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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. Doubtful. Men are not women, and Women are not men. And the family structure same sex people build will not be the same. It is unlikely that the environment created will be nearly as nurturing as the standard.

You doubt that same sex households can function at the same level as opposite sex households- and provide the same degree of nurturing for children- because your bias requires you and for no other reason. The best indicator of the level of functioning of a family is the outcomes for the children and there is ample evidence that the children do as well with same sex parents as other children. Here is one example of which there are many. More able people than you have tried and failed to refute it.

New Study: No Difference Between Gay & Straight Adoptive Parents http://www.edgemedianetwork.com/news/family/147523/new_study:_no_difference_between_gay_&_straight_adoptive_parents

by David Perry

Contributor

Monday Jul 29, 2013

A recently released study by the Williams Institute confirms there is no difference in the behavioral outcomes of adopted children raised in same-sex households when compared to those raised by heterosexual couples.

"Parents’ sexual orientation is not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes," confirms Williams Visiting Scholar Abbie Goldberg, who co-authored the study with JuliAnna Z. Smith of the University of Massachusetts. A national think tank at University of California, Los Angeles Law, the Williams Institute conducts independent research relating to sexual orientation, gender identity law, and public policy.

The study, "Predictors of Psychological Adjustment in Early Placed Adopted Children With Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parents," analyzed 120 two-parent adoptive families, comprising of 40 same-sex female couples, 35 same-sex male, and 45 different-sex couples, looking at aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive developments of the children.

For all couples, the child was under 1.5 years of age, and was the first and only child adopted. The findings are consistent with an emerging body of research showing that parents’ sexual orientation are not related to children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes, and the Williams Institute study is unique in that it is longitudinal - i.e. follows couples over time - and includes adopted children, as well as includes three types of parents: gay, lesbian, and heterosexual (Goldberg explains how past same-sex parent studies tended to focus on lesbian parents).

You have failed again

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. By itself? Too early to tell. As part of the general war on marriage? General decay of culture, and society, and massive rises in all types of social and individual dysfunction.

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

By claiming that it is too soon to tell you are just avoiding the question instead of admitting that you really cant find any negative consequences. Then you throw in some crap about the war on marriage, and general social decay as a smokescreen to distract from the issue and to imply that real or imaging, they have been caused by same sex marriage

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same sex marriage over 18 years ago. Tell us all about the social decline that is going on there.

Another fail.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.

The question was:

. 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?

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples? And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.

The question was:

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view 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?

You used to support what? Interracial marriage?

 

[Correll]

. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.

The question was:

. 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?

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples? And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism

Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.


Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.

 

[Correll]

4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".

 

[Correll]

. I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.

The question was:

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view 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?

You used to support what? Interracial marriage?

Yes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.

The question was:

. 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?

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples? And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism

Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.


Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.

Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside

Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!

You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all. I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.

The question was:

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view 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?

You used to support what? Interracial marriage?

Yes.

And now you don't. Thank you being honest for a change.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".

You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure. And you STILL have not answered the question.

 

[Correll]

. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.

The question was:

. 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?

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples? And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism

Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.


Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.

Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside

Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!

You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all. I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud

None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.


Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.



There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.


Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.


THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.



Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.

 

[Correll]

. I used to support it. With the decline of our civilization, I now question it. Ask me again, in 2030.

The question was:

5. The institution of marriage has changed many ways over the years from how women are view 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?

You used to support what? Interracial marriage?

Yes.

And now you don't. Thank you being honest for a change.

I am always honest. Your confusion is not me being dishonest.

 

[Correll]

4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".

You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure. And you STILL have not answered the question.

1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.

2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.

3. "hung up" is just spin.

4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.

The question was:

. 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?

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples? And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism

Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.


Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.

Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside

Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!

You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all. I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud

None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.


Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.



There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.


Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.


THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.



Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.

So I see that you're abandoning your inane "procreation" argument . For the record, you got nailed on that procreation thing when you admitted that producing children is not a requirement for marriage...…..for heterosexuals after saying that gays should not marry because they don't procreate. !!.

It seems like now you just are going to go with the appeal to tradition of "one man one woman" And you have the nerve to claim that your not " hung up " on tradition.....except as a failed excuse for your blatant bigotry. You're entitled to live by what ever traditions you choose to live by. You are not entitled to dictate what traditions others live by.

And you still have not explained your position on gender roles where you contend that people of the same sex should not marry because " men and women are different" while not dealing with the fact that many opposite sex couples to not adhere to traditional roles. The fact is that you are in deep shit here. I know that you are full of shit. You know that you are full of shit, and anyone with two functioning brain cells who see this knows that you are full of shit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".

You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure. And you STILL have not answered the question.

Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?


1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.

2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.

3. "hung up" is just spin.

4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.

 

[Correll]

. Your bizarre refusal to honest accept my point is your issue, not mine. My point stands. The primary purpose of Marriage is to have the man stick around and provide for the offspring. That some couples fail to have children for whatever reason, does not undermine that point.

The question was:

. 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?

You did not answer it. Why should there be a different standard for same and opposite sex couples? And the "man providing for the offspring" thing is just more of your out of touch ,nonsensical traditionalism

Marriage was developed to form a structure to get the father to stay around and provide for the child.


Nothing in that, requires that a failure to make children, renders the marriage invalid.

Yes ,yes I know. You keep telling us why marriage came to be. Maybe yes and maybe no. I'm not concerning myself with what the purpose was then. Today people marry for many reasons other than children. But lets put that aside

Here is the real deal. All along you have been blathering about how same sex couple should not marry because they can't procreate (which of course is stupid ) . NOW, you admit , and rightfully so , that making babies IS NOT a requirement of marriage. Do you realize what you did? You just buried yourself in your own bullshit. It's not a requirement of marriage...unless you are gay!!

You just admitted your bigotry. Your advocacy for discrimination is based on nothing that makes a fucking damned bit of sense . No rational basis for it at all. I can't wait to see you try to dig your way out from under this one ,Bud

None of the assertions you strung together, as though they make an argument, actually make an argument.


Many of them are simply not true, others don't support what you claim they support.



There were reasons that Marriage was developed to be One Man, One Woman.


Those underlying reasons, did not become strict rules that were rigidly enforced.


THis is no way undermines the fact that they were reasons.



Pointing out that the reason same sex marriage did not exist, was being of procreation, is not discriminating against them, despite the existence of married couples without children.

So I see that you're abandoning your inane "procreation" argument . For the record, you got nailed on that procreation thing when you admitted that producing children is not a requirement for marriage...…..for heterosexuals after saying that gays should not marry because they don't procreate. !!.

A basis is not the same as a requirement. My position on this has been clear. YOu are purposefully muddying the waters to avoid the discussion getting anywhere.

It seems like now you just are going to go with the appeal to tradition of "one man one woman" And you have the nerve to claim that your not " hung up " on tradition.....except as a failed excuse for your blatant bigotry. You're entitled to live by what ever traditions you choose to live by. You are not entitled to dictate what traditions others live by.

Your argument has been that the "restrictions" are arbitrary and thus discrimination. My response was to point out, correctly that ancient reasons for the "restrictions". That is not me being "hung up" on tradition.

I keep coming back to it, because you keep going back to your claim that the "restrictions" are arbitrary.

Your confusion on this, does not make sense. You are obviously not a stupid person, so stop acting like you are.

And you still have not explained your position on gender roles where you contend that people of the same sex should not marry because " men and women are different" The fact is that you are in deep shit here. I know that you are full of shit. You know that you are full of shit, and anyone with two functioning brain cells who see this knows that you are full of shit.

I pointed out that "men and women are different" because you falsely claimed that gender roles are arbitrary.


NO real justification for you to be confused by that. So knock off that shit.

 

[Correll]

4. Save your spin for your lib buddies that want to hear it. You have a question, ask a real question, don't launch a gotcha in the form of a question.

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".

You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure. And you STILL have not answered the question.

Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?


1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.

2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.

3. "hung up" is just spin.

4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.

I have limits to how much of your shit I can put up with.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't know how people can do the whole polyamory thing without a bunch of drama. When I was a libertarian, there was a big push for polyamory and polygamy to be a front and center issue for the party. I don't know enough about polyamory and the like to discuss it very intelligently, but it doesn't sound appealing to me. If that's what floats you and your wife's boat and keeps you two together, more power to you, I guess.

Yes there can be drama. You and your partner have to communicate, be respectful of each other and not forget who you are with at the end of the night. But there is also drama when people cheat and often much worse. . Monogamous married couple often have wanderlust, that ends badly

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The question was

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.?

Again you didn't answer the very real question. Again, different standards for same and opposite sex couples.

Being aware of the fact that Marriage was developed based on traditional gender roles, is not being "hung up on traditional gender specific roles".

You are clinging for dear life to traditional gender roles. You can't see past it. I would call that hung up for sure. And you STILL have not answered the question.

Seriously? Do you really think that this helps you dig out from under the boatload of bovine excrement that you're buried under?


1 "Clinging to life" is just spin.

2. "Can't see past it" is just spin.

3. "hung up" is just spin.

4. A statement with that much spin, is not a question. It is bullshit propaganda in the dishonest packaging of a question. If you can't ask a question, then you don't get answers.

I have limits to how much of your shit I can put up with.

You're free to go anytime