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

[Correll]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Thank you for sharing your vast legal wisdom and knowledge with us all. I feel so enlightened

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.

Another Fail.

It appears that you are not interested in trying to back up your inane horseshit where you claimed that m that children raised by same sex couple are not as well nurtured......or that there will be long term negative consequences over gay marriage.

 

[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.

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.

What lie are you speaking of? Do you listen to your self? It sounds as though you agree with me. By your own words if they do it in thier bedroom no skin off your nose. As far as offending god travel at your own risk. Judgement is mine sayith the lord. I will let the lord judge, you and I are not qualified. If you do not want to end up in the pit you will let the lord judge as instructed in the bible. I will take the advice of Jesus and practice infinate forgiveness.
Matthew 7:5
Luke 6:37
John 8:7
James 4:11-12
Romans 14:3
Romans 14:10
Galatians 6:1-2

 

[Correll]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.

Another Fail.

It appears that you are not interested in trying to back up your inane horseshit where you claimed that m that children raised by same sex couple are not as well nurtured......or that there will be long term negative consequences over gay marriage.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Because of disagreeing BELIEFS about the gender roles and definitions,
that's what makes this a faith based issue.

Thus if you and I are going to be consistent and ethical
about NOT imposing faith based institutions through GOVERNMENT,
then we would treat the beliefs about LGBT orientation and gender
as we insist on keeping Christian beliefs, practices and traditions out of
public schools and institutions.

Not only are there CHANGES in cultural context,
but there are DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS.

The more consistent way to defend the beliefs and cultural contexts/changes
is to recognize these under FREE EXERCISE AND EXPRESSION under the
First Amendment, where these can neither be prohibited nor established
by govt, so there is NO Discrimination by anyone's beliefs on these matters.

That protects you and others AUTOMATICALLY using arguments that
any Conservative, Christian or Constitutionalist already respects and agrees to uphold.

End of argument. Make it a First Amendment religious freedom issue
and all people of all views and beliefs are already protected. Period.

 

[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.”

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.

What lie are you speaking of? Do you listen to your self? It sounds as though you agree with me. By your own words if they do it in thier bedroom no skin off your nose. As far as offending god travel at your own risk. Judgement is mine sayith the lord. I will let the lord judge, you and I are not qualified. If you do not want to end up in the pit you will let the lord judge as instructed in the bible. I will take the advice of Jesus and practice infinate forgiveness.
Matthew 7:5
Luke 6:37
John 8:7
James 4:11-12
Romans 14:3
Romans 14:10
Galatians 6:1-2

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.

Another Fail.

It appears that you are not interested in trying to back up your inane horseshit where you claimed that m that children raised by same sex couple are not as well nurtured......or that there will be long term negative consequences over gay marriage.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
Because of disagreeing BELIEFS about the gender roles and definitions,
that's what makes this a faith based issue.

Thus if you and I are going to be consistent and ethical
about NOT imposing faith based institutions through GOVERNMENT,
then we would treat the beliefs about LGBT orientation and gender
as we insist on keeping Christian beliefs, practices and traditions out of
public schools and institutions.

Not only are there CHANGES in cultural context,
but there are DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS.

The more consistent way to defend the beliefs and cultural contexts/changes
is to recognize these under FREE EXERCISE AND EXPRESSION under the
First Amendment, where these can neither be prohibited nor established
by govt, so there is NO Discrimination by anyone's beliefs on these matters.

That protects you and others AUTOMATICALLY using arguments that
any Conservative, Christian or Constitutionalist already respects and agrees to uphold.

End of argument. Make it a First Amendment religious freedom issue
and all people of all views and beliefs are already protected. Period.

Speak English or go back to your planet

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

 

[evenflow1969]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

So you do sdupport sharia law!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

So you do sdupport sharia law!

So you repeat yourself once again, when you know it is the Demonrats who support Sharia and the Bitches of Islam. You want to be proud in your gayness, go for it, when some Radical decides to attack a bar in Orlando, because you flamers show that this is where you can get bunches of queers together, then suffer the consequences. If you morons would keep quite about what you do, then no one would know. But alas liberals love to flaunt their immorality and shove in the face of everyone, even if it kills them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Nor is there anything in the Constitution that mandates obeying the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. Strong executives make their own decisions.



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

So you do sdupport sharia law!

Who are you addressing?

 

[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.

Nor is there anything in the Constitution that mandates obeying the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. Strong executives make their own decisions.



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

Lino Graglia. Graglia is "one of the most conservative legal academics in the United States.". He is a well known critic of affirmative action and racial quotas, and a critic of some aspects of judicial review, believing that the courts are an illegitimate avenue for securing social change.
Lino Graglia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino_Graglia

 

[evenflow1969]

You lie so bad. You use islamic propoganda and hope alah throws them off a building. Your own words. Also not gay.. You claim to be christian yet ignore the bible passages I gave to you.. You spout lie after lie but you are bad at it. I would be interested in your your meeting with Saint Pete when the day comes. Your contradictions will tough to explain. Have courage and state the truth. You are no christian. You are no genius either you do not even pay attention what is coming out your own mouth. How high up were you when your momma dropped you on your head. Lying coward and a laugh to boot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Nor is there anything in the Constitution that mandates obeying the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

1.The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



2. Strong executives make their own decisions.



3. Every American with a facility in the English language has the same ability to judge the rectitude of Supreme Court pronouncements as any Justice does.

So....what right has the court to tell the President not to ask the citizenship question????
None.



4.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


5.“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




6. A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

Lino Graglia. Graglia is "one of the most conservative legal academics in the United States.". He is a well known critic of affirmative action and racial quotas, and a critic of some aspects of judicial review, believing that the courts are an illegitimate avenue for securing social change.
Lino Graglia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino_Graglia

"Lino Graglia. Graglia is "one of the most conservative legal academics in the United States.".

Only a moron would imagine that a pejorative.
Raise your paw.




"He is a well known critic of affirmative action and racial quotas, and a critic of some aspects of judicial review, believing that the courts are an illegitimate avenue for securing social change."

And now that we have noted that he is correct, accurate, and astute......what's your point?

 

[Correll]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You've admitted that there was a reason for the different treatment.

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

 

[evenflow1969]

No I did not! I agreed that gender roles made a certain amount of sense in the context of a different culture and time. Gender roles are not a factor in determining who can marry who legally or socially. Gender roles were never a question before the court . You just made that shit up. Bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary, and discriminatory. I'm not dealing with this stupid shit anymore.
....

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Here we go again, with a mentally ill person trying to tell us to shove it up our ass, which he would lovingly try.
1. When Hollyweird wanted to come out of the closet, they paid millions of dollars to politicians who pressured the doctors to take it off the insanity roles.
2. After a few years of mild indoctrination through media, many of the queers of hollyweird come out as gay, and no big deal.
3. In the later part of the 1980s tv shows popped up with how being a faggot was okay and not to judge them for their immorality.
4. At the end of 1990's all the insane people just wanted to be treated the same as "normal" people just so when their partners were sick they too could visit them in the hospital.
5. In the 2000s, Mothers day and Fathers day were banned from public school, because some kid who had 2 mommies or 2 daddies couldn't participate, so banned everyone.
6. In 2010 Barry Sorento comes out against homosexual marriage. But after 2012s election he was then for it, like the queer that he is.
7. We had a fag go into a bakery, that he could of gone to any other bakery, but targeted this one to shut it down, because they wouldn't make a cake look like a dick.
8. Just yesterday a woman(you know a real person with XX chromosomes) had her business shut down because again a mentally ill guy with boobs wanted a vagina waxing, but couldn't because his dick and balls got in the way.

Fuck you all, you crazy fucks, at one time people thought it was funny how you would go prancing around like girly men, today we are just fucking tired of you. May Allah cross your path and have you tossed from a very tall bulding…

View attachment 270815

So you do sdupport sharia law!

Who are you addressing?

aarondumbassjim