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

[Bob Blaylock]

…after 70 pages of dialog…

Do you not realize that on this forum, the number of posts that one views per “page” is configurable?

I have my account set to show 100 posts per page. For me, this thread is, at this time, only eight (8) pages. If you're configured to show only ten posts per page (which to me, seems absurdly small) then you'd be at about 75 pages.


In any event, it's meaningless to use “pages” as a reference to how long a thread has been going on, because everyone can have a different number of posts per page.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

He doesn't care.

You're arguing with someone who advocates putting children in the custody of sexual deviants, who has boasted of his own role in doing so.

You're arguing with someone who openly defends and advocates the sexual indoctrination, manipulation, and exploitation of children to promote the homosexual agenda.

At the very best, he doesn't care what harm is done to children, in order to advance the sick, degenerate agenda that he supports; and he doesn't care about the harm that is done to this country as a result.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.


And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!

Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the origins and purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:

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:.....
Deal with it!!

Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.


I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.

Thank you for capitulating and admitting that you are too much of a coward and a fraud to answer my questions. You seize on one thing that I said where I inadvertently left some room for interpretation, which I then clarified, and use to t call me dishonest and thing that excuses you from explaining yorself
....?

Clarify after 70 pages of dialog.


You choose to be dishonest. I cant' bring myself to have more respect for your words than you do.


If just once, you had honestly answered my questions, instead of being evasive for 70 pages, we could have moved on to discuss other aspects of this issue.


But you can't give an inch. You are not here to discuss, but to propagandize.


EVERY TIME you post, is a lie, because your intent is to falsely present the possibility of dialog, when there is not one.

Wow Dude!! Sounds like you're loosing your shit! You keep accusing me of being evasive and lying while you refuse to answer the questions that I put to you. I have no fucking idea what the question that you claim that I refuse to answer is.

I am sick and tired of your bullshit. That is a normal and healthy response to your bullshit.


Your spin that it is otherwise, is just you being an ass.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit. You were clear, and I understood you fine. Now that you see though, how your arguments are based on bs, now after 70 pages, you are pretending it was all a misunderstanding.


And you wonder why I say that liberals are dishonest. lol!

Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the origins and purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:

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:.....
Deal with it!!

Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.


I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.

Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Holy shit! Seriously! After being missing for a couple of days you come back with this shit while editing out the main part of my post that you don't want to deal with.?? Once again, my problem is with present day people who choose to interpret marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I never concerned myself with the origins and purpose of marriage which has been re-interpreted many times over.. Now here are the questions that I asked and that you are avoiding -once again:

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:.....
Deal with it!!

Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.


I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.

Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" Prior to Obergefell, marriage was the union between two consenting adults who desired to be with each other, Now, it is still the union of two consenting adults who desire to be with each other but without regards to what they have between their respective legs.

Were you this distraught when the institution of marriage was deemed by the high court to no longer be between two people of the same race? If not, please explain how this is different.

The country is not being torn apart over same sex marriage . The country is being torn apart by the bigotry and intolerance that you and your ilk perpetuate .

Yes, some families have experienced a rift over it, but many more families and children have benefited by the ability of same sex couples to marry and to provide a home with two married legal parents to those children-something that you reuse to acknowledge . More families people are torn apart bigotry and hate than by acceptance and inclusion. You are living in a dark and lonely place devoid of any real understanding of todays society.

Society evolves. Institutions like marriage evolve. Stagnation is death. I had said that I was not going to delve into the history and purpose of marriage as envision by those -who ever the fuck they were- who "invented it" and I wont. But I will again say that none of that is relevant now. I do not hold those people responsible for the discriminatory nature of marriage as it was. They were a product of their time.

I hold YOU and those who cling to the ancient and exclusionary aspects of marriage as an excuse to discriminate in the present day responsible. Perhaps that is the answer to the big question that you have been accusing me of refusing to answer.

Now for the questions that you have been too much of a coward to answer yet again for the 4th time

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. You're 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. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are viewed and their status, 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?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.

That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.

 

[Correll]

Yeah, after your massive dishonesty, I'm not finding it in me, to be able to pretend to take your words with any weight what so ever.


I'll check back in a couple of days. Maybe my disappointment in you will recede back to normal levels.

Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

 

[Correll]

Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.

That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.

Most of your argument, is similar name calling.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't deal with this issue and are in way over your head. You are clearly on the ropes here. Now answer my fucking questions

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Faggots and dykes play house by sanction of government. They aren't married.

That you for that brilliant, thoughtful and articulate contribution to an important topic that involves real human beings . You are real asset to the USMB and clearly raise that bar on the level of intellectual discourse and the constructive exchange of ideas. Bless you.

Most of your argument, is similar name calling.

I called you a name?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Furthermore...I reiterate. All that you have is your appeal to tradition-clinging to your position that whoever the hell it was that "invented" marriage intended it to be between a man and a women for the purpose of producing children . Then you use that to claim that the courts were wrong to rule that bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Then, instead of dealing with the discriminatory intent of present day lawmakers in passing those bans, you want me to delve into the origins and history of marriage and explore the intent of the ancients. All the while ignoring the real damage that is done to people as the result of the discrimination that you advocate. You have nothing!

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Polishprince]

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.

It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason

 

[Correll]

Caring for the children. Children are produced fairly easily. Proper care for them, is far harder.


You ignore the damage done to this country, by people like you, with your divisive tactics.

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't deal with this issue and are in way over your head. You are clearly on the ropes here. Now answer my fucking questions

Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the fuck are you talking about now? What damage?

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

That is about what I expected of you . Pretty pathetic . It 's apparent that you really can't deal with this issue and are in way over your head. You are clearly on the ropes here. Now answer my fucking questions

Explain to me your belief system where you don't serious or honestly address my points, but expect me to seriously and honestly address yours.

That is a bullshit cop-out!! I have addressed every single thing that you have said. You're clearly avoiding points and questions. Now go away.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

I honestly don't care if y'all play house and pretend to be married...but will you deviants ever actually behave like normal, married couples? I doubt it...because your whole thing is about being deviant and destructive to normalcy.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.

It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason

Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I honestly don't care if y'all play house and pretend to be married...but will you deviants ever actually behave like normal, married couples? I doubt it...because your whole thing is about being deviant and destructive to normalcy.

Thank you for another brilliant and thoughtful contribution to the topic

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Get the fuck over the histrionics . You are being whinny and ridiculous. Most people have moved on. The beloved institution of marriage is alive and well and better off for being more inclusive. It was not a "radical change" ....?

You being dismissive and arrogant, is not a counter argument.


My point stands.



You took an beloved institution, and managed to convince half the population, that anyone that did not support immediate and radical change to the institution, was a hateful bigot.


That turned large percentages of Americans against their family and friends, tearing apart this country, for your ideological and/or partisan gain.

First you accuse me of being evasive and dishonest, Now you accuse me of being arrogant and dismissive to avoid defending your bigotry. What will you try net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not "bigotry" to have political disagreement about an issue of great public import, like Gay Marriage.

It is bigotry to advocate the denial of rights and full participation in society for no rational reason

Anything the government has to give you a license to do is not a "right" by definition.

The issue is not whether marriage in and of itself is a right. The issue is the discriminatory treatment of one group in relation to another with respect to marriage. Think you can get your head around that fella?