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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

We'll the courts and all rational people disagree with you. Tradition does not trump the constitution. Traditions evolve even if some people like you don't. It not I who is confused.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The problem with homosexuals is many have sex with total strangers, so they do not know if they're infected or not...and the level of STDs and HIV are way higher in their community.

Actually, I don't know to what extent that is true anymore. But I will say that I know from experience that may many heterosexuals , including myself have engaged in such things

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

For religious reasons I disagree with gay marriage, my day to day life does not include walking up to gay couples and telling them what I think. I just SMH and keep walking. That's what they want, right? Tolerance? I think that is exactly what I have been doing and I will continue to conduct myself like that.

Good for you.

 

[Correll]

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

I know.

 

[Lysistrata]

Let's put the lives of heterosexuals under the same micro-examination. How many heterosexual males were virgins when they went to bed with their new wives after the ceremony? They have been committed thereafter? Husbands who gave up their virginity to their wives on their wedding night step forward. It's a Christian thing.

Christian doctrine does not promote promiscuity...faggot ideology does.
Secular idiot ideology preaches promiscuity.

So try again.

How do people who want to be married preach promiscuity? It seems just the opposite. What we don't want is people who report to their marriage ceremonies who do not actually mean that they intend to commit to their intended spouses for the rest of their lives. I like what I saw on YouTube about those Ultra=Orthodox Jews who fast and pray for days before their marriage ceremonies so that they can focus on what they are about to do. Good plan.The people who showed up to be married the day after same-sex marriage became legal showed their intentions. No matter what sexual orientation, this firmness of intent is what society needs. Commitment. I don't think that people like the guy in the Oval Office ever manifested his commitment to any of the three people he "married."

 

[Correll]

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.

We'll the courts and all rational people disagree with you. Tradition does not trump the constitution. Traditions evolve even if some people like you don't. It not I who is confused.

We were discussing your continued and willful confusion about my positions. I AGAIN, clarified shit for you.

And you dodged my clarifications, and made an Appeal to Authority, an Appeal to Popularity, and a personal attack.



Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

 

[Correll]

Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis.

Lets recap:

You tried the argument that gays people should not marry because they do not reproduce based on your assertion that the central reason for marriage is to "get the father to stick around and provide" .I confronted you with the question of whether or not opposite sex couples who could not reproduce naturally should be allowed to marry to which you responded that fathering children is not a requirement for marriage. Apparently it is only a requirement for gay people according to you.
You then ran like hell from your "procreation "crap" never to revisit it.

You then fell back on your appeal to tradition .Marriage has been between one man and one women for a millennium bla bla bal....

When asked if you want to preserve all traditions related to marriage such as women as property and marriage being between two people of the same race, you actually, much to my amazment , said that you were opposed to interracial marriage. At least your consistent, but you did not address the role and status of women. I can only imagine.

You stated that you are oppoesed to same sex marriage because of the different traditional roles that men and women bring to a relationship. However, you refused to deal with the fact that in most heterosexual relationships, women are increasingly doing all of the same things that men do, but you have no problem with whatever gender role conflict if any that might entail

When asked what negative or unexpected consequences same sex marriage has had, you stated that it is too soon to tell and speculated- without evidence- that you doubt that same sex couples can function as well as opposite sex couples and provide the same level of nurturance to children.. I pointed out that the Netherlands has had same sex marriage for 18 years and asked you to document the societal decline that you predict. I also provided evident that children of same sex couples do just as well as others. You have had nothing further to say on either count.

You have derided the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage claiming that the bans imposed by the states were not arbitrary and that there was a reason for them.. But the only reason that you could come up with was your appeal to tradition fallacy.


You also claimed that it was an abuse of the courts to go that rout as opposed to legislation which exposed your pathetic and abysmal understanding of constitutional law and our legal system

Dude, you are toast! You are exposed for the mindless bigot that you are. You have no defense and you have no viable argument. My work is done hereby

 

[Correll]

Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More proof of insanity and paranoia on the right:

Franklin Graham warns US may never recover from ‘catastrophic’ Equality Act during insane diatribe

Franklin Graham is waging war against the Equality Act, legislation that would merely extend the already-existing Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people in areas such as housing, credit, education, and public accommodations.

Graham went on an insane diatribe in the July/August edition of his Decision Magazine, calling the fight against equality “A Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”

According to Graham, were the Equality Act, which passed the House in May and is languishing in the Senate, ever to become law, it would be, he warns, “a nightmare from which this nation may never recover.”

The man is one sick mother!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

More proof of insanity and paranoia on the right:

Franklin Graham warns US may never recover from ‘catastrophic’ Equality Act during insane diatribe

Franklin Graham is waging war against the Equality Act, legislation that would merely extend the already-existing Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people in areas such as housing, credit, education, and public accommodations.

Graham went on an insane diatribe in the July/August edition of his Decision Magazine, calling the fight against equality “A Battle for the Soul of the Nation.”

According to Graham, were the Equality Act, which passed the House in May and is languishing in the Senate, ever to become law, it would be, he warns, “a nightmare from which this nation may never recover.”

The man is one sick mother!

Nearly everything that Mr. Graham wrote in his article is entirely correct, albeit with a possible slight touch of hyperbole.

It is, of course, no surprise at all to see your source, RawStory, engaging in exactly the sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty that we know to expect of such a source, going so far even as to claim that Mr. Graham was “literally” saying something that was not at all what he said.

What is it about degenerate leftist filth such as yourself, and the word “literally”, that you are so damn ignorant that you do not understand what that word actually means.

An honest reading both of Mr. Graham's original article, and of RawStory's account thereof, is quite sufficient to show any sane reader where the true madness lies. [Hint: It's on the same side that is confused about the differences between men and women, and why these differences matter.]

 

[Correll]

Traditions evolve? Interesting. Are you making the argument that if traditions evolve that laws should be changed to evolve with them?

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes!! To the extent that such changes do not violate the rights of others or put others at risk, and there is no rational basis or compelling state interest in upholding said tradition

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.

And here again, you are offering nothing that resembles facts or logic that can help your failed argument that there is justification for banning same sex marriage. I called you a mindless bigot because you don't seem to be bright enough to see that pathetic failure of every aspect of your argument. I think that we have to do it again, and keep doing it until it sinks in

You tried the argument that gays people should not marry because they do not reproduce based on your assertion that the central reason for marriage is to "get the father to stick around and provide" .I confronted you with the question of whether or not opposite sex couples who could not reproduce naturally should be allowed to marry to which you responded that fathering children is not a requirement for marriage. Apparently it is only a requirement for gay people according to you.
You then ran like hell from your "procreation "crap" never to revisit it.

You then fell back on your appeal to tradition .Marriage has been between one man and one women for a millennium

When asked if you want to preserve all traditions related to marriage such as women as property and marriage being between two people of the same race, you actually, much to my amazement , said that you were opposed to interracial marriage. At least your consistent, but you did not address the role and status of women. I can only imagine.

You stated that you are opposed to same sex marriage because of the different traditional roles that men and women bring to a relationship. However, you refused to deal with the fact that in most heterosexual relationships, women are increasingly doing all of the same things that men do, but you have no problem with whatever gender role conflict if any that might entail

When asked what negative or unexpected consequences same sex marriage has had, you stated that it is too soon to tell and speculated- without evidence- that you doubt that same sex couples can function as well as opposite sex couples and provide the same level of nurturance to children.. I pointed out that the Netherlands has had same sex marriage for 18 years and asked you to document the societal decline that you predict. I also provided evident that children of same sex couples do just as well as others. You have had nothing further to say on either count.

You have derided the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage claiming that the bans imposed by the states were not arbitrary and that there was a reason for them.. But the only reason that you could come up with was your appeal to tradition fallacy.

You also claimed that it was an abuse of the courts to go that rout as opposed to legislation All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe

Have a good day

 

[Correll]

A fine idea.


INdeed, almost what legislatures are for.


A place made, with elected representatives of the people to discuss seriously matters of policy and law, such as a growing gap between ancient tradition and a changing modern world, in a calm and serious manner.


One side could make the case that the world has changed, and the Laws need to be changed to reflect that, and the other could challenge their assertions and claims, and a policy could be reached as to how to handle it.


Too bad that your side decided to not do that.

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.....y

I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.


But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More nonsensical blather intended to obfuscate the issue which is that the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis....

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.....y

I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.


But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.

Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. ???You most certainly are afraid of the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.

 

[Correll]

No, you made the point that traditions evolve and that laws have to change to keep up with them.


I agreed. And went on to discuss how it makes sense for a legislature to address such changing traditions, and whether or how to change laws to fit them.


No reasonable or honest person could call that "blather" and it is telling that instead of supporting your claim that it is blather, you immediately want to reassertion ALL you initial positions and arguments AND later arguments.

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.....y

I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.


But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.

Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are afraid the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.

I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I find it interesting and telling how you blithely skip past all of the main points that I made- procreation, the importance of gender roles, the ability of same sex couples to nurture children- which you were decisively slapped down on, and zero in on one issue where you think that still have some life . But you don't...…...

All that you have accomplished here is to underscore your pathetic ignorance of our legal system and the role of the courts. Tell us dear boy, how long should gay people have waited for the legislature to act in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Yes I am reasserting my position because it is a valid one for which you have no counter argument except to claim that you are right-with no evidence or logic to back up that claim. Judicial oversight is a well established function of the courts and the 14th Amendment extended that function to intervene in state laws that violate the constitution, and deprive people of due process and equal protection under the law which is precisely how Obergefell was decided. Read the fucking constitution. Read some case law and maybe you won't be so ignorant. Maybe.

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.....y

I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.


But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.

Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are afraid the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.

I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging I'll be happy to.

You are pathetic and your accusations against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up. You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and quitting while your behind.

 

[Correll]

1. I skipped past all the points we have gone over already.


2. Hint: When I point something out to you, and you just refuse to see it, and spend page after page refusing to even address what I actually said, and if you do, you just dismiss it and reassert your original position, that is not me getting slapped down, that is you being an ideologically blind and dishonest person.

3. My point stands. I made a point, and you calling it "mindless" is not an argument. That was you realizing that you could not hope to challenge my point, and so you just ran away like a little girl.

4. And, you extensive recap of the whole discussion, was just an attempt to distract from the fact that you just tried running a line of jive past me. Hint: it failed.

Dude!! You skipped past all of the points that I devastated you with and now you're bleating about my refusing to see what you are trying to say and being dismissive .That is all nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you have been thoroughly beaten down.....y

I spent 86 pages discussing those points with you, I think it is safe to say, I am not afraid to discuss them with you.


But you now made a new point. And I addressed it. Crushed it really, and you are all butthurt and desperately trying to change the subject.

Oh good fucking God! Are you serious. You most certainly are afraid the points that I made as evidenced by this pathetic post where you DO NOT discuss any of my points what so ever,. And do tell, what new point did I make that you are deluding yourself into believing that you crushed? My god man, get a grip! You're embarrassing yourself, sounding so desperate.

I discussed them over and over again for over 80 pages.


The fact that now you are pretending I am afraid to discuss them after that, is the type of rank dishonesty, I was referring to, when I said you were dishonest.


You are the one afraid to discuss the issues honestly and seriously, not me.

You are loosing it Dude! Anyone following this can see it. Read my posts! If you want me to post my summary of my case against your crap yet aging I'll be happy to.

You are pathetic and your accusations against me are just desperate attempt to cover that up. You can't deal with the facts and logic that I present and all that you can do is whine and pretend that I am not engaging in serious discussion. The fact is that you have nothing of value to offer and have failed miserably in trying to make a case against same sex marriage. You might want to consider shutting the fuck and quitting while your behind.

I'm pathetic?


Tell me again, how I spent 80 pages and over a week, discussing the issue with you, but now I am supposedly "afraid" to discuss the issue with you?


LOL!!!!


Dude. Seriously. Do you really believe the shit you are posting?