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

NewsVine_Mariyam

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
3,473
Reaction score
1,037
Points
255
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
by RECOGNIZING LGBT beliefs as FAITH BASED
then BOTH SIDES are protected from establishment by Govt
But LGBT beliefs are NOT faith-based and simply declaring them to be so doesn't make them so.

This isn't much different than those individuals who want our government/Trump to "declare" Islam is not a religion, although it predates both the United States and our Constitution, simply in order to then be able to strip Muslims of their religious protections afforded under the U.S. Contitution for the sole purpose of inflicting harm - deportation, no government jobs, blacklisting, etc.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
68,523
Reaction score
5,314
Points
1,815
by RECOGNIZING LGBT beliefs as FAITH BASED
then BOTH SIDES are protected from establishment by Govt
But LGBT beliefs are NOT faith-based and simply declaring them to be so doesn't make them so.

This isn't much different than those individuals who want our government/Trump to "declare" Islam is not a religion, although it predates both the United States and our Constitution, simply in order to then be able to strip Muslims of their religious protections afforded under the U.S. Contitution for the sole purpose of inflicting harm - deportation, no government jobs, blacklisting, etc.
I don't see the connection. There is just as much rationale in declaring Nazism, communism, "the greek lifestyle" aka LGBT,
as there is in declaring islam a "religion".
also "gluten free"
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
3,473
Reaction score
1,037
Points
255
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
If you want to interject YOUR LGBT beliefs into govt,
then be prepared for others interjecting their beliefs equally.

You get what you give.

I'm not making this up, that's just the laws of human nature,
karma, cause and effect.

Whatever beliefs you project and impose on others,
they will defend their beliefs to the same degree.

If you don't like them doing that to you,
don't do it to them. That's how justice works.
All of what you wrote above is highly inaccurate especially in light of the fact that it doesn't lead to or support your erroneous conclusion of "that's how justice works".
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
204,408
Reaction score
32,104
Points
2,190
Christians lost the Same Sex Marriage debate

To get even, they are playing the....I won’t bake a cake routine
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
63,663
Reaction score
8,312
Points
2,070
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.

No, what?

Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary?

Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?


Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?


or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?
No, you provided 2 gender roles as your examples that are proven arbitrary by the fact that women do them...both. They hunt. They farm. Theres nothing inherent in a vagina that prevents them from doing so, this isnt the 1300's.

And not only is deciding which "roles" are gender based arbitrary, but deciding that the institution should be based on gender roles, in the first place, is arbitrary.

You are surely not the best debater that USMB has to offer...when you dont even understand the Court's decision to make it a Civil Rights issue.

Its weak, its pathetic and its lame to scream "gender roles" and then proceed by naming two roles that are done by both men AND women...rendering YOUR provided roles ARBITRARY, thus NOT a good reason for the State to keep consenting adults from a State recognized institution.

You literally cut off your own failed argument's foot right there...by naming "gender roles" that are no longer "gender based" and so using them to deny someone a right is both arbitrary and bigotted. Its a failure, and why your "side" didnt stand up in Court.

Your bigotry guides your logic as opposed to the other way around. You're not supposed to seek to invent reasons to deny free adults of something, that's a personal flaw HENCE the commenary on you being a bigot. You clearly are, and you lost and wont get it back. This is you crying a river of blood. Good, its deserved.



1. I provided two minor example of gender roles. Obviously, that was not intended to be considered the full extent of gender roles, but simply to show that they exist. That exceptions and variations exist, does not disprove the general rules.


2. Yes, this is not the 1300s. Is there a point you want to make about that? (liberals, you have to help them make their own arguments, they are so bad at it)


3. Gender roles are not arbitrary. They are based on real biological differences.

4. I thought we were all in agreement. The court made ts a civil rights issues, because of the belief that the exclusion of same sex partners was arbitrary. I've pointed out why that was not so, and your challenge against that, is not doing well.


5. Yes many personal attacks. This demonstrates the behavior I accused you lefties of, as a major factor in your ability to win this fight. Thanks for proving my point on that. That is a win for me. ALso, you are a poopy head.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
63,663
Reaction score
8,312
Points
2,070
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?

I set no such standards.
Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?

I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
63,663
Reaction score
8,312
Points
2,070
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.
If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.

If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.


Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him. (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)


You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
73,784
Reaction score
10,104
Points
2,030
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.

No, what?

Are you not dropping your claim that gender roles are arbitrary?

Are you claiming that was not the sole defense you managed to make so far?


Are you denying that all you have now, is unsupported assertions and personal attacks?


or are you admitting that you are not an honest person, and won't admit any of the above, and will hold to a position that you cannot defend at all?
No, you provided 2 gender roles as your examples that are proven arbitrary by the fact that women do them...both. They hunt. They farm. Theres nothing inherent in a vagina that prevents them from doing so, this isnt the 1300's.

And not only is deciding which "roles" are gender based arbitrary, but deciding that the institution should be based on gender roles, in the first place, is arbitrary.

You are surely not the best debater that USMB has to offer...when you dont even understand the Court's decision to make it a Civil Rights issue.

Its weak, its pathetic and its lame to scream "gender roles" and then proceed by naming two roles that are done by both men AND women...rendering YOUR provided roles ARBITRARY, thus NOT a good reason for the State to keep consenting adults from a State recognized institution.

You literally cut off your own failed argument's foot right there...by naming "gender roles" that are no longer "gender based" and so using them to deny someone a right is both arbitrary and bigotted. Its a failure, and why your "side" didnt stand up in Court.

Your bigotry guides your logic as opposed to the other way around. You're not supposed to seek to invent reasons to deny free adults of something, that's a personal flaw HENCE the commenary on you being a bigot. You clearly are, and you lost and wont get it back. This is you crying a river of blood. Good, its deserved.



1. I provided two minor example of gender roles. Obviously, that was not intended to be considered the full extent of gender roles, but simply to show that they exist. That exceptions and variations exist, does not disprove the general rules.


2. Yes, this is not the 1300s. Is there a point you want to make about that? (liberals, you have to help them make their own arguments, they are so bad at it)


3. Gender roles are not arbitrary. They are based on real biological differences.

4. I thought we were all in agreement. The court made ts a civil rights issues, because of the belief that the exclusion of same sex partners was arbitrary. I've pointed out why that was not so, and your challenge against that, is not doing well.


5. Yes many personal attacks. This demonstrates the behavior I accused you lefties of, as a major factor in your ability to win this fight. Thanks for proving my point on that. That is a win for me. ALso, you are a poopy head.
Saying its not going so well is not an argument, Chester. I pointed out 2 roles that were arbitrary. The only 2 you've provided. Scoreboard is G.T. infinity, Correll bigotry. Take a seat.

B. I'm not a liberal, but dont let that stop you from being a cuck. Your busy bodying control freakness at work labeling folks, yet again.
 

Valerie

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
31,497
Reaction score
7,368
Points
1,170
i have no idea what just happened, but G wins hands down cuz correll never stops sucking ever
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
73,784
Reaction score
10,104
Points
2,030
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?

I set no such standards.
Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?

I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
"based on gender roles" is a standard, dunce - and MDK was employing the art of sarcasm to point out that its an arbitrary standard since its undefined, abstract, many dont follow it and its not even possible to Govern.

You missed his very simple demonstration by putting your fingers in your ears about not having set any standard.

Youre not at all good at this. Thats why you've lost to an educated Court system.
 

Valerie

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
31,497
Reaction score
7,368
Points
1,170
correll is never right about anything
 

andaronjim

Gold Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
19,933
Reaction score
4,124
Points
290
Location
Floor E Da
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.
Dear G.T. and Correll

1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.

But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.

2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.

G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.

If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment

G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
this is NOT what we want.

So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.

However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.

Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry too.
Gay marriage is equal access, yet a concealed carry permit of a state isnt considered equal access. Both are state government issued, why isnt the equal protection clause good for both? Because some pigs are more equal than other animals.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
73,784
Reaction score
10,104
Points
2,030
Is this idiot going to come back to MDK and say something like it wasnt him 'personally' that set the standard...as though that was somehow something that had to be said...

It demonstrates the intellect this derp is working with.

Correll, until further notice I'm placing you in the bottom tier of debaters. Youre stuck on not even figuring the basics. Go and practice on folks like the cat lady or willowtree and rdean.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
73,784
Reaction score
10,104
Points
2,030
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.
Dear G.T. and Correll

1. Clearly GENETIC gender is DIFFERENT from INTERNAL identity which is the faith based arbitrary part.
You can't PROVE someone's faith based INTERNAL choice which is part of their personal space, not for Govt to regulate.

But for SECULAR laws, just like laws determining if legal identity starts at BIRTH,
we have to AGREE on a LEGAL DEFINITION.

2. Up to this point, we based BOTH the "gender" and "human life"
AT BIRTH, to have an agreed scientific definition to use for LEGAL purposes and PUBLIC standards.

G.T. I love you, man, but the more you push for
ARBITRARY FAITH BASED internal identity (which are NOT GOVERNMENT's BLOODY BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH)
you and other liberals OPEN THE DOOR for all the
Christian beliefs about determining life on FAITH BASED CRITERIA
to be made into laws, if YOU are going to push for that, too.

If we open the door for ONE CREED to start pushing BELIEFS through GOVT
then ALL CREEDS need to have equal access and treatment

G.T. you and I both agree and make it clear
this is NOT what we want.

So if we don't want Christians pushing faith based beliefs through Govt at our expense,
nor can we justify pushing LGBT faith based beliefs into public policy either.

However, G.T. if you insist on including LGBT beliefs in public schools and policies,
then be prepared for Christian beliefs to demand equal inclusion for their creeds as well.
It's only lawful to treat people equally, instead of discriminating on the basis of creed.
You dont get to call me liberal without having a conversation about my politics. Youve overstepped your bounds there.

Gay marriage IS equal access. Get over it. Newsflash..christians can marry too.
Gay marriage is equal access, yet a concealed carry permit of a state isnt considered equal access. Both are state government issued, why isnt the equal protection clause good for both? Because some pigs are more equal than other animals.
If I explained the nuance there, to you, your head would explode.

Equal access is a concept that is applied across the board WHEN NO HARM CAN BE SHOWN TO SOCIETY...derplppaleeerp


give an 8yr old concealed carry and then wonder whether or not your point was retarded
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
68,523
Reaction score
5,314
Points
1,815
If you want to interject YOUR LGBT beliefs into govt,
then be prepared for others interjecting their beliefs equally.

You get what you give.

I'm not making this up, that's just the laws of human nature,
karma, cause and effect.

Whatever beliefs you project and impose on others,
they will defend their beliefs to the same degree.

If you don't like them doing that to you,
don't do it to them. That's how justice works.
All of what you wrote above is highly inaccurate especially in light of the fact that it doesn't lead to or support your erroneous conclusion of "that's how justice works".
I don't see a single statement in Emily's post which is "highly inaccurate" She presents a POV. As to her conclusion about JUSTICE-----her conclusion was SIMPLY----the golden rule which she and countless others THRUOUT HISTORY have seen as JUSTICE
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
68,523
Reaction score
5,314
Points
1,815
In my (not so humble) OPINION-----the issue of LGBT marriage is actually an
ECONOMIC one------marriage confers both
economic advantages and liabilities which are LEGAL. It Is a LEGAL status and SO----mediated by laws
 

andaronjim

Gold Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
19,933
Reaction score
4,124
Points
290
Location
Floor E Da
In my (not so humble) OPINION-----the issue of LGBT marriage is actually an
ECONOMIC one------marriage confers both
economic advantages and liabilities which are LEGAL. It Is a LEGAL status and SO----mediated by laws
What is really despicable about the LBGTQWXZY1234 is that it is all about the queers feelings and dont give a damn about anyone else. Instead of doing the right thing, they go against nature, and then what is worse, in today's society they adopt children thus forcing their immoral lifestyle on the kids. Then the liberal argument is "there are bad parents in straight marriages too", yet statistically more children grow up normal and successful in a straight family than any other. Liberals love to use statistics, until they go against their immoral arguments, then names start to come out, like "homophobic", or bigoted. Only Bigots are liberals, who hate anyone who loves civilization and normalcy
 
OP
TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
2,177
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Here is another far right wing nut who is apparently suffering from a religious psychosis who can't get past the same sex marriage issue and just leave people the fuck alone!

Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson Insists Marriage Equality Must be Overturned | Right Wing Watch

In a commentary for The Daily Signal, the Heritage Foundation’s “news” operation, Anderson draws from his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” to argue that the law should enforce a “conjugal” view of marriage as opposed to a “consent-based” view:
And just who does that crazy ass think that he is to decide what marriage should be....for everyone!!?? Everyone has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves and only themselves. Here is some more of his crap:

Anderson, an intellectual protégé of Princeton’s anti-equality scholar and activist Robert George, portrays himself as a civility-minded promoter of a “live and let live” ethos. As such, he doesn’t generally appear alongside blatantly anti-LGBTQ folks like Peter LaBarbera, who protested against marriage equality at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Give me a fucking break!
So at what point does everyone get to decide for themselves what law is or isn't pertinate to them? In order to maintain a society, there must be laws (rules) that everyone is required to obey. Like I've said before, I'm a live and let live type but I do tire of asshooes constantly whining and pushing the envelope then acting sanctimonious about it. If you werent out there contanstanty running your mouths about it, maybe you wouldn't get so much push back.
Who ever said that people should be able to decide which laws to obey? What I am saying is that we have the right to challenge laws that we disagree with. That is also part of maintaining social order and an open society. Would you have been so quick to complain about black folks and women "pushing the envelope " and whining ? Where would they be if they had just remained quiet and obedient until society decided to bestow rights on them- it that were to ever happen.

Don't like people speaking out against what they perceive as injustice? Move to North Korea.
 

mdk

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
37,719
Reaction score
10,178
Points
1,780
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?

I set no such standards.
Sure you did, but unsurprisingly they just only apply to queers. Why should anyone take your principles seriously when you wipe your ass with them the second they become inconvenient?

I set no such standards, and the limitations on marriage do not only apply to queers.
You believe gays should not be allowed to marry b/c they don’t meet the traditional gender roles of marriage. When I discussed straight couples that do not adhere to these traditional gender roles you said to deny them marriage was harsh and outdated. Enjoy your double standards b/c it’s becoming quite apparent they are the only ones you have.
 
Last edited:

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,038
Reaction score
69
Points
95
" Schema "

* Syntax *
Oh for fucking Christ sake! What is this now? I know all about HIPPA . I gave trainings on HIPPA as an HR person for a state agency. I asked if a woman who has had a hysterectomy should be allowed to marry as a philosophical question. Let me rephrase. You contend that " reproduction" or the ability and willingness to have children should be a condition for marriage. The question then is -should anyone-any couple who is unable or unwilling to have children " in the usual way" be allowed to marry? Stop playing stupid games.
Sexual identification does not violate privacy ( hippa ) .

The contention is that a title of " marriage " be applied to civil unions with a ( prima facie ) presumptive ability for reproduction between contract holders , they being heterosexual .

The contention is that a title of " mirriage " be applied to civil unions with a ( prima facie ) presumptive inability for reproduction between contract holders , they being homosexual .

Urban Dictionary: Mirriage

* Rhetorical *

Another question that does not involve medical privacy. Should the marriage of a couple who does not produce a child in a certain amount of time for whatever reason be annulled
When or whether individuals choose to procreate is not a presumptive responsibility of a state .

* Attributes *

And yet another. Is a child produced by a same sex couple-or any couple- by surrogacy or sperm donner any less valued that a child that resulted from heterosexual one on one sex?
Where dependents become involved , whether by natural birth , or by adoption , or by surrogacy , or as caretaker , taxable assets may be affected .

* Answer Questions *

Answer the fucking questions!
Is it a contention that polygamous or polyandrous civil unions be designated for tax purposes ?

Is it a contention that " communal " civil unions be designated for tax purpose ?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top