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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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 year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime

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 over


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

You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.

Try Again, Dude.

 

[Cosmos]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Why is it all you faggots attack Christians? Can't you just stay in your little faggot closets and leave the Christians alone?

 

[Correll]

Quite relevant to showing that your odd premise, is not supported by the last couple of thousand years of history.

The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime

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 over


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

You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.

Try Again, Dude.

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The year is 2019. Society and traditions evolve. You should try it sometime

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 over


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

You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.

Try Again, Dude.

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .


An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link and content.
Edited

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Why is it all you faggots attack Christians? Can't you just stay in your little faggot closets and leave the Christians alone?

I don't attack Christians. I attack extremist bigots. And you assumption about by sexuality based on my politics, and support for LGBT people tells me exactly how fucking stupid that you are.

Why don't you bigots and trolls stay under your rocks and bridges and leave gay people alone?

 

[Correll]

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 over


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

You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.

Try Again, Dude.

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,


then the structure was not arbitrary.


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.


There is a price to paid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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 over


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

You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.

Try Again, Dude.

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,


then the structure was not arbitrary.


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.


There is a price to paid.

That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Grade: Fail

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.

Can you dumb it down a little more. ?? Applying the law includes striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage

What is the origin of judicial review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.

 

[Correll]

You are not running, you are stone walling. Big difference. You keep repeating the same assertions, even though they have been repeatedly shown to be false. and lie a lot.

Try Again, Dude.

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,


then the structure was not arbitrary.


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.


There is a price to paid.

That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Grade: Fail

Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,

that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.


AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.



And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Try Again, Dude.

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,


then the structure was not arbitrary.


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.


There is a price to paid.

That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Grade: Fail

Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,

that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.


AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.



And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.

Fail

You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review

Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way

As I said , the pissing match is over.

 

[Correll]

The structure of Marriage was not arbitrary. It is absurd to claim it was.

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,


then the structure was not arbitrary.


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.


There is a price to paid.

That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Grade: Fail

Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,

that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.


AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.



And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.

Fail

You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review

Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way

As I said , the pissing match is over.

YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.


Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.


If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.

It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.


And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.


Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.



That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.

Can you dumb it down a little more. ?? Applying the law includes striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage

What is the origin of judicial review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at allowing or requiring a sick homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized or treated as being comparable to genuine marriage. There is not a single word in the Constitution that was written by anyone who would have found the idea to be anything but bizarre, immoral, and unthinkable.

This was an act of willful corruption, usurpation, and overreach on the part of the courts.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OK, that is almost a rational response. I'll engage it.

The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. However, in the present day- where gender roles are fluid and interchangeable- where people marry for many reasons other than having children and where same sex couples function in society much the opposite sex couples do....the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples was in fact arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis. You are living in a time and place that does not exist anymore.

In any case , gender roles are no reason to ban same sex marriage. I maintain that is a bogus justification that you came up with

If, as you admit that at the time the institution was developed, that the structure of it made sense,


then the structure was not arbitrary.


THe place to have a discussion about whether and/or how to adjust laws due to changes in society, is in the legislature, not the courts.


YOu don't get to just declare the discussion over, and anyone that disagrees is a bigot.


Well you do, but dont' be surprised when those you marginalize, get pissed off at your tactics.


There is a price to paid.

That is not an appropriate or adequate response to what I just said. Read it again .Hint: the structure of marriage then vs. The issue of whether or not the BANS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOW were arbitrary.

You also need to make a case for why the issue should have been legislated vs. litigated. Just repeating the same shit over again does not make for an argument

Grade: Fail

Because if an institution worked at some point, and the environment the institution was in, changed enough that changes to the institution seemed reasonable to some people,

that is just the type of issue that legislatures are FOR.


AND you already agree that the rules made sense at some point (ie not arbitrary) and that the taking the issue to the courts was based on the structure being arbitrary.



And by this time, we have gone over this point, at least dozens of times. For you to challenge me to make the point AGAIN, is just you stonewalling. EXTREMELY DISHONESTLY.

Fail

You refuse to deal with or accept the fact that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and subject to judicial review

Thus far you have dealt with ZERO % of the issues that I covered in my lengthy post in any meaningful way

As I said , the pissing match is over.

YOu agreed that it was claimed to be a civil rights issue, because the "restrictions" were supposedly arbitrary.


Later you agreed that the structure of marriage, worked for quite some time, at least until society changed.


If a structure WORKS, then claiming the rules of the structure is arbitrary is extremely difficult.

It is almost a truism that something arbitrary, ie without reasons, is not going to work, or at least not work well.


And you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to discuss the development of the structure of marriage.


Because you know that the structure was not arbitrary.



That is the crux of your argument. THe rest is noise and fury signifying nothing.

I going to cut through the bullshit right now. You have bogged this matter down in this "structure and purpose of marriage" thing which has obfuscated and buried the real issue.

The real issue is the fact that we had two groups- heterosexuals and homosexuals- who for not discernable or rational reason-were being treated differently under the law. The states failed to establish a rational basis let along a compelling government interest for the discrimination and therefore the courts rightfully ruled on it as a civil rights issue.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.

Can you dumb it down a little more. ?? Applying the law includes striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage

What is the origin of judicial review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at allowing or requiring a sick homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized or treated as being comparable to genuine marriage. There is not a single word in the Constitution that was written by anyone who would have found the idea to be anything but bizarre, immoral, and unthinkable.

This was an act of willful corruption, usurpation, and overreach on the part of the courts.

They executed homosexuals for a long time.

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Obergefel was a bad ruling. Just like Roe V. Wade.

 

[Cosmos]

Courts do not have the legitimate authority to make or change law—only to apply and uphold existing law.

Can you dumb it down a little more. ?? Applying the law includes striking down laws that are deemed unconstitutional as was the case with laws banning same sex marriage

What is the origin of judicial review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws related to cases before the court and overturn those that are found unconstitutional.

Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. Congress rewrote the law -- without protest -- in 1793.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at allowing or requiring a sick homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized or treated as being comparable to genuine marriage. There is not a single word in the Constitution that was written by anyone who would have found the idea to be anything but bizarre, immoral, and unthinkable.

This was an act of willful corruption, usurpation, and overreach on the part of the courts.

Like most leftist socialist bullshit, homosexual "marriage" is so good it has to be shoved down our throats by the courts.

 

[evenflow1969]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.

Nice try using the Rules for Radicals, but I am on to you, you worthless piece of excrement.
The will of God, I know you dont know what it means, because you hate Christians as much as you hate Jews. but when Lucifer was allowed to walk the land and "tempt" mankind away from God, that was the free will choice. So over the centuries, man has moved farther away from God, thus allowing Lucifer to get stronger. We see it really going full force back in the 1960's with rampant sex, drugs and rock and roll, which were all choices, but moving man more towards the barbaric periods of time. Gays was normalized when it always was a mental illness, because Hollyweird money was going into the government to allow the queers to be seen as typical people. Then sister wives came on TV normalizing polygamy, then other "reality" tv shows sprung up with children being shown as sex symbols. Dont try that Sharia Law bull shit, that is just liberalism on steroids, but typical a liberal they are too stupid to know better.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I really have to wonder about people who devote their so called lives to trying to deny others what they can take for granted- Specifically marriage. Meet Brian Brown of the National Organization for (Straight ) Marriage who is obsessing about Mayor Pete Buttigieg and who thinks that he can get marriage equality reversed:

Mayor Pete’s Marriage is Bogus and the Trumpified SCOTUS Will Agree, Says Brian Brown | Right Wing Watch

You would have thought that the NOM would have closed up shop after they, and other such organizations got slapped down with the Obergefell decision. But, they are still here. I guess that you have to give them credit for perseverance. Or, is it a religious psychosis manifested by obsessive compulsive focus on other people's marriages. ? Lets see what he has to say:

In a Friday afternoon fundraising email from the National Organization for Marriage, Brown slammed Buttigieg’s marriage as illegitimate: “Mr. Buttigieg may consider himself married to another man, but that relationship is not marriage, and no judicial decree or political act can ever make it so.”

In addition:

Brown vowed to get marriage back before the U.S. Supreme Court so that Trump-nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh can, with the Court’s other conservatives, reverse the Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. And, without any apparent self-awareness of his glaring inconsistency, Brown accused Buttigieg of wanting to use “the force of law to impose his views on every American, especially those who disagree with him.” Which, of course, is exactly what Brown is trying to with his efforts to get rid of marriage equality.

What the hell is wrong with these people. The fact that they are so threatened by same sex marriage has to make me wonder what their marriage is like. In any case, they have one major and probably insurmountable problem in getting the case back to SCOTUS. Someone with statding- meaning someone who can show that they have been personally effected in a negative way by same sex marriage -must bring a case before a court. Who would that be? No one who I can think of. The fact is that no one is harmed by same sex marriage.

The only other way that the issue could get back into the federal courts is if a state stupidly passed a new ban on same sex marriage. Bujt that would not get far, since the court would be obligated to shoot it down based on the Obergefell precedent and any appeals court would have to do the same thing.

If it were then appealed to SCOTUS , they of course would have the option of not even taking the case and my guess is that is what would happen. It is too much of a hot potato.

However, if they did take the case, consider that Roberts, although a conservative who dissented in Obergefell is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court. He has an interest in not allowing the court to drift further right. He is aware of the fact that never in history has a right that has been established been taken away. He may well be the new swing voter on social issues .

So Brian, suck it up and shut up.....and work on your own life while you're at it .

I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed out of the closet and live a normal life.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals just wanted to be allowed to see their sick friends in the hospital, so a civil union was created.
I remember back in the day when Homosexuals were not allowed to be married and a few years later were allowed to be married.
It is never enough for faggots, because faggots can never be happy, and must FORCE upon the rest of US their immoral lifestyles and we must accept them as normal or be brow beaten into submission. And little do the faggots realize that the more they push, the more the normal people hate them. I almost wish every day that Islam in America will treat the faggots the same way they treat them in the middle east. Guess who the faggots will be begging to save them?

View attachment 266175

So you are a supporter of sharia law. For some reason this does not surprise me. What fucking skin off your nose is it if two dudes or two women want to get it on? Are you so weak that it is going to make you want to do it? I say if they want to play the suckers game of marriage let them. Divorce attornies need to eat too. Ever practice empathy? Would you like it if there were laws saying you could not be married to the opposite sex? You wanna make the world better create laws about PDA. Any thing above a hug, holding hands or a peck on the lips, get a fucking room. I say any thing that promotes real loyalty in this world is a good thing. I am not sure that marriage promotes real loyalty any more. All it promoted for me was a hostage situation where I put up with hell and she still took more than half my shit.

oh as for 2 dudes poking each others ass, or 2 women muff diving, I couldn't give a shit, but when they start parading around, strutting their immoral actions, then demanding I accept them as normal, then I have an issue. It used to be that they didnt want anyone knowing what they did in their bedroom, so much for that bullshit baldfaced lie.