Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
I just presented your position as I understand it. You are free to mount a rebuttal .Upon that misrepresentation of my position, you then build, your "argument" and declare yourself the "winner" and call me all sorts of names.
At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
You support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
I didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
What a fucking pathetic cop out! You won't even address the data that I present because you claim that we don't agree on our respective positions? Seriously?This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting" that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observationYOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.Thank you for again proving that all you have as an argument is an appeal to ignorance and the closely related Beg the Question fallacy. You have no idea what a debate actually is. You have presented zero evidence to support your idiotic and bigoted position. I am not going to continue to waist my time on your stupid shit
You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
Your spin on it is noted.
Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
That is not "nothing".
Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
I'm willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to. There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings
......"
No, by the time we got to this point, I'm more about just getting you to be clear about what my and your position is.
Why argue about supporting facts, when we can't even agree about what our positions are?
There is no point.
More of your bizarre horseshit. How do you want to make marriage possible for more people when you want to exclude people. We were motivated by the desire for equality. The divisiveness is the result of those who opposed us.At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
You are projecting your concerns onto me.
I support the concept of the nuclear family and think that national policy should have the aim of making it more possible for more people.
IMO, the Lefties who pushed to expand Marriage to include same sex couples, were motivated primarily by their desire to divide the nation against itself, and did not even really try to make any argument in support of their supposed goal.
I told you what I support it. You're claim that the bans were not arbitrary are bullshit as I have documented and as are supported by the courtYou support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
Again, you are projecting your concerns onto me.
Marriage is based on the "union" of a mother and father", to get the father to stick around and provide.
The question is not why to oppose same sex marriage, but why to support it.
Your primary argument was "arbitrary", which I showed to be false.
I don't know what the fuck this means except that you are possibly loosing your mind, Your know, I've decided that your not stupid. To the contrary, you are probobly quite bright and clever, and know exactly what you're doing here. You problem is that I am smarter than you and see through your manipulative gamesYou support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
YOu cut and pasted quotes that you did not actually read. You could not see them, though your barriers to communication.
You instead saw, what you wanted to see.
THose messages, your mind created, are on no concern of mine.
The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometimeI didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
What a fucking pathetic cop out! You won't even address the data that I present because you claim that we don't agree on our respective positions? Seriously?This is truly a pathetic attempt to win this argument which you started by "doubting" that same sex couples could nurture children as hetero couples do. That is not an attack -that is an observationYOU are the one who stated that you doubt that gay couples cant provide adequate nurturance to children with nothing to back that up except your skepticism about the science that says otherwise. You have nothing to offer.You are the one that focused in on this narrow question, not me.
Your spin on it is noted.
Well, I have my skepticism, and I can point to the mass hysteria that is often coming out of the universities on other issues.
That is not "nothing".
Not sure why you are so focused on this. If you are really sure that they can, it would make more sense for you to present the details of the studies you cited and defend them.
Course, digging into the details of the studies, is a risky business. If I'm right....
SO, your tactic of just ranting, and making personal attacks, makes sense, if at some level, you agree with me about liberals and "science".
I'm willing to bet that you did not bother to read the study that I previously posted, did you. I think that you are afraid to learn anything, or perhaps unable to. There were plenty of details there but you did not address any of them or even attempt to refute the findings
......"
No, by the time we got to this point, I'm more about just getting you to be clear about what my and your position is.
Why argue about supporting facts, when we can't even agree about what our positions are?
There is no point.
The data speaks for itself. I posted peer reviewed studies that are widely accepted by the scientific community. Your distrust of science does not negate its validity. If you wish to refute the evidence , the burden of proof is on you. Feel free to try to find flaws in the study or evidence of political bias .
As for our respective positions, I just stated what I understand yours to be and why
My position:
I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts
The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age demonstrably total bullshit and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny .
More of your bizarre horseshit. How do you want to make marriage possible for more people when you want to exclude people. We were motivated by the desire for equality. The divisiveness is the result of those who opposed us......At minimum you are opposed to same sex marriage. From what you have said, I concluded that your opposition is rooted in the fact that two people of the same sex cannot produce a child one on one. It appears that you also use "traditional gender roles " and the "difference between men and women" as a reason. Am I wrong?I respect that you disagree with me. I don't respect that you will not honestly state what my position is, and you insist on misrepresenting it, over and over again.
You are projecting your concerns onto me.
I support the concept of the nuclear family and think that national policy should have the aim of making it more possible for more people.
IMO, the Lefties who pushed to expand Marriage to include same sex couples, were motivated primarily by their desire to divide the nation against itself, and did not even really try to make any argument in support of their supposed goal.
I told you what I support it. You're claim that the bans were not arbitrary are bullshit as I have documented and as are supported by the courtYou support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
Again, you are projecting your concerns onto me.
Marriage is based on the "union" of a mother and father", to get the father to stick around and provide.
The question is not why to oppose same sex marriage, but why to support it.
Your primary argument was "arbitrary", which I showed to be false.
I don't know what the fuck this means except that you are possibly loosing your mind, Your know, I've decided that your not stupid. To the contrary, you are probobly quite bright and clever, and know exactly what you're doing here. You problem is that I am smarter than you and see through your manipulative gamesYou support and subscribe to the Heritage Foundations view that procreation, or the inability to do so by" acceptable means" …..that marriage is based on the union of a mother and father to produce a child is a reason to oppose same sex marriage. Recall, I documented your posts to that effect.Marriage was developed to get the Father to stay and provide for the Children.
You are pretending that saying that, is accepting or creating, some sort of regulation requiring children for a marriage to be valid.
YOu cut and pasted quotes that you did not actually read. You could not see them, though your barriers to communication.
You instead saw, what you wanted to see.
THose messages, your mind created, are on no concern of mine.
The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometimeI didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit. I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is overThe year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometimeI didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
I have had about enough of this tit-for-ta bullshit. I am going to sum it all up and be finished here. The pissing match is overThe year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometimeI didn't say that. History does not show that. I think I have heard of two cases when there was even talk of ending a marriage because one of the partners could not or would not breed. In thousands of years of western history.
Irrelevant and hearsay . Stricken from the record
Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.
THe last time you mentioned that, I pointed out the implications, and you flipped the fuck out.
SO, either drop that shit, or be prepared to discuss the implications.
To be clear on my position:
I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts. The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.
Same sex couples’ function as families and responsible members of the community just like everyone else and are entitled to equal treatment.
Same sex couples have and raise children and those children do as well and, in some cases, better than children of opposite sex couples as I have documented
Same sex marriage has ben a reality in some parts of this country for over a decade and much longer in other countries. There has been no adverse impact or unintended consequences that anyone can point to.
Regarding your position
The reasons that you have given for opposing same sex marriage- procreation, traditional gender roles and "the history and structure of marriage " age and do not stand up to legal or logical scrutiny.
You initially took the position that you oppose same sex marriage because “men and women are different” and after dancing around that for a while, you eventually invoked your gender role reasoning- claiming that complimentary gender roles are necessary. However, in doing so, you ignored the fact that gender roles are now fluid and interchangeable, that women do all or most of the things that men do, and are totally dismissive of the fact that most heterosexual couples do not adhere to traditional gender roles. Yet you maintain a double standard for homo vs. heterosexuals when it comes to the issue of gender roles and marriage.
You decried that SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage claiming that supporters “just ran to the judges” instead of “making a case for it” and using the legislative process. In doing so, you offer no legal theory or a shred of logic as to why it was an “abuse of the courts” as you put it, and in fact ignored my point that judicial review is a well-established process in out legal system and that the courts must act to protect constitutional rights when necessary.
Even more significantly, your contention that a case was not made for same sex marriage defies reality and confirms your ignorance of what transpire during the protracted legal battle and numerous court cases. It is clear you never once read a single court opinion or legal brief outlining the case for same sex marriage. Instead you made the baseless and ridiculous claim-without a shred of evidence- that the courts were lied to about-of all things-gender roles, which was not even an issue before the court. You just made that shit up!
From the beginning, you have been pushing the idea that the central purpose of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to have children. Then you deny that procreation is a requirement of marriage. I think that you do indeed believe that it is a requirement of marriage as does the Heritage Foundation, who’s article you posted. However, even if you are telling the truth about that, it’s clear that you use the fact that same sex couples do not have the potential to reproduce one on one as a reason why they should not marry, At the same time giving hetero couple who cant reproduce a pass on that. Blatant hypocrisy!
It is equally clear that you decided-without evidence- that same sex couples were not as nurturing for children as others. When presented with evidence to the contrary, in the form of a study- you dismissed at claiming that science has been so tainted by the liberal agenda that it is worthless.
You went so far as to suggest it is incumbent upon me prove that the results are valid, when the results speak for themselves. Subsequently I posted additional peer reviewed studies and challenged you find flaws in the methodology or evidence of bias. We have not heard a word from you on that, but you did take time to whine about my alleged dishonesty and evasiveness since then.
You have no knowledge of or interesting in learning anything about how having married parents’ benefits children. The fact is that marriage affords children the legal and financial security, and social status that they otherwise would not have. But you are willing to punish the children, in order to protect your “ancient institution of marriage” that you claim in circling the drain because of gay marriage.
You claim, without evidence that the motive for pushing for same sex marriage was not a desire for equality but intended to divide society. The fact that gays demanded “equality” is not evince of anything but their determination. That is nothing more that a favorite right wing bigoted talking point.
People have a right in this country to demand what they feel is due to them. What should they have done, groveled on the steps of their statehouse begging for the right to marriage? They just wanted equality, ! It is people like you who create the division. You probobly also think that black people were responsible for the divisiveness of the civil rights era . You are just blaming the victims with that horseshit
I will not respond any further to your drivel and accusations of being evasive and dishonest. I have been as direct and factual as I can be here. I will only deal with a serious attempt on your part to deal with the factual evidence that I have presented. Start by learning something about the legal system and what transpired during the long fight for same sex marriage. You might also want to learn something about LGBT history since stonewall and you might begin to understand their anger and frustration over marriage and other issues that are ongoing to this day do n't expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to try engaging in an adult conversation instead of whining and playing silly games like a six year old.
Lastly, I am fully prepared for you to accuse me of running from this- a tactic that people like you always employ -so don't even bother. I am not running . I am still here ready to engage in anything appropriate, honest and and meaningful that you have to say. Not holding my breath
