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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is not MY opinion and your saying so is rather bizarre. Is it possible that your understanding of the legal system and what transpired in Obergefell is that abysmal.? It was the majority opinion of SCOTUS!!

And you absolutely did not demonstrate that the restrictions on same sex marriage were not arbitrary! It was your inane opinion based on "the history of marriage" and "traditional gender roles" ….a ridiculous idea that I have demolished time and again here.

You keep claiming that you have documented this or that, or proven something when you have documented and proven nothing except in the dark recesses of your own mind. You are either delusional or the worlds biggest ever bullshit artist-although not a very good one.

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

 

[K9Buck]

But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group - just because you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.

I disagree with your definition. There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs. I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage. That doesn't make them a bigot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group - just because you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.

I disagree with your definition. There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs. I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage. That doesn't make them a bigot.

If they stand in their way, or shun them it most certainly does make them a bigot. By the way, there are also Christians who accept and support gay people.

 

[K9Buck]

But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group - just because you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.

I disagree with your definition. There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs. I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage. That doesn't make them a bigot.

If they stand in their way, or shun them it most certainly does make them a bigot. By the way, there are also Christians who accept and support gay people.

Well, now you're changing your definition of bigotry. First you said that, one who stands in the way of gay-marriage, is a bigot. Now you're saying that if they ''shun'' gay people, they're a bigot.

Here is a definition I found and which I believe to be accurate. Your definition of a bigot seems to be anyone you dislike or who expresses a view that differs from yours. In fact, you sound like a bigot yourself.

Bigot | Definition of Bigot by Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

 

[22lcidw]

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

When all of the agendas have come to pass we were told things would be much better. One agenda after another either passed by law or forced on people. Well they are not better. So traditional marriage is a legit issue. People today and for some decades do not want to put up with marriage. It is difficult at times. It is not pushing it. Give people the choice of not paying for others. At least in a limited fashion. Penalizing someone for following the rules of humanity that has lasted for thousands of years is global suicide. Fixing it by giving more benefits while massively increasing payouts to those who do not follow rules is a death route also in a culture that is moving towards total socialism and communism.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

When all of the agendas have come to pass we were told things would be much better. One agenda after another either passed by law or forced on people. Well they are not better. So traditional marriage is a legit issue. People today and for some decades do not want to put up with marriage. It is difficult at times. It is not pushing it. Give people the choice of not paying for others. At least in a limited fashion. Penalizing someone for following the rules of humanity that has lasted for thousands of years is global suicide. Fixing it by giving more benefits while massively increasing payouts to those who do not follow rules is a death route also in a culture that is moving towards total socialism and communism.

What the hell are you jabbering about? Paying for others? Massive payouts? What exactly is same sex marriage costing you and how?

 

[K9Buck]

My view is that the government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. Marriage should be a private matter between private citizens and the private organization in which they belong who will recognize their marriage. I have no problem with same-sex marriage or multiple people being ''married''. It doesn't affect anyone else but them, so why should anyone else care?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My view is that the government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. Marriage should be a private matter between private citizens and the private organization in which they belong who will recognize their marriage. I have no problem with same-sex marriage or multiple people being ''married''. It doesn't affect anyone else but them, so why should anyone else care?

Yes, yes. I have heard it all before. Government out of marriage. However, I have never heard anyone explain how that would be accomplished or what it would look like in reality. True, there was a time when marriage was a private affair, but that was then and this is now. Government is inextricably intertwined with marriage for better or worse.

But we are getting off topic here . If you want to discuss the rightful role of government in marriage you should start a thread about it. The topic here is discrimination under the current system that we have.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group - just because you have some religious or moral bug up your ass.

I disagree with your definition. There are many good people who oppose same-sex marriage based on their biblical beliefs. I presume there are Christian parents that love their gay child greatly, but nevertheless oppose them being in a same-sex marriage. That doesn't make them a bigot.

If they stand in their way, or shun them it most certainly does make them a bigot. By the way, there are also Christians who accept and support gay people.

Well, now you're changing your definition of bigotry. First you said that, one who stands in the way of gay-marriage, is a bigot. Now you're saying that if they ''shun'' gay people, they're a bigot.

Here is a definition I found and which I believe to be accurate. Your definition of a bigot seems to be anyone you dislike or who expresses a view that differs from yours. In fact, you sound like a bigot yourself.

Bigot | Definition of Bigot by Merriam-Webster

Definition of BIGOT
Definition of bigot. : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

First of all I changed nothing .I said that anyone who stands in the way of marriage or shuns people....is a bigot. But I am not going to get into a pissing match over the definition of bigot. It's just a worn so save your Webster's stuff. Bottom line is that discriminating-or advocating discrimination is morally reprehensible. That entails anything that seeks to make a persons life harder, to marginalize or demean that person or to deprive a person of freedoms that other enjoy based on arbitrary and capricious ideas of what you think is acceptable.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

When all of the agendas have come to pass we were told things would be much better. One agenda after another either passed by law or forced on people. Well they are not better. So traditional marriage is a legit issue. People today and for some decades do not want to put up with marriage. It is difficult at times. It is not pushing it. Give people the choice of not paying for others. At least in a limited fashion. Penalizing someone for following the rules of humanity that has lasted for thousands of years is global suicide. Fixing it by giving more benefits while massively increasing payouts to those who do not follow rules is a death route also in a culture that is moving towards total socialism and communism.

PS . Where in the constitution does it provide for a cost -benefit analysis as part of determining if a person or a group is entitled to due process and equal protection under the law?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. People are entitled to their opinions. But you cross the line and become a bigot when you actively advocate the deprival of rights and freedoms a group - just because you have some religious or moral bug up your ass. I hope that answers you question.

For example, depriving groups of pedophilic perverts of the rights and freedoms to sexually manipulate, brainwash, and exploit other people's children.

 

[K9Buck]

[...save your Webster's stuff.

LOL. Ok. So everyone in this thread needs to understand that, for the purposes of this thread, the definition of a ''bigot'' is anyone who holds an opinion with which you disagree. Thanks for the laugh. I'll ''unwatch'' the thread now. Good look with your crusade!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

[...save your Webster's stuff.

LOL. Ok. So everyone in this thread needs to understand that, for the purposes of this thread, the definition of a ''bigot'' is anyone who holds an opinion with which you disagree. Thanks for the laugh. I'll ''unwatch'' the thread now. Good look with your crusade!

Take the time away to work on your reading comprehension


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent. I want to keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion

Is it your view that everyone opposed to same-sex marriage is a bigot?

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....

I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.

 

[Correll]

It is supposed to call into question the credibility of science, or should I say "science" in this heated and insanely ideological time.

Your pretense that this is not a valid point, is ironically, undermined by your own hysterical tone.

Oh give it a fucking rest. Now you reject science? In favor of what. ? Your blather about gays not being good parents is in fact invalid in the absence of any evidence. Get the fuck out of here and come back when you have something

Ignoring the impact of liberalism on the universities and sciences, is not something we can do.


YOu don't like it? Stop supporting witch hunts and hysteria.

Begging the question Logical Fallacy
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we’ve discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people use the phrase “beg the question” as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn’t given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that’s not the meaning we’re going to discuss here.

You're SOOOOO lousy at this!!

I did not present as "evidence" for my argument, my opinion on that portion of the issue. YOu asked, I answered.


My argument does not rest on that. YOur excitement here is irrational in the extreme.

Thank you for admitting that your "opinion " that liberal ideology has so tarnished science-especially science that you don't like-to render it useless is, in fact , nothing more than baseless bullshit.

Face it Dude, you don't know how to formulate an argument.

Well, I don't purposefully misunderstand what the other guy says, like you just did, to try to make a pretend point. So there is that.


(rare exceptions for humor, but what you did there was not funny)




My answer stands. I am doubtful of the ability of same sex couples to provide as nurturing an environment as normal married couples, and unfortunately, imo, we cannot trust the "sciences" because they have been tainted with political ideology.


And you are dishonest.

 

[Correll]

3. I never stated that my opposition to gay marriage was because they do not reproduce. The voices in your head, are yours, and have nothing to do with me.

Oh really?? You didn’t post this quote in # 636??

Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.

The Evolution of Marriage

At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

And....

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If you didn’t say it yourself, it sure sounds like you are in agreement with the notoriously anti gay Heritage Foundation who most certainly believe that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman for the purpose of birthing and nurturing children

And in your post 652 you wrote-in response to my comments on the Heritage Foundation's position

No, it is not "inclusive" for gays. It is inclusive for people who have no planned (plans? ) to have children, even though it was developed with a lot of focus on children. And it has always been open to people who "adapt" no (non) traditional gender roles".

You had asked me what position being put forth by the Heritage Foundation I disagreed with and one of my problems with it was that it excludes gay people- and you agreed that it does. Then you stupidly go on to say that it does include those who do not plan to have children.

In addition, now your saying that you don't have a problem with marriage for people who do not adhere to traditional gender roles - while clinging to the issue of gender roles for justification to oppose same sex marriage!! As I said before, this more than anything exposed your bigotry and hypocrisy


I’m not finished with you . In post 698 you wrote regarding the Heritage piece:

One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces."

Are you still going to deny that at least part of your objection to same sex marriage is they can’t reproduce one on one as a man and a woman does? But instead of saying it directly, you try to disguise it by wrapping in all of this gibberish about tradition and the purpose of marriage. You are so fucking busted on yet another lie!

1. My point, as I have repeatedly explained to you, for many days now, over and over again, was to show that the development of the structure of Marriage, had strong reasons, based on biology and gender roles and the needs of society to see children cared for.


Thus your claim of "arbitrary" is false.



2. That an institution was created for a specific purpose, but is not limited to only those that successful fulfill that purpose, does not change the fact that the Institution was created for that purpose(s).


I can't see why you are having trouble with this idea. You certainly have not explained your issue with it very clearly. YOu seem to think that expressing your disbelief strongly, and repeatedly is an argument.


Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?




3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone.

Is this load of horseshit somehow supposed to be a response to the fact that I exposed you hypocrisy and bigotry by showing that you think that gays should not marry because they can't reproduce, but have not problems with straight couples who can't have a child naturally getting married.?

And you ask:

Perhaps a hypothetical example would help? Tell me how you think that a man and a woman who marry, say, very late in life, without the expectation of children, undermines the idea that marriage was created to encourage proper care of children?

I told you -I never said that!! It is not something that I believe. You are creating a strawman and grossly misrepresenting me!

And you state:

3. NOt being inclusive, is not by itself, a bad thing. If someone makes a club for people that like old cars and it excludes people that want to build ships in bottles, that is not a bad thing. Bringing in those other people would not serve the interests of the club. Let the ship in bottle builders go do their own thing and leave the old car guys alone

Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency!! And stupid! Are you saying that gays being part of "the marriage club" do not serve that interest of marriage? Another admission of bigotry!

Dude. Just calling shit, "an admission of bigotry, is not an argument.


I seriously addressed your points, and you mostly just ranted.


AND, I know that, in your mind, you refuted everything I said, and will be referencing this later, as " I dealt with those issues," or " i proved you were a bigot" or some such shit.

 

[Correll]

1. It is ALSO, your opinion. Stop being weird.

2. Yes, I demonstrated that the "Restrictions" were not arbitrary. They were the nature result of creating an institution designed to get the man to stay and be a Father, while contributing to a stable society. I've never seen any documentation or research that gays were considered at all.


3. Your airy dismissal of the history of Marriage, does not mean it does not exist. That is just you stonewalling dishonestly. You should be ashamed of how easily and well you lie.

I see now what your problem is. Not only do you not understand how to construct an argument, you have no fucking idea of what a valid argument is.

Structure of a Logical Argument

Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example:

Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C

In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true also. However, if one or more premise is false then a valid logical argument may still lead to a false conclusion. A sound argument is one in which the logic is valid and the premises are true, in which case the conclusion must be true.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies

Learn this and try again fool.

And many of your premises are false.


For example. You have, sort of made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.


That is not true. You never explained how that logic worked, because it does not.




Thus, it is your chain of logic, that falls apart if looked at seriously.

What !! I "sort of" made the argument that childless married couples undermined one of the prime reasons for Marriage, ie the care of the children.?

Now I am fully convinced that you are out of your fucking mind!! I don't believe that, and never "sort of" said anything of the kind!! I have always said that the meaning and purpose of marriage is determined by the participants in the relationship.

Why did you keep bringing up childless couples then?


(Dude, you suck at making clear points. If I misread your intent, that is on you.)

What the fuck are you talking about. When I mentioned childless couples, it was certainly not in the context that you allege. Again, you are either knowingly lying or insane!

Your position is not credible.


If that was not your intent, in bringing up childless couples, than make your point, concisely, without burying it in partisan filler, to confuse it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....

I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.

Indeed. That's what this thread is about, after all—redefining “marriage” to mean something that it has never meant in all of human history.

 

[Correll]

A bigot has been defined as a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. I don't subscribe to that. ....

I'm sure you don't. Liberals love to redefine words, so that they give themselves a pass.

Indeed. That's what this thread is about, after all—redefining “marriage” to mean something that it has never meant in all of human history.

He is all over the place. He makes claims about the foundation of marriage, and then is completely confused when I respond with references to when and how marriage, Western Marriage was developed.


Talking to a lib, is like trying to nail fog to a wall.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Talking to a lib, is like trying to nail fog to a wall.

It's sometimes rather like competing in the Special Olympics—even when you win, you're still a retard, just for letting yourself be drawn into it.