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

[P@triot]

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

The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.

And? Every “benefit” that the homosexual community is desperate to cash in on can easily be achieved through basic legal documents (wills, power of attorney, etc.).

 

[mdk]

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.

1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.


2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.


3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.

You think you’re being mob harassed and stampeded in this thread!?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

The Federal government does not recognize civil unions.

And? Every “benefit” that the homosexual community is desperate to cash in on can easily be achieved through basic legal documents (wills, power of attorney, etc.).

Horseshit! Ans why should they have to? Because of you bigoted and irrational opposition to their marriage ? Get the fuck over it . Marriage is a reality and it's not going away.

 

[P@triot]

Ans why should they have to?

Um...because they are abnormal. Because they are an anomaly of nature. Because marriage is one man and one woman. I can go on all day.

 

[P@triot]

Because of you bigoted and irrational opposition to their marriage ?

Yep.

Get the fuck over it .

Nope.

Marriage is a reality and it's not going away.

Marriage is a reality. Gay marriage is absurd.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Respect is a two-way street. Exactly what do you think Mayor Pete ought to do or refrain from doing? Frankie graham has not been very respectful or "understanding" toward people who don't share his sectarian views. He insults people often.

The word "hypocrite" implies a contrast between taking a stance on one issue and then taking an inconsistent stance on another issue.

Rev. Franklin Graham is a theologian, Mr. Buttigieg is a politician that is expecting to rule over me.

That's a big difference. I expect someone who wants to use the force of law to run my life to have respect.

If Rev. Graham has no respect for my lifestyle, this is America I don't have to listen to any theologian.

Just what is a "theologian," anyway? It's all opinion. frankie doesn't seem to be intelligent or possess any particular wisdom. He is an aggressive asshole who earns his keep by making bigoted declarations about others. He sits at the right hand of trump, trying to identify the Christian faith with right-wing politics, when they don't go together, and orchestrated attacks on Hillary Clinton, a life-long practicing Methodist Christian.

If being president means ruling over you and me, we certainly have trash ruling over us currently. I, too, expect that someone who wants to use the force of law "to run my life" to have respect. The trash in the White House and frankie boy do not have any respect for anyone not of their own ilk.

Between frankie and Buttigieg, Buttigieg is by far more respectful than frankie, who is a blatant politician.

 

[Terri4Trump]

...... bigoted and irrational opposition to their marriage ?.......

The fact that homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to engage in sick acts of perversion has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

If I said that pedophiles engaged in acts of perversion nobody here would argue and nobody would call me a religious bigot.

Well, homosexuals AND pedophiles BOTH suffer from mental disorders that cause them to engage in sick acts of perversion, and that has nothing to do with religion, its a medical fact.

Liberals are science deniers. They prefer junk fake science, the same as they do with gender fluidity, and denying that children in the womb are human beings. You are science-deniers.

 

[Terri4Trump]

Same sex attraction is a mental disorder, according to the American Psychological Association (APA) for most of its history, until recently.

For some folks though, this disorder is now the "non-disorder formerly known as disorder." It was a disorder in the DSM I and II published by the APA. But in the DSM IV, it was removed as a disorder. Why?

Protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." To put is bluntly, the American Psychological Association buckled and caved to protesters, and therefore have no legitimacy now.

So the APA can be, and is, wrong. The current APA thinks that they were "wrong back then," and "right now." But certainly, the opposite can be true, that is was right back then and wrong now. The fact is that they were right before and wrong now because they now fear liberal retaliation and political correctness that did not exist before.

 

[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.

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.

We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction.


i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles.


GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying.


You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.


Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years,


was a "Non sequitur" is a fucking joke. Pathetic.


Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.



Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.


AND YOU CAN'T.

 

[Correll]

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.

1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.


2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.


3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.

Youre 0 for like 3 or 4 convoes in this very thread. Bottom tier.

lol! We all noticed you giving up on making your point. Even you.


I accept your concession.



Why did you not try the, "times have changed" line of reasoning?

 

[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.

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.

We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction.


i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles.


GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying.


You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.


Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years,


was a "Non sequitur" is a fucking joke. Pathetic.


Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.



Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.


AND YOU CAN'T.

You beat your chest all youd like...but so far...you named only two examples of gender roles and you failed at demonstrating theyre inarbitrary in virtue of women being perfectly capable of, and in actuality, doing them.

Second, not only are gender roles arbitrary, but the court decided that marriage being sex-based, in and of itself, was arbitrary and youve not supported why its NOT....and the fact that it is arbitrary lead them tk conclude there's no compelling reason besides bigotry to limit the state right to marriage.

Too bad.

 

[Correll]

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.

No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.


Until today, with the modern liberal.

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

 

[Correll]

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.

1 based on gender roles is not a "Standard" but a description of the foundation of the Institution of Marriage. In this case, One man, One woman, is the "Standard" for Traditional Marriage.


2. MDK primary focus was not the use of sarcasm, but the use of exaggeratedly harsh and rigid standards, without any explanation as to why he felt that was an appropriate comparison to what I was doing.


3. I'm very good at this. What I fail at is the type of mob harassment and stampedes that you lefties are so good at.

You think you’re being mob harassed and stampeded in this thread!?

No. I think that Progressive, is trying to run the same line of bullshit past me, that worked in the public debate on this issue,


but without control of the medium, or a braying mob of brainless assholes to shout me down,


it does not work.


As I said in more detail further up the thread.

 

[mdk]

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.

No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.


Until today, with the modern liberal.

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?

 

[G.T.]

Legal Marriage in the US wasnt even based on "gender roles" necessarily to begin with...it widely varied from State to State...but its more fun to let bottom-tier debater "Correll" cling to his arbitrary life line.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.


Until today, with the modern liberal.

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?

Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.

James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD. James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time. He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.

 

[mdk]

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.

No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.


Until today, with the modern liberal.

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?

Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.

James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD. James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time. He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.

I don't give a fuck about King James I or your pussy-aching about homos getting hitched. Both are irrelevant.

 

[G.T.]

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.

No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.


Until today, with the modern liberal.

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?

Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.

James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD. James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time. He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.

Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-esque, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.

 

[mdk]

No, I said that the institution of marriage was based on traditional gender roles.


Yes, though out history there have been plenty of married couples, that did not fit into the standard traditional gender roles, and as long as certain minimum requirements were met, this was rarely a concern, (such as consummation).


For thousands of years, people had no problem understanding this.


Until today, with the modern liberal.

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?

Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.

James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD. James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time. He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.

Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.

That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in Loving v. Virginia. This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.

 

[Polishprince]

Imagine that! The standards you set for others magically don’t apply to you. lol. Worry about your household, Mrs. Kravitz.

Stating that the institution of marriage is based on gender roles, does not require that anyone married, rigidly adheres to said roles.


THat was shit you just made up, because you don't have a real rebuttal.

You said marriage should be denied to gay couples since they don't adhere to traditional genders rules, but it's okay when straight couples don't follow those rules b/c they suddenly become outdated and harsh when applied to you. You want it both ways like all whinging hypocrites. I have a better idea, why don't you stop fussing about the marriages of others and mind your own damn business?

Marriage isn't beng denied to homosexuals, and never has been, in actuality.

James I and VI was as queer as 3 pound bill, yet got hitched -TO A BROAD. James was the absolute monarch of Great Britain, and the head of the established church at the time. He has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to get gay married to whomever he chose, if he thought it was something he wanted to do.

Thats a failed argument. Its kindergarden-eqsue, even. Marriage was being denied based on the sex of the applicants, derp....the argument that "its the same rules for everyone" misses the entire debate to begin with. Thats why the Courts dont take that dumbfuck argument into consideration, because theyre educated.

That same retarded legal reasoning was used and subsequently laughed out of court over sixty years ago in Loving v. Virginia. This whole 'gays were never denied marriage b/c King James' is a rather new one, though.

To equivalate the idea of 2 dudes pretending to get married with a couple who happens to be of different ethnicities is sort of a stretch.

Gay Marriage, in actuality, is a whole new institution.

History teaches us that Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden- it was NOT- regardless of any liberal assertions- Adam and Steve.