu agreed with that.
I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall we say a CEO who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now. You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
You brought up a point.
I seriously and honestly address it.
You blow off what I said, because you cannot refute it. YOu instead of addressing it, attack me.
Now, later on, you will go back to your normal standard of "debate" reasserting your starting position over and over again, peppered with personal attacks.
ON some level, you know that you cannot defend your position. It is clear by your actions.
You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways..Gezzzus Fucking Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?
We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
Bullshit ! You have not answered anything clearly and further , you don't seem to know what a non sequitur actually is. Where and when did I propose a premise that dies not support my conclusion? For your part, you have claimed that gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples the ability to marry but have been woefully unable to make a connection between your premise and that conclusion,I answered it clearly. That something is not rigid does not mean that it is arbitrary. Everything you have said, along those lines, has been a non sequitur.
Give me a fucking break!! What did you seriously and honestly address? Your contention that traditional gender roles are a basis for denying same sex couples marriage? .....your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancientHey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.
That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Actually, it was a complete failure.
My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.
YOu agreed with that.
I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.
This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.
All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.
Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.
So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall we say a CEO who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.
So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now. You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.
Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!
Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.
Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.
I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".
Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.
You brought up a point.
I seriously and honestly address it.
You blow off what I said, because you cannot refute it. YOu instead of addressing it, attack me.
Now, later on, you will go back to your normal standard of "debate" reasserting your starting position over and over again, peppered with personal attacks.
ON some level, you know that you cannot defend your position. It is clear by your actions.
You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways..We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.
THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.
I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.
You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.
And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.
I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.
Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?
No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.
I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.
Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise
