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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined, have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away. Check mate!

Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

 

[Correll]

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined, have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away. Check mate!

Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined, have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away. Check mate!

Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory

All that you have come up with is a bizarre specter of starving Lesbians and emaciated children because they do not have a man to protect and provide for them. I do not have to prove that gender roles have no relevance. You are making the claim that they are relevant with respect to marriage and you have to show that it matters, which you have failed miserably to do.

I stand by my assertion that you are pushing the legislation angle knowing that without court action, we may never have had marriage equality nationwide. There is a lot more to the country than California and New England. You know full well that there is no justification for bans on marriage given the current realities which is the only reason that you are pushing this ridiculous "when marriage was developed" crap.

Again, you have completely failed to demonstrate that there is any compelling government or societal reason, or even a rational basis, stemming from gender roles or anything else to justify restrictions on marriage. Do not bother me again until you have something that resembles an argument. It’s pretty laughable that after accusing me of avoiding serious debate, that you can't do better than this.

Grade: Fail

 

[Correll]

Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.


The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children


The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

 

[Cosmos]

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

No stupid. Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman. We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy. You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach. Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted. To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

No stupid. Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman. We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy. You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach. Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted. To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.

Thank you for that brilliant, articulate and scholarly essay on the history of marriage. As always you have raised the bar on the level of intellectual and civil discourse on the USMB. God bless

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

No stupid. Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman. We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy. You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach. Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted. To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.

124 Words From Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.

Today’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.




But it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

 

[Cosmos]

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

No stupid. Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman. We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy. You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach. Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted. To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.

124 Words From Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.

Today’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.




But it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

What horseshit. The Constitution does not "grant" rights to individuals. It grants limited rights to the government. The right to marry is granted by God. And he said you can't marry another man. But being a mindless heathen animal, of course you have no idea about this. That's why you come on here and attack religious people and call anyone who doesn't agree with your idiotic claptrap a bigot. Don't insult us by saying homosexuals can get married. They simply cannot. Whatever arrangements they're in may amount to a domestic contract, but it is certainly not a marriage. Like I said before. Just go back in your little faggot hate-closet and please leave the Christians alone. You will never be accepted as "normal", no matter what that fool Kennedy says.

 

[Correll]

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

 

[Correll]

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie

So much of a lie that 100 pages in, and you have not even tried to back up your claim.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve. I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution. The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

No stupid. Marriage has evolved to an ideal state of one man and one woman. We have known for thousands of years that anything else is harmful and unhealthy. You filthy perverts want to take marriage back to prehistoric times when it amounted to little more than two animals humping whatever happened to be within reach. Or, more likely, a man beating the shit out of and humping whatever woman he wanted. To refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage as somehow "evolved" is pure arrogance and stupidity.

124 Words From Justice Kennedy’s Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.

Today’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will likely be studies by legal scholars for centuries. The crazed rantings of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia notwithstanding, the decision is a fascinating read.




But it’s Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority, and the last paragraph, all 124 words, that is exquisite.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

What horseshit. The Constitution does not "grant" rights to individuals. It grants limited rights to the government. The right to marry is granted by God. And he said you can't marry another man. But being a mindless heathen animal, of course you have no idea about this. That's why you come on here and attack religious people and call anyone who doesn't agree with your idiotic claptrap a bigot. Don't insult us by saying homosexuals can get married. They simply cannot. Whatever arrangements they're in may amount to a domestic contract, but it is certainly not a marriage. Like I said before. Just go back in your little faggot hate-closet and please leave the Christians alone. You will never be accepted as "normal", no matter what that fool Kennedy says.

Wow, yet another brilliant and well informed essay....this time on the Constitution, God and marriage. You must have attended the finest universities and pursued multiple majors in areas such as theology, Constitutional law, and human sexuality. I'm so impressed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie

So much of a lie that 100 pages in, and you have not even tried to back up your claim.

Dude, you made the claim that they did not make a case for marriage. All of the court proceedings and briefs outlining the cases are of public record. But apparently you are too lazy and incurious and invested in relying on dogma to have researched it. The burden of proof that they did not make a case. It is extraordinarily stupid to even think that a case was not made since multiple courts struck down bans on same sex marriage.

 

[Correll]

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Here is another lie that you have been telling.....that the gay folks did not make their case' on same sex marriage- but that may have been a lie born more of ignorance than malice - but still a lie

So much of a lie that 100 pages in, and you have not even tried to back up your claim.

Dude, you made the claim that they did not make a case for marriage. All of the court proceedings and briefs outlining the cases are of public record. But apparently you are too lazy and incurious and invested in relying on dogma to have researched it. The burden of proof that they did not make a case. It is extraordinarily stupid to even think that a case was not made since multiple courts struck down bans on same sex marriage.

All I heard from them and from you, for that matter, is the assumption that Marriage to whom you want, is a right, loudly reasserted again and again and again, with no effort to actually make the case, seriously or honestly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I challenged you to back up your position that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary and served some rational purpose in the here and now and you responded with pure bizarre bullshit. But I anticipated this sort of crap about tradition and the history and structure of marriage . It is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the current state of society

You are saying that laws against same sex marriage were not arbitrary because they were based on how marriage was intended to be and traditional gender roles. But that does not change the fact that -that has no relevance to how things actually are now. I would have like to hear someone make that insane argument in one of the cases leading up to and including Obergefell. They would have been laughed out of court!

I know what will come next. You will say that changes should have been legislated rather than litigated. Your motive is clear. You know that litigating on the past nature of gender roles will fail so you want to avoid that and bog it down in legislation. You ignore the fact that states failed to act and were in fact going in the other direction by passing restrictions on marriage. You will come up with any horseshit that you can come up with to ensure that marriage equality is never a reality.

It ignores the well-established principal of judicial review and the fact that same sex marriage would not have been the law of the land for another 50 years or more.

And what 'references to more recent periods' are you talking about. ? You are stuck in the past. You can't show that there is a rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples based on how things were with references to women not being able to fend for themselves and starving babies . Completely insane! Another major FAIL!

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. That is the real reason why you wanted the matter to be legislated and not litigated. That and the fact that legislation would fail in many states- not because it did not have merit-but because of bigoted law makers in the south and mid west.

Farming and other physical jobs has nothing to do with two women who are married to each other who work in the medical or aerospace industry.

You claim that you never said that marriage does not evolve but you continually blather about how it has always been based on traditional gender roles and that those differences between men and women are still relevant

Same sex couples get married , have families and do all of the same things in life as others. They are parents, and their kids are just fine, despite your "doubts " about that. I presented extensive evidence to support my position and you ran like hell from it. I don't care if what you said was "just an opinion" When an opinion disparages others it needs to be backed up with facts. If not an outright lie, it's just as egregious .

The reality of marriage equality has not had any negative or unintended consequences for society . They have gained the ability to marry and no one else has lost anything.

Most people have moved on from the issue but here you are being an hysterical fool, and making up shit, to fabricate a case against marriage equality.

For the record- and this is a good example of how you twist things- I never said that marriage was, in and of itself a right. I sid that it has been treated as a right for heterosexuals who could take it for granted-while being denied to gays who, in the language of the court, are "similarly situated" which amounted to discrimination. So there is another one of your lies debunked.

True, you never said that gay people were not real. The fact is that you never said anything about them that indicates they you have any appreciation for their humanity and give every indication that you are willing to deprive them of full participation in society, makes their lives harder than need be, and punish their children, all in the name of tradition and your bigoted ideology.

Same sex marriage is now part of the fabric of society. It's no longer "gay marriage" it is just marriage. Get used to it and get over it

Game over

 

[Correll]

1. Well, thank you for not pretending to not know what I have told you dozens of times before.

2. If you argue that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory, you are making an argument about the period of time when the institution was developed.

3. Your claim that gender roles have no relevance today. What do you base that on?

4. YOur assumptions about legislation seem unlikely to me. Especially in the very lefty states such as California and New England.

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dude! WTF!! Once again, you have failed to make the case that there is any justification for bans on same sex marriage now. No one is dealing with or concerned about the “period of time when the institution was developed”. And I am not “arguing that the institution of marriage is arbitrarily discriminatory - I am, as I have been all along-arguing that the laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman were discriminatory
....il

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

 

[G.T.]

Those laws were in response to attempts by people like you to change the structure of marriage, from what it had been for thousands of years.

If you are making a claim about the structure of marriage being "arbitrary", then you are making the development of marriage the issue.


Your refusal to admit to this obvious fact, is insanely dishonest.



BUT IT IS OBVIOUS WHY YOU DO IT.


Because if you admit the truth, your whole world view falls apart.




Your entire world view is based on lies. And this is fine example of it.



YOu would rather lie and smear your fellow man, than face the Truth, and risk having to grow.

Wow Boss, sounds like you’re really losing your shit now.

No, it does not. That is just spin you feel the need to pepper all your posts with, to try to distract from your stonewalling and your utter failure to support your arguments with anything real.

The dishonesty stems from your continuous bleating about how marriage has been the same for thousands of years -the fact is -as I have documented on this thread- that marriage has been changing and evolving both in purpose and structure as the social and economic aspects of society evolve.

I have no claimed that marriage has not evolved. You are either delusional or lying. None of my argument, btw, rests on marriage being static.

I showed that same sex marriage was the next logical step in that evolution.

You've done no such thing. You made a lot of assertions, and that's pretty much it.

The fact is that the structure of marriage has not really changed with same sex marriage. It is still about two people joining together to form a family for romantic, social, and economic reasons, and to possibly have and raise children

View attachment 271234

The dishonesty is you claim that there is a reasons for restrictions on marriage and based on what once was- and for that reason, you claim that it was an abuse of the courts. The truth is that you know damned well that the restrictions were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory and THAT is why you wanted it kept out of court.

It is absurd for you to claim that the gender role based structure of marriage was arbitrary, especially when you admit that we are talking about "what once was".


Are you unaware of how hard farming is, and how much stronger men are then women?

The dishonesty -indeed a lie- is your doubt that children do as well with same sex parents-but still cannot back that up- as you failed to back up your claim tat society will be saddled with dire consequences.

YOu repeat that it was my opinion, or "doubt", yet claim it was a "lie"?


How crazy are you, that you call me a liar, for telling you what my opinion is?


THis is a fine example of how you personally play games with words and just make up shit. This undermines your credibility and supports my accusations of stonewalling from you.

The dishonesty is your failure to acknowledge that these are real people with real lives that we are talking about-people who just want the same rights and freedoms that YOU enjoy and that by granting them that YOU give up NOTHING


We are so fucking done here!

I never claimed that gay people are not real.


Your claim that what they want, is a "right" is just circular reasoning on your part.


That is the matter of debate here, whether or not "Gay Marriage" is a right.


You don't get to assume that your view is a fact, and then attack me for not agreeing.



Though that is a fine example of why you are a liberal. If anyone was confused about that.

We are truly fucking done here. It comes down to this:

Your theory that traditional gender roles provide a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is ridiculous on its face and we both know that
it would never have withstood a legal challenge if anyone were stupid enough to have invoked it. ....

My position is so weak, that you have to attack me, the messenger instead of addressing it.

LOL!!!


Are you fooling yourself with this drivel? Cause you arent' fooling anyone else.



EVERY TIME YOU STATE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MARRIAGE IS ARBITRARY, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARRIAGE.


You dont' get to ignore the existence of linear time.

I get to ignore you though. But in parting, for the record , saying that you theory is bullshit is not an attack on you, it is, well, saying that you theory is bullshit.

Bigots aint worth anyone's time, bro. Imagine how nosey a fuck like that is...in just day to day trying to enjoy your life. No thanks...I like getting along with people and not feigning fake as fuck outrage if the spooky gays can marry.