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

[Correll]

My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.

The year is 2019

Yes, that is the current year. Is there a point you are trying to make with that?


(this btw , what you won't say now, is the point that I've been refusing to address, unless you actually SAY IT)



My point stands, barring an actually on topic response from you.




My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.

 

[Correll]

If something is a "RIGHT" then arguing about effectiveness is not required. One demands it as a right, not because it is "effective".

I didn't say that it was required. The fact that marriage was denied to same sex couple while opposite sex couples were able to take it for granted was more than enough to show discrimination. I was responding to your insistence that advocates for marriage equality should have argued that there were benefits allowing gays to marry which we did -while the states failed miserably in demonstrating that there was any down side to gay mariage. It was "icing on the cake sort of speak - but it also erased all doubt that the restrictions were arbitrary and had no rational basis . Please stop wasting my time and yours with your dishonest idiocy.

And once again I will ask, what is the issue that you keep alluding to -that you keep accusing me of avoiding- while you yourself seem to be fearful of broaching?

See post 701. And save your spin. My refusal to address a point that you keep implying but refuse to clearly make, is not fear, but experience in dealing with dishonest libs.

 

[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.

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.

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

 

[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.

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

 

[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.

Nice circular reasoning.

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.

The Evolution of Marriage



After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and , the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage with this:

One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. “It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”

Two thing about this drivel:

1. An evolutionary non starter ? What does it have to do with evolution? Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story

2. The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .

He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms

Then there is this:

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.

As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof. Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit . There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage

We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a fucking joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit. You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.

You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid

1. One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "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."


You did not address this.


2. One of the other major points of the article, was that monogamy, is better for social stability than polygamy.

You did not address that either.



3. I knew that you would not. Even though you said you would.


4. It seems pointless to address what you do bring up, when you refuse to actually discuss the points I do bring up. It seems more and more that ALL you do, is "muddy the waters", and "poison the well".


Definition of muddy the waters | Dictionary.com

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

I addressed non- monogamy and polygamy to the extent that it was necessary and appropriate. The author used those issues to set the stage for a slippery slope fear mongering fallacy as in ….if we allow gay marriage, and I said as much . Nothing more to say there.

The procreation thing is just more bullshit and has zero relevance to same sex marriage. Let me know when marriage between opposite sex couples who cannot or choose not to have children are discouraged from, or barred from marriage and we can talk. Meanwhile suffice it to say that same sex couple have children in their care who came to be there in a variety of ways-just as children of heterosexuals do. They maintain homes, function as families and are parents to those kids.

You are the one who constantly muddies the water with you extraneous crap

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

 

[Andylusion]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.

However, what he said, is in fact true. There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world. So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.

What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us. They are not married. The end.

The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.

If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street. He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".

The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true. Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women. As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.

So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us. Because we will never back down on this issue. Never. We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.

 

[Correll]

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.

Nice circular reasoning.

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.

The Evolution of Marriage



After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and , the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage with this:

One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. “It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”

Two thing about this drivel:

1. An evolutionary non starter ? What does it have to do with evolution? Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story

2. The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .

He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms

Then there is this:

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.

As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof. Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit . There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage

We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a fucking joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit. You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.

You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid

1. One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "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."


You did not address this.


2. One of the other major points of the article, was that monogamy, is better for social stability than polygamy.

You did not address that either.



3. I knew that you would not. Even though you said you would.


4. It seems pointless to address what you do bring up, when you refuse to actually discuss the points I do bring up. It seems more and more that ALL you do, is "muddy the waters", and "poison the well".


Definition of muddy the waters | Dictionary.com

Poisoning the well - Wikipedia

I addressed non- monogamy and polygamy to the extent that it was necessary and appropriate. The author used those issues to set the stage for a slippery slope fear mongering fallacy as in ….if we allow gay marriage, and I said as much . Nothing more to say there.

The procreation thing is just more bullshit and has zero relevance to same sex marriage. Let me know when marriage between opposite sex couples who cannot or choose not to have children are discouraged from, or barred from marriage and we can talk. Meanwhile suffice it to say that same sex couple have children in their care who came to be there in a variety of ways-just as children of heterosexuals do. They maintain homes, function as families and are parents to those kids.

You are the one who constantly muddies the water with you extraneous crap

Discussing the reasons and function of marriage, in response to YOUR claim that the "restrictions" are arbitrary, is completely relevant. For you to claim otherwise is absurdly dishonest.

 

[Correll]

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.

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

 

[Correll]

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

I don't know Brian Brown, and I have no idea if he has his own life to work on.

However, what he said, is in fact true. There is no marriage between two men and two women, in the Christian world. So regardless of what the pagan crazy people around us say, and no matter how much you hate us for it, the fact remains Buttigieg is not married.

What you think, and what the pagan's opinions are, doesn't matter to us. They are not married. The end.

The fact that Christians are flawed people, doesn't matter.

If you saw a cop, beating and strangling a black person, you would not be on here saying "Yeah, but the black guy raped that girl down the street. He needs to work on his own life before complaining about the cop beating and strangling him".

The fact that other person has flaws, is not a valid argument against whether or not person's claims are true. Marriage is ordained by G-d, as being between a man or a women. As long as faithful Christians exist on the Earth, there will be people who will uphold the standards of G-d.

So you basically have two options... you can either practice what you preach about tolerance, or you will have to kill us. Because we will never back down on this issue. Never. We haven't in the last 2,000 years, and we won't today.

That is quite an unhinged dogmatic rant Bubba. But the fact is that you don't get to decide who is and is not married. The only thing that you get to decide is who you will marry. Buttigieg is indeed married and he is a Christian. Oh and you don't to decide who is a real Christian either.No one is forcing Christians to get gay married, so get over it. Mind your own business and everything will be just fine.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I know that you said that and no one is buying it. I demonstrated that gender roles, traditional or otherwise, are not justification for restricting marriage to a man and a woman because same sex couples function as families regardless. . You really seem to be struggling with that. You desperation to justify discrimination while denying that it is, in fact discrimination is pathetic.

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. Nor have you been able to articulate any observable and measurable negative impacts on society. And that is why bans on same sex marriage were proven to be arbitrary and therefor discriminatory. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding. My work is done here

 

[Correll]

Any complaints about the structure of marriage being arbitrary, and/or discriminatory, has to be directed at those that developed the institution and the environment they were operating in at the time, thousands of years ago.


You've done NOTHING to support your claim.

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding

When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually I just did. The evidence is all around us. If you can't see the folly in your views it no one problem but your own.

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding

When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.

Oh Christ!! I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates" States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual

 

[Correll]

"The evidence is all around us"?


Marriage, in the form that the West is used to it, is literally THOUSANDS of years old. None of the current environment, supports your claim that the structure was set up, to "arbitrarily discriminate" against homosexuals.


I have repeatedly pointed this obvious truth out to you many times. All you have done, is ignore it, and dishonestly reassert your same nonsense.

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding

When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.

Oh Christ!! I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates" States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual

Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.


You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".


THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.


Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.


Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.


Just admit that you were wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Straw man!! I did not say that it was set up in order to discriminate. I said that it was used as an excuse to discriminate with no rational basis for doing so
The evidence that I have pointed out and that you refuse to see is that same sex couples function as families. Yet you just keep blathering "thousands of years"

Why don't you just admit that you are a bigot who wishes to discriminate against gays in the form of denying them marriage, instead of just making shit up and denying that it is discrimination.

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding

When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.

Oh Christ!! I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates" States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual

Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.


You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".


THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.


Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.


Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.


Just admit that you were wrong.

More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked discriminatory laws that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.

There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.

By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,

 

[Correll]

A distinction without a difference. You have made an accusation that requires intent to be true.


Any supporting evidence must be drawn from the environment and information we have of that time period involved.


Otherwise, you are judging the people that developed Western Marriage, based not only on the morals of today, thousands of years after the fact, but based on the false idea that they were somehow aware of, or even part of a time period of thousands of years into the future.


They say that liberalism is a mental disorder. YOu are the proof of that.


Your attempts at poisoning the well, is noted as proof of my accusations against you.

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding

When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.

Oh Christ!! I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates" States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual

Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.


You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".


THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.


Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.


Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.


Just admit that you were wrong.

More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked discriminatory laws that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.

There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.

By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,

Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?


This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not judging anybody but you right now. The difference between you and I is that I am living in the present and do not concern myself with the intent of those who developed marriage.

The accusation that I'm making is that those seeking to restrict marriage to a man and a woman made up a whole bunch of lies and used fear tactics to try to sway the courts and public opinion their way and they failed miserably-in fact things went the other way.

Now here you are, making up more baseless crap . I'll have to admit, it's original. To try to say that I must prove the intent of -whoever these people are- who developed marriage is beyond absurd. The only intent that I need to concern myself with here is you're intent, and it's clear to me that all you have to point to is tradition. You have wholly failed to make a case as to how "differences between man and women" preclude the ability of same sex couples to live as spouses and do all of the same things others do. That is the central question that YOU are avoiding

When you claim that the institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates against gays, you are making an accusation against the people that developed the institution of marriage.


That is not me.


The claim of "arbitrary" REQUIRES that the restrictions need to be based on purposeful discrimination

The defense only requires that there was a reason for the "restriction" that you see. Arguing that the system was flawed, is a whole different argument, one that should have taken place in the legislature, not the courts.

Oh Christ!! I did not say claim that the "institution of Marriage arbitrarily discriminates" States were discriminating by passing laws to exclude gays from marriage. Present day people and their intent was clear. Give it up, you're being foolish as usual

Don't make me go back and cut and paste your words on this issue.


You have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".


THe laws being passed by various states was in response to efforts by people like you to arbitrarily change a basic part of our society.


Now, you see the flaw in your argument, that I warned you about, and it is looming large. So you try to walk it back.


Do not make me waste the time of cutting and pasting your words.


Just admit that you were wrong.

More bullshit. I have not attacked "marriage" I have attacked discriminatory laws that excluded same sex people. If I didn't put it exactly that way, sue me. I'm saying it now. I never concerned my self with the origins of marriage and what anyones intent was. That is you obsession.

There is not flaw in my argument. I am on solid legal ground. For your prt, you have no argument except an appeal to tradition.

By the way, I will also point out that while the laws have changed, the institution of marriage and many groups, including religious organizations accept and embrace same sex marriage. You must be living under a rock if you don't know that,

Your walking this back is hardly credible. We've been discussing this issue for 70 pages, and now you suddenly realize that you needed to clarify that you weren't discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, but a few laws far more recently attempted?


This would be a lot more credible if you had said it on page THREE.

Bud, the fact that you did not understand what I was saying is not my problem. You have been nailed to the wall. You have no argument against same sex marriage

I've asked you specific questions on a number of occasions which you have either avoided entirely, or gave some kind of bullshit answer. I'll try again:

1. Can same sex couple function as a family-full fill all necessary roles - and do all of the same things that opposite sex couples do? If no please explain.

2.What negative or unintended consequences has there been for society or for individuals as a result of same sex marriage.

3. You brought up procreation at one point-it was mentioned in that Heritage Foundation rag. Is your opposition to same sex marriage based in part on the fact that two people of the same sex can't produce a child entirely on their own? If so, do you oppose the marriages of opposite sex couples who for whatever reason cannot have a child without some help?

4. Your hung up on traditional gender specific roles and base your opposition to same sex marriage on "men and women being different" because people need to bring complimentary roles to a relationship. Do you also oppose the marriage of opposite sex coupes where -shall we say the woman- does not adhere to traditional female roles.?

5.Here is one more: The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view, to interracial marriage and many other aspects of it. Do you disagree with those changes and think that the institution should remain the same and not evolve, or is it only same sex marriage that you have a problem with? If so why exactly?

Deal with it!!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You [TheRegressivePervert] have been attacking MARRIAGE as "arbitrary" and "discriminatory".

It's occurred to me that you are having this argument with someone who is so seriously f•••ed up in the head that he accepts “transgenderism” as credible—that he believes that a man can be a woman, and vice versa.

If one rejects the biological distinction between men and women, as this particular mentally-defective freak does, then one must necessarily also reject the unique roles that each sex plays in forming a marriage and a family.

Trying to argue about what marriage is with such a person is futile. He's operating on a false premise that makes it impossible for him to grasp what marriage actually is.