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

[Correll]

2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.

Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.

1, Support and celebration of Divorce.

2. Support and celebration of Single Motherhood.

3. Replacing the Father with a government check.

4. General feminist and anti-male shit.



Off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed something. Or 5.

 

[Correll]

4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.

5. You are an asshole.

What vile lies sweetheart?

In the context of this issue, claiming that anyone that does not embrace and support your position, is a bigot.


You did that on purpose to divide Americans against each other. It was vile of you.

 

[Correll]

No walking it back. You've admitted that at least part of your reasoning, is that gender roles have changed with time.


That means, that the institution of Marriage, created thousands of years ago, cannot be attacked as arbitrary, based on changes in gender roles occurring in the last few decades.

1. I did not "admit " anything . I made a statement of fact with respect to gender rolls

2. The debate over same sex marriage was never about gender rolls -you just made that shit up because you thought it would stick. It's not

3. Making marriage more inclusive is not attacking it. It is strengthening it as an institution.

1. Considering how resistant you are to the obvious implications of your statement on the alleged "arbitrary"-ness of Traditional Marriage, I think referring to your statement as an "admission" is very much called for.

2. You admitted that the basis of the reasoning that Gay Marriage was a civil rights case, was based on the restriction being arbitrary. Thus, a discussion of the ACTUAL reasons for the restrictions, is completely on topic. And your claim otherwise, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

3. Unlikely.

 

[Correll]

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap

Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

 

[G.T.]

drama queen still doesnt understand what arbitrary means

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.

Gezzzus ******* Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?

We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.


THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.


I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.


You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.

Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

 

[Third Party]

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

Anybody can marry if they want. Just like anybody can go to prison if they want.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.

Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.

1, Support and celebration of Divorce.

2. Support and celebration of Single Motherhood.

3. Replacing the Father with a government check.

4. General feminist and anti-male shit.



Off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed something. Or 5.

You have missed a lot all right. Divorce is not an attack on marriage. It does not prevent or discourage people from getting married. It just happens. Did it ever occur to you that a situation where it was difficult or impossible to get out of a marriage, would in fact discourage marriage.?

Single motherhood is not an attack on marriage either. The woman has the option to marry or not. Replacing the father with a check? What the **** does that even mean and how is it an attack on marriage? By providing that single mother with a social safety net. ?Would the father have stuck around had she not had that check available? Your thinking is quite fuzzy on all of this.

Feminism ? Yes woman are more independent -which you consider :anti male"- and may choose not to marry and that seems to frighten you . Too bad. It's still not an attack on marriage. Not getting married is an option, just like marrying is stil an option.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Anybody can marry if they want. Just like anybody can go to prison if they want.

Thank you for that brilliant and thoughtful contribution to an important topic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.

5. You are an asshole.

What vile lies sweetheart?

In the context of this issue, claiming that anyone that does not embrace and support your position, is a bigot.


You did that on purpose to divide Americans against each other. It was vile of you.

I did not claim that anyone that does not embrace and support my position, is a bigot. I don't give a **** what you "embrace and support" as long as treat other with respect and dignity and as equals.

I said that people who engage in or advocate discrimination are indeed bigots. That is not a lie. It is a statement of fact.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap

Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interest

 

[Third Party]

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

Anybody can marry if they want. Just like anybody can go to prison if they want.

Thank you for that brilliant and thoughtful contribution to an important topic.

Anytime.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap

Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.

So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall we say a CEO who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.

So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now. You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.

Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!

Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.

 

[Correll]

. You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.

Gezzzus ******* Khrist on a Cracker! I made it clear that I am not going to allow you to get this bogged down on the issue of the origin and purpose of gender rolls or the extent to which they are arbitrary. The issue is the arbitrariness of bans on same sex marriage, whether you try to justify them based on gender rolls or any other damned thing. It has been established that those bans had no rational basis. What part of that do you not understand?

We agreed that the basis of the claim that the restriction was a civil rights issue was the restriction being arbitrary.


THat the structure of the institution of Marriage was based on gender roles, makes it NOT arbitrary.


I understand why you want to avoid defending your claim that restriction was arbitrary.


You dont' want to do that, because you NOW realize that it was NOT.

Cut the crap ,Dude. I'm not avoiding anything. Your claim that gender rolls and differences between men and women provides some sort of rational bases for banning same sex marriage is absurd on it's face. That is especially true now that those gender rolls, regardless of what they were in the past, now play a minor roll in relationships and family functioning. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

And again, you lightly touch upon your side's actual strongest "point" but without realizing it.


I will try again to steer you towards it. Try to not be evasive and just answer and concisely, without fear.


Why is that especially true NOW? And as opposed to WHEN?

 

[Correll]

2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.

Please elaborate on how we have been attacking marriage.

1, Support and celebration of Divorce.

2. Support and celebration of Single Motherhood.

3. Replacing the Father with a government check.

4. General feminist and anti-male shit.



Off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed something. Or 5.

You have missed a lot all right. Divorce is not an attack on marriage. It does not prevent or discourage people from getting married. It just happens. Did it ever occur to you that a situation where it was difficult or impossible to get out of a marriage, would in fact discourage marriage.?

Single motherhood is not an attack on marriage either. The woman has the option to marry or not. Replacing the father with a check? What the **** does that even mean and how is it an attack on marriage? By providing that single mother with a social safety net. ?Would the father have stuck around had she not had that check available? Your thinking is quite fuzzy on all of this.

Feminism ? Yes woman are more independent -which you consider :anti male"- and may choose not to marry and that seems to frighten you . Too bad. It's still not an attack on marriage. Not getting married is an option, just like marrying is stil an option.

You are funny, and all of that, but the above is really off topic for this thread.

Let's just chuckle at it, and move on with the topic.

 

[Correll]

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap

Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

You have yet to prove, and will never prove that restrictions on same sex marriage were anything but arbitrary, based only on animus towards gays, and lacked any semblance of a rational basis, leave alone a compelling government or societal interest

Marriage is about giving the man a reason to stick around and provide for children that he can be reasonably sure are his.

The Evolution of Marriage


"
At its most basic level, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of reproductive biology. The question is whether a father will be involved in the life of that child and, if so, for how long. Marriage increases the odds that a man will be committed both to the children that he helps create and to the woman with whom he does so.

Marriage, rightly understood, brings together the two halves of humanity (male and female) in a monogamous relationship. Husband and wife pledge to each other to be faithful by vows of permanence and exclusivity. Marriage provides children with a relationship with the man and the woman who made them.

If a man does not commit to a woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship, the likelihood of creating fatherless children and fragmented families increases. The more sexual partners a man has, and the shorter-lived those relationships are, the greater the chance he creates children with multiple women. When his attention and resources are thus divided, a long line of consequences unfolds for both mother and child, and for society as a whole."



"The idea is that high-status males are the big winners of polygamy, but an alpha male who mates exclusively with an alpha female gets assurance that she’ll bear his — and only his — offspring, and she gets assurance that he’ll stick around for the long haul to help raise the child and protect her from aggressors. The same is then true for the beta male and beta female, and gamma, “and so on down the line — much the way it happens in high school.” Monogamy is a form of what game theorists call “Nash equilibrium”: It does not maximize the outcome for each and every individual, but it does “optimize everyone’s individual outcome in a way that maintains the integrity of the entire society.”



For starters. What do you disagree with about this?

 

[Correll]

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap

Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Actually, it was a complete failure.


My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.


YOu agreed with that.


I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.


This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.


All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.

Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.

So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall we say a CEO who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.

So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now. You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.

Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!

Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.

Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.


I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".

Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, it was a complete failure.


My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.


YOu agreed with that.


I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.


This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.


All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.

A failure?? Really. Then how come you found it necessary to my central question regarding the equal application of gender role requirements to both same sex and opposite sex couples who wish to marry? You avoided it because you have no answer. There is not answer.

Allow me to rephrase the question. If you are so concerned about the respective gender rolls of two people of the same sex who get married because those rolls might be in conflict rather than complimentary - why are you not concerned about a heterosexual couple where, as in the example that I gave, both parties have assumed what is arguably traditional male rolls? It is clearly a double standard if you don't.

And continuing to blather about "traditional gender rolls" which few people concern themselves with anymore, is not doing you any good. And to call us dishonest because we convinced the courts that restrictions on same sex marriage were in fact arbitrary is just plane stupid. We made the case . Deal with it. Lastly, the matter of traditional gender rolls in relation to same sex marriage never even came up as far as I know, and if it did , it would not have rendered those restrictions as anything less than arbitrary. You just made that shit up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Thank you for making my case. Everything else has been in response to your pathetic and failed attempt to justify bigotry based on your made up crap

Examining your claim that the restrictions were arbitrary, is valid.


That you lie about that, is intellectually dishonest and cowardly.

Hey Dude!! Whats going on? We haven't heard from you in a while. I was enjoying this. I had a funny thought that I would like to run by you. You have been contending that two people of the same sex should not marry because "men and women are different" and bring different gender rolls to a relationship-right? . And the implication is that some gender specific roll will go unfulfilled -that something will be missing or left undone- Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Actually, it was a complete failure.


My position was that YOUR sides's claim that the restrictions were a civil rights issue was based on the premise that the restrictions were arbitrary.


YOu agreed with that.


I then pointed out that the restrictions were based on traditional gender roles.


This shows that what you liberals did was dishonest, and divisive, and purposely so.


All you have done since then, is try very hard to be purposefully obtuse, so that you can avoid admitting that.

Now, lets put aside the issue that there are thousands upon thousands of same sex couples who have formed families and maintain household despite any real or imagined issue with gender rolls . Lets also put aside that in this day and age, few men or women adhere to traditional gender rolls and the fact that many women do all of the same things that men do and vis versa.

So that brings me to my thought. If gender roll differences between men and women-if any- are a valid reason for same sex people not to be able to marry, I'm thinking that heterosexual men and women who do not sufficiently adhere to traditional gender rolls should not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. Think about it. Think about the hetero woman who is a cop, a firefighter or trauma surgeon. If she marries a hetero male who is -shall we say a CEO who works long hours and travels for business- who is going to play the role of Julia Child or be the mom of the year. Maybe that that family would be more functional if that woman married a fem lesbian so that the rolls are complete and balanced.

So a question: Are you willing to push your gender roll theory that far- to ban non-traditional gender roll heterosexuals from heterosexual marriage in order to push your anti gay marriage agenda?? Be honest now. You should be starting to grasp the ridiculousness of this whole gender roll thing by now, unless you are seriously mentally challenged.

Families are either functional or dysfunctional or somewhere in between, The degree to which they are functional depends-in part - to the extent to which they have worked out their division of labor-that is their respective rolls, which has nothing to do with what equipment they have between their respective legs.!!

Damn! I had fun writing this!! I think that I'll save it in case anyone else tries this crap.

Your lib buddy G.T. should feel insulted. He saw that as a line of argument days ago, and brought it up.


I pointed out that just because an institution is based on rules that are not completely rigid, does not mean that the rules nor the institution are "Arbitrary".

Also, it is worth keeping in mind, that the institution of marriage is literally ancient, and that such roles WERE more rigid when it was developed.

your thinking on the subject of marriage is ancient

 

[G.T.]

RolEs*


roles

roles


Not dinner ones