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

[Polishprince]

And that is the Logical Fallacies of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Popularity.


Ironically, when I pointed out that you lefties failed to even try to make an argument for change,


your response was to fail to even try to make the case, that you tried to make that case.


YOur failure demonstrated the very type of failure that I attributed to you.


You just demonstrated my point.


Thank you.


I wonder if Progressive will do the same for me? Mmm,

The really funny thing, is that I've found that openly discussing the failures of liberals, do not stop them from immediately making the same failures, over and over again.


With rare exceptions.

Youre a busy body, dude...you lost and it wont be taken back. Hope the anxiety doesnt kill you

Hey, I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm just the one pointing out your complete inability to support your argument, with anything other than Logical Fallacies.

Yes, you won. But you did not win by making a strong argument for change, but by lying and bullying and abuse of power by corrupt judges.

No, the lying and bullying is using some arbitrary restriction on marriage to try and socially engineer gay as being taboo and pretending its based in logic.

It's based purely on emotional busy body bullshit from a segment of society called control freaks. The Country became better when your argument lost.

Actually there are no "arbitrary" restrictions making homosexuality taboo at all. The traditional problems are based upon evidence in theological science, and the desire of lawmakers in the current day to avoid the fate of past Gayborhoods like Sodom as well as Gomorrah.

Go derp somewhere else, nosey busy body

In actuality, the "nosey busy bodies" are the libs who insist that everyone be forced to participate in events like Gay Marriage.

That's what the Colorado Cake case is about . Whether Christians can be forced to bend over to the will of homosexuals, in spite of their religious beliefs.

 

[rightwinger]

.....

Yes, men and women are different.....

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner

Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant

What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones

 

[Correll]

Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?

It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.

Theyre abstract.

Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.

The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.

Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.


Gender roles are not arbitrary.


They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".


Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.



Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.



These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.



They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.

 

[Correll]

Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.

An odd response.

 

[G.T.]

Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?

It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.

Theyre abstract.

Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.

The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.

Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.


Gender roles are not arbitrary.


They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".


Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.



Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.



These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.



They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.

i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.

 

[Correll]

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner

Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant

What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones

Being married is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner.


MARRIAGE, is an institution, designed around traditional gender roles.


Your libertarian perspective on marriage is noted. Does not seem very relevant today.

 

[mdk]

Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.

An odd response.

Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.

 

[22lcidw]

Good. Now let Progressive answer, and I will move on to the next step in your education.

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner

Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant

What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones

The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!

 

[Correll]

Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?

It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.

Theyre abstract.

Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.

The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.

Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.


Gender roles are not arbitrary.


They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".


Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.



Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.



These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.



They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.

i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.

And I know men that cook and clean.


Does not refute the existence of gender roles.


Your post was the airball.


Try again.

 

[Correll]

Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.

An odd response.

Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.

NOthing I said, implied that in any way.

Please try again.

 

[The Purge]

 

[G.T.]

but but but but gender roles

thats a whine

but but tradition...

thats a whine


but but but call it something different...

thats a whine



When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.

Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....

but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.

Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best

 

[mdk]

I dont require an education from someone who presumes to lack clarity in their focus in asking clarifying questions. Especially not on a debate website, you lost already when you decided that clarification was a trivial thing. You lack the discipline.

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner

Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant

What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones

The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!

Now this is the real argument that should be occurring here. The goverment should not be handing out cash and prizes like a Showcase Showdown to any married couples whatsoever.

 

[mdk]

Was it difficult posting that with one hand?

 

[G.T.]

There is nothing wrong with discussing general issues, in general terms.


Try to be less of a drama queen.

Ok. In general terms. Men and women are different in some ways and alike in others. Now what the fuck are you going to do with that and how does it realter to the issue of same sex marriage as a civil right-which is where this all started. I can't wait to see what kind of bizarre and convoluted horseshit you -and the so called Polish Prince come up with on that.

So, men and women are different.


So, if an institution, such as MARRIAGE, is designed with those differences in mind, with a role for a man, and a role for a woman,


it is not "arbitrary" to restrict the man role to men, and the woman role to women.



That makes this whole debate, NOT about rights.

Marriage is a legal and emotional commitment to a partner

Each marriage is different and marital roles are different
In some marriages the male is the dominant partner, in others the female is dominant

What matters is the government does not get to decide which legal relationships it condones

The government certainly taxes us for the results of the legal relationships is does not decide. And we are taxed a lot. Now go partayyyy!

Now this is the real argument that should be occurring here. The goverment should not be handing out cash and prizes like a Showcase Showdown to any married couples whatsoever.

Thats why I only take the "govt shouldnt be involved in ANY marriages" opinion seriously...because it has some merit, albeit I dont agree with it.

This arbitrary opposite sex thing is just ignorant to how life really works. Women dont all play the role of putting pies on the window sill, cupcakes

 

[mdk]

Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?

It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.

Theyre abstract.

Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.

The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.

Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.


Gender roles are not arbitrary.


They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".


Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.



Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.



These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.



They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.

i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.

And I know men that cook and clean.


Does not refute the existence of gender roles.


Your post was the airball.


Try again.

They are breaking with traditional gender roles and therefore all their marriages should be made void. The institution is only available to those that adhere to traditional roles.

 

[Correll]

but but but but gender roles

thats a whine

but but tradition...

thats a whine


but but but call it something different...

thats a whine



When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.

Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....

but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.

Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best

The thread was started by your buddy progressive.


Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.


All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.




This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.

 

[mdk]

Only people that follow proper and traditional gender roles should be allowed to marry. If a wife wishes to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom then her marriage should be made null and void. Any deviation from traditional gender roles should result in a marriage ban.

An odd response.

Indeed. I am using the very same standard that you're setting. Anyone that doesn't conform to traditional gender roles should not be allowed access to marriage.

NOthing I said, implied that in any way.

Please try again.

Doesn't it just fucking suck having to live by the very same standards you set for others?

 

[G.T.]

but but but but gender roles

thats a whine

but but tradition...

thats a whine


but but but call it something different...

thats a whine



When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.

Marriage is whatever the fuck the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....

but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.

Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best

The thread was started by your buddy progressive.


Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.


All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.




This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.

Uh, no.

 

[Correll]

Is it anyones fault but your own that you dont understand what arbitrary means?

It was determined that basing it on "gender roles," and gender roles themselves, are arbitrary.

Theyre abstract.

Theyre not concrete things that literally exist.

The Courts determined that since its arbitrary to base something on a thing so abstract, the only other reason to deny two consenting adults from the same state institution would be bigotry, which converted it to a civil rights issue and Correll is an idiot. A bigotted one.

Yes, the court ruled that, and it is literally insane.


Gender roles are not arbitrary.


They are based on "concrete" differences between the sexes that "literally exist".


Men are bigger and stronger, and thus better suited to go out and hunt dangerous animals, or later on, to do heavy farm work.



Women couldn't be far from the babies or the babies would literally die, from lack of milk.



These roles have been literally bred into us by millions of years of evolution.



They are quite real. You are out of touch with reality.

i know women who hunt and farm. that post was an airball.

And I know men that cook and clean.


Does not refute the existence of gender roles.


Your post was the airball.


Try again.

They are breaking with traditional gender roles and therefore all their marriages should be made void. The institution is only available to those that adhere to traditional roles.

Interesting claim. Seems very harsh. And outdated. Especially considering that we live in a post industrial age.