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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

USMB Rules and Guidelines


TheProgressivePatriot

Homosexuals cannot be married, no matter what the Supreme Court says. That is an abomination. Just call it a civil contract, keep your filthy perverted asses away from the churches, and stop attacking Christianity.

Gays were getting married in the Church before we could marry civily....it was the hypocritical CRCs that were trying to enforce their bigoted version of christian sharia in government until the Supreme Court struck them down....finally.

 

[bodecea]

Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

And CRCs attack those Christians who have been supporting gays and gay marriage even before it was legal. And you are a very funny person if you believe donnie is acting as any kind of "true christian".......He'd fit right in in the Sodom Ezekiel talked about in your bible.

 

[bodecea]

Why is the government even involved in marriage?

I mean, why give people state perks based upon who you decide to have sex with?

Makes no sense.

The answer is that the People thought the country and culture has an interest in the success of the family.

The result of losing that understanding should be self-evident

Same sex couples have children and are families

They do not "have children"

Sure we do.

Is your wife the biological father of your child? If not, you don't have children. YOU have a child with an father of unknown origin perhaps?

Interesting. How many straight couples would you be so.....er.....discerning about where the kids came from? Or do you "think" that families only "count" if it's made up of the bio father and the bio mother? So much for adoption. So much for artificial means of procreation, eh?

 

[bodecea]

Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

So what? This is a secular country. We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs. We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.

 

[bodecea]

The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
If you are against same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.

The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic. You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!

It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent. Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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 .

Complete horseshit! Procreation as a condition of marriage was thrown out of court numerous times

 

[Polishprince]

Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

So what? This is a secular country. We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs. We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.

If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose. Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The same gender marriage issue has always been about the amoral left wingers attempting to force mainstream society to lower their moral standards.
If you are against under aged marriage you aren't a bigot.
If you are against polygamy marriage you aren't a bigot
If you are against incest marriage you are not a bigot.
If you are against same gender marriage you are also not a bigot, you are just wise.

The others are being worked on as we discuss this topic. You will be a bigot if you do not support polygamy, incest,and pedophilia very soon!

It's a very concerning thing when we hear about people who cannot distinguish between what is legal and goes on between consenting law-abiding, tax-paying adults...............................and illegal acts of assault and abuse against those who cannot consent. Those who cannot tell the difference should not be allowed near children, or animals, or other helpless people.

Incest marriage and polygamy marriage are voluntary.
Homosexual and heterosexual pedophilia are both big problems.
The point is that everyone has a moral standard and calling people bigots for holding a higher moral standard than you is hateful.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Courts Have Not Ever Considered Different Title Designations "

* Classification Titles For Civil Union Registration *

Complete horseshit! Procreation as a condition of marriage was thrown out of court numerous times

A presumption for a capacity to procreate is termed marriage .

A presumption for an incapacity to procreate is termed a mirriage .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" State Moral Sanction Is A Fabrication "

* Compensating For Acts Of Omission *

Gays were getting married in the Church before we could marry civily....it was the hypocritical CRCs that were trying to enforce their bigoted version of christian sharia in government until the Supreme Court struck them down....finally.

A state need not concern itself with agreements established by any social civil contract , except that the terms of agreement are valid , and do not conflict with civil liberties of other citizens .

It is for tax purposes that social civil contracts are registered with a state that may include distinct titles according to the style of agreement ( eg . LLC , SDB , incorporated , marriage , mirriage , etc . ) ; and , there is a difference between equal protection and equal endowment .

A state has implemented inheritance policies for when adequate records of willful intent are absent and to represent the civil liberty interests of its citizens for such things as custody .

 

[bodecea]

Not for you to say. Not for this Brown to say. There is too wide a variety of people in the world who are Christians. You have to be much more specific than just referring to some sort of "attack on Christianity." Shoot. I used to work with a gay guy who is Christian and has taught Sunday school. Buttigieg was married in church. You are free to practice your own form of Christianity as long as you don't interfere with others.

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

So what? This is a secular country. We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs. We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.

If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose. Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?

 

[bodecea]

" State Moral Sanction Is A Fabrication "

* Compensating For Acts Of Omission *

Gays were getting married in the Church before we could marry civily....it was the hypocritical CRCs that were trying to enforce their bigoted version of christian sharia in government until the Supreme Court struck them down....finally.

A state need not concern itself with agreements established by any social civil contract , except that the terms of agreement are valid , and do not conflict with civil liberties of other citizens .

It is for tax purposes that social civil contracts are registered with a state that may include distinct titles according to the style of agreement ( eg . LLC , SDB , incorporated , marriage , mirriage , etc . ) ; and , there is a difference between equal protection and equal endowment .

A state has implemented inheritance policies for when adequate records of willful intent are absent and to represent the civil liberty interests of its citizens for such things as custody .

I'll just plop this right here: Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Those Not Against Us Are For Us "

* Those Not For Us Are Against Us *

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?

Tell them to get off their assess and carry themselves on a mission to their illegal migrant countries and give them charity there , and stop pandering to egregious , illegitimate , political policies that violate the civil liberties of other citizens by way of underming the autonomy and integrity of the state .

 

[bodecea]

" Those Not Against Us Are For Us "

* Those Not For Us Are Against Us *

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?

Tell them to get off their assess and carry themselves on a mission to their illegal migrant countries and give them charity there , and stop pandering to egregious , illegitimate , political policies that violate the civil liberties of other citizens by way of underming the autonomy and integrity of the state .

Sounds like you are persecuting your fellow christians there, bub.

 

[Polishprince]

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

So what? This is a secular country. We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs. We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.

If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose. Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?

You can do whatever the hell you want to argue the fine points of theology in the media, in the pulpit, or on the Street corner.

You are certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs just as Normative Americans are.

But I'd say its out of place for a gentleman like Mr. Buttigieg, who wants to rule over all of us in a non-sectarian state, to use a political event to attack the religious beliefs of others.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Realism Versus Substitution "

* Mixed Words *

I'll just plop this right here: Unearned Privilege: 1,000+ Laws Benefit Only Married People

All of those entitlement can be and literally were available in same sex civil unions .

However , the establishment of those entitlements was not sufficient for homosexual political advocates who wanted to demand that others legitimize their creed , such that possession for the title of " marriage " was sought , while a unique title of " mirriage " is more fitting .

 

[Polishprince]

This is a laugh, as libs attack leading ministers who oppose abominations like Homosexual Marriage or Cutting and Running, as "unchristian". President Trump has been attacked by libs as not a True Christian as well.

What's good for the good is good for the gander

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

So what? This is a secular country. We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs. We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.

If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose. Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?

If the Ayatollah Jim Wallis, or one of the other Mullahs on the Religious Left want to condemn me because I disagree with Abortion or Gay Marriage, I am really fine with that.

Wallis is religious leader, its certainly within his rites to anathematize anyone who offends his religious sensibilities. And its certainly fine for a political candidate to go to Wallis' mansion in Washington DC to kiss his ring. But when you have rulers like Mr. Buttigieg actually condemning their fellow citizens for their contrary religious beliefs, there is where we part company.

 

[bodecea]

I don't know who a "lib" actually is. These "ministers" chose to enter the political arena in an aggressive and highly insulting attempt to interfere with the public/civil rights of a whole group of people, of all faiths and none; a group of people defined by their sexual orientation rather than their religious views. Are you saying that people should not oppose them when these ministers seek to justify themselves by reference to their particular faith? How would you handle this sort of "asymmetrical" situation?

We are not all members of the same faith. And these people do not understand that religion is not a competitive sport.

That's one way to spin it.

But ministers would point out that it is a theological fact that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the garden , not Adam and Steve, and He just doesn't approve of homosexuality. I guess you can spin taking it in the ass as a "civil right", but that has not been the position of Christian theologians since antiquity

So what? This is a secular country. We are not (thank goodness) controlled by your religious beliefs. We do not, yet, have christian sharia law here.

If we all do have Freedom of Religion, Mayor Petey needs to respect that as well, and be understanding to his fellow Americans who don't believe it is particularly holy to abort babies or to take it in the caboose. Calling people "hypocrites" because they don't hold to his sectarian views isn't very diverse and doesn't show any inclusivity.

What do we do about all the CRCs who accuse their fellow christians of not be really christian when they support gay marriage and try to help those poor and needy on our borders?

You can do whatever the hell you want to argue the fine points of theology in the media, in the pulpit, or on the Street corner.

You are certainly entitled to your own religious beliefs just as Normative Americans are.

But I'd say its out of place for a gentleman like Mr. Buttigieg, who wants to rule over all of us in a non-sectarian state, to use a political event to attack the religious beliefs of others.

He didn't.....any more or less than anyone else would.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" To Thine Own Self Be True "

* Bifurcated Mind Compelling Dissonance *

Sounds like you are persecuting your fellow christians there, bub.

The disingenuous left who pretend to dawn a cloak of puritanism can take the same advice regarding illegal immigrants .

* Sack Evil Whitey Pogrom *

A similar guise of fabricated truth perpetrated by the left is its reverse racist racism that is continually banters to implement its economic and political delusions as it imports more and more individuals first come , first served , low skilled , from ethnic groups that are numerically over represented among the global demographic , even as the left blind in self reflection voices that over competition for low skill employment is growing as it further derides the consequent standard of living as insufficient .

* Research Ineptitude *

A similar pet peeve is rendered against disingenuous illusions of the left for its holier than thou persona asserting that it does not believe in the establishment of religion and accepts all religions , while it ignores that there is not a difference between religion and creed , and that there is not an exception for a religion that maintains tenets of creed to violate non violence principles against other citizens .

The left promotes objectivity as a justification to remain ignorant regarding the history and doctrine of adherents for the supremacist , sectarian , bigoted , institution of fictional ishmaelism that includes tenets of creed to violate non violence principles and individual liberty of other citizens , which the left shields , obfuscates and defends from public scrutiny and castigation .

Cultural exchange is one thing , but numbers translate into votes and into political policy and against those who laud democracy for its tyranny by majority , while harboring aggression against individual liberty of citizens , political policy to extend citizenship should be more pragmatic when granting access to polling booths - see Hisbah - Wikipedia .

Thus , see Martin Luther - Wikipedia :
He consistently rejected the idea of a Holy War, "as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ's doctrine and name".[184] On the other hand, in keeping with his doctrine of the two kingdoms, Luther did support non-religious war against the Turks.[185] In 1526, he argued in Whether Soldiers can be in a State of Grace that national defence is reason for a just war.[186] By 1529, in On War against the Turk, he was actively urging Emperor Charles V and the German people to fight a secular war against the Turks.[187] He made clear, however, that the spiritual war against an alien faith was separate, to be waged through prayer and repentance.[188]