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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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.

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?

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.

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.

I'm thinking now that you are either playing a sick game while knowing that you're full of shit, or you are totally out of touch with reality. I have been quite clear and direct on a number of points that you are either unable to understand or that you are pretending not to understand.

Point: Bans on same sex marriage have been found to be arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional by nearly every court that heard a case on the issue.
Point: No one lied to- or deceived the courts -about gender roles in order to claim that same sex marriage bans were arbitrary. The cases were won using logic a facts. It was the opposition who lied using fear and logical fallacies such as appeals to tradition, as you do
Point: "Traditional " gender roles are a minor and insignificant factor in modern life.
Point: Couples, same and opposite sex , function as families regardless of what gender roles they bring to the relationship. Divisions of labor get worked out regardless.
Point: You have refused to deal with the fact that opposite sex couples must also deal with gender role issues because the demands of modern life and evolving definitions of gender no longer allow for them to fit neatly into "traditional" gender roles-yet you don't question the viability of those marriages.
Point: Few people give a fuck about traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage or believe that it has a bearing on current reality-and it certainly has no legal weight.
Point: You claim that there were reasons for bans on same sex marriage but you have been unable to say what those reasons are- other than invoking traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage. You have not been able to point to a single, negative consequence of same sex marriage.
Point: You are stuck in the past and hung up on tradition. You think that it is 1950 and long for ideal marriage of Ozzy and Harriet, a one income -male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom and of course no same sex marriage- You are struggling to deal with the modern world and the evolving definition of marriage and gender.

I'm saying EXACTLY what I mean as I have all along. Now lets see you tear that to pieces. Let's see you identify what I'm being dishonest and evasive about. Your bleating about me being dishonest and not saying what I mean does not make it true. It just makes you sound like an idiot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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.

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?

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.

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.

Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying what I think. Of being afraid of saying something, but you will never say what that is. ,

Let me tell you something. A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.

Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude! I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.

Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....

Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.

Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.

Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

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?

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.

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.

I'm thinking now that you are either playing a sick game while knowing that you're full of shit, or you are totally out of touch with reality. I have been quite clear and direct on a number of points that you are either unable to understand or that you are pretending not to understand.

Point: Bans on same sex marriage have been found to be arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional by nearly every court that heard a case on the issue.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.

Point: No one lied to- or deceived the courts -about gender roles in order to claim that same sex marriage bans were arbitrary. The cases were won using logic a facts. It was the opposition who lied using fear and logical fallacies such as appeals to tradition, as you do

Yet, you are unable to make the case that they are arbitrary. HInt: Stating it over and over again, is not making the case.

Point: "Traditional " gender roles are a minor and insignificant factor in modern life.

Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

Point: Couples, same and opposite sex , function as families regardless of what gender roles they bring to the relationship. Divisions of labor get worked out regardless.

That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".

Point: You have refused to deal with the fact that opposite sex couples must also deal with gender role issues because the demands of modern life and evolving definitions of gender no longer allow for them to fit neatly into "traditional" gender roles-yet you don't question the viability of those marriages.

Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".

Point: Few people give a fuck about traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage or believe that it has a bearing on current reality-and it certainly has no legal weight.

Well, A. nice appeal to popularity, ie logical fallacy, thus that point is invalid, AND B. it certainly should have legal weight as it shows that the restrictions were never arbitrary, but based on real issues. As discussed in my linked article.

Point: You claim that there were reasons for bans on same sex marriage but you have been unable to say what those reasons are- other than invoking traditional gender roles and the origins of marriage. You have not been able to point to a single, negative consequence of same sex marriage.

I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.

And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.

Point: You are stuck in the past and hung up on tradition. You think that it is 1950 and long for ideal marriage of Ozzy and Harriet, a one income -male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom and of course no same sex marriage- You are struggling to deal with the modern world and the evolving definition of marriage and gender.

Stripped of your spin on the issue, Yes, I would like to have the One income, male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom, as the goal of national policy.

I am not struggling with anything. THe modern world is struggling with the costs of the breakdown of the nuclear family.

I'm saying EXACTLY what I mean as I have all along. Now lets see you tear that to pieces. Let's see you identify what I'm being dishonest and evasive about. Your bleating about me being dishonest and not saying what I mean does not make it true. It just makes you sound like an idiot.

You are still avoiding the crux of the matter. And your side's most powerful argument. For reasons that I strongly suspect that you know.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

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?

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.

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.

Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying what I think. Of being afraid of saying something, but you will never say what that is. ,

Dude. I have a life. I was doing stuff in RL.


And IF you were not such a liberal, you would have said what you are dancing around, and we would have moved on long ago. You are the one being evasive.

Let me tell you something. A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.

I understand everything you have said. I am just not going to address a point you have not made.

Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude! I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.

lol!

Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....

Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.

Blah, blah, blah.

Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.

We shall see if such benefit manifest with time. But the cost of what you put the nation though, that is already done. You torn this nation apart.

Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything

You are being dishonest and evasive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.

It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.

In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet, you are unable to make the case that they are arbitrary. HInt: Stating it over and over again, is not making the case.

See post 665

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".

It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".

The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.

You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, A. nice appeal to popularity, ie logical fallacy, thus that point is invalid, AND B. it certainly should have legal weight as it shows that the restrictions were never arbitrary, but based on real issues. As discussed in my linked article.

The Heritage Society Article is nothing but biased and bigoted opinion. Neither you or anyone else has been able to document any tangible or measurable negative consequences of same sex marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.

And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.

Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Stripped of your spin on the issue, Yes, I would like to have the One income, male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom, as the goal of national policy.

I am not struggling with anything. THe modern world is struggling with the costs of the breakdown of the nuclear family.

Now all that you have to do is show how the breakdown of the nuclear family is the result of same sex marriage and you might have a case.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are still avoiding the crux of the matter. And your side's most powerful argument. For reasons that I strongly suspect that you know.

You keep saying that same shit over and over again but can't seem to spell out what you think I am avoiding. Until you do, it is just more of your bullshit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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?

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.

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.

Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying what I think. Of being afraid of saying something, but you will never say what that is. ,

Dude. I have a life. I was doing stuff in RL.


And IF you were not such a liberal, you would have said what you are dancing around, and we would have moved on long ago. You are the one being evasive.

Let me tell you something. A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.

I understand everything you have said. I am just not going to address a point you have not made.

Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude! I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.

lol!

Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....

Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.

Blah, blah, blah.

Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.

We shall see if such benefit manifest with time. But the cost of what you put the nation though, that is already done. You torn this nation apart.

Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything

You are being dishonest and evasive.

Give it a fucking rest already. You have no case, You are just playing a sick and dishonest game. State what I have been evasive about or shut up

 

[Correll]

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.

It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.

In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.

Correct. Sometimes an "Appeal to Authority" is valid.


If the Authority is actually an Authority that can be trusted to be completely knowledgeable about a subject AND the subject is such that non-experts can't really grasp the issue.


Marriage was developed over thousands of years, starting thousands of years ago.


Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. You would do better to cite a board of evolutionary sociologists.


Also, neither of us seem intimidated by the idea of addressing and/or understanding the structure of Traditional Marriage. You have been addressing the issue, constantly, though very confusedly for many pages and days.


Indeed, I suspect there is NOTHING that any lib judge could say on the issue that you could not say just as well.

 

[Correll]

Yet, you are unable to make the case that they are arbitrary. HInt: Stating it over and over again, is not making the case.

See post 665

And see my response to it.

 

[Correll]

Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?

Nothing in my post suggested that we keep Marriage as it was, because of it being old or traditional.


Read it again.



Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

 

[Correll]

That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".

It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.

Really? THat makes the court rulings even more stupid.


If the restrictions were "arbitrary", and people have the "right" to equal treatment, then arguing about the breakdown of gender roles had no place in the case.

 

[Correll]

Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".

The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.

You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.

Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.


It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.

 

[Correll]

Well, A. nice appeal to popularity, ie logical fallacy, thus that point is invalid, AND B. it certainly should have legal weight as it shows that the restrictions were never arbitrary, but based on real issues. As discussed in my linked article.

The Heritage Society Article is nothing but biased and bigoted opinion. Neither you or anyone else has been able to document any tangible or measurable negative consequences of same sex marriage.

The Heritage Society Artical was a nice summary of the issue. I specifically asked you to note what if any issues you had with it, that I would address more in depth.


Saying "bigoted" does not make it so. Indeed, it is nothing but demagoguery from you.