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

[Correll]

I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.

And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.

Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.

Nice circular reasoning.

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.

 

[Correll]

Stripped of your spin on the issue, Yes, I would like to have the One income, male as breadwinner family, stay at home mom, as the goal of national policy.

I am not struggling with anything. THe modern world is struggling with the costs of the breakdown of the nuclear family.

Now all that you have to do is show how the breakdown of the nuclear family is the result of same sex marriage and you might have a case.

No, I do not have to do that. I have not made that claim.


My claim, specifically related to that, was that you liberals have made a general attack on Marriage for a long time now.


Interesting and very self serving "mistake" you made there.

 

[Correll]

You are still avoiding the crux of the matter. And your side's most powerful argument. For reasons that I strongly suspect that you know.

You keep saying that same shit over and over again but can't seem to spell out what you think I am avoiding. Until you do, it is just more of your bullshit.

And as I said, I am not going to address an argument you refuse to make. You libs have taught me that that does not work. YOu are too dishonest for that.



I will have to slowly lead you to your argument, before I can destroy it.


Your dodging skills are very strong.

 

[Erinwltr]

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?

You are being ridiculous and obtuse. I explained why about a dozen different ways.

No, you haven't. You've lightly touched on it, and referenced it. But you never actually say it. For obvious reasons.


I will not be drawn into addressing a point you do not clearly make. I've had enough of you libs implying something, and me tearing your point to pieces and then you dishonestly claim that that was not what you meant, when it obviously was.

Hey Dude! You disappeared again! Where do you go? Trying to regroup and figure out your next plan of attack? You keep accusing me of being evasive and not saying what I think. Of being afraid of saying something, but you will never say what that is. ,

Dude. I have a life. I was doing stuff in RL.


And IF you were not such a liberal, you would have said what you are dancing around, and we would have moved on long ago. You are the one being evasive.

Let me tell you something. A my age I know exactly what I believe and have no fear in saying it. And , I am absolutely confident in my ability to express what I believe. The fact that you either cannot understand what I am saying, or that you have a perverse need to pretend not to understand is not my problem. It is entirely yours.

I understand everything you have said. I am just not going to address a point you have not made.

Your claims that I am being dishonest and evasive are nothing more than a pathetic attempt by you to gaslight me. To try to make me doubt myself. Not working, Dude! I am supremely confident in what I am saying and have been very direct in saying it. You are the one who is being cagy and dishonest.

lol!

Here are a coupe of other points that I will make....

Point: Your opposition to same sex marriage is selfish and based on fear of change and a desperate clinging to tradition while ignoring the reality that gay folks getting married has zero effect on you.

Blah, blah, blah.

Point: While gays getting married has no impact on you, their ability to marry has many tangible and measurable benefits to them and their children . But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about the human cost of discrimination. All that you care about is "tradition" and your bogus, manufactured gender role justification for discrimination and you discredited claim that bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary.

We shall see if such benefit manifest with time. But the cost of what you put the nation though, that is already done. You torn this nation apart.

Now tell me again how I am being dishonest and evasive. This is in your face reality. Deal with it. I am not pulling any punches. This is exactly what I think and feel- and no matter what horseshit you try to counter it with, it will not change anything

You are being dishonest and evasive.

Give it a ******* rest already. You have no case, You are just playing a sick and dishonest game. State what I have been evasive about or shut up

He must be one of those folks that thinks getting the last work in means he "wins" despite he has regurgitated the same garbage claim over and over again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.

It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.

In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.

Correct. Sometimes an "Appeal to Authority" is valid.


If the Authority is actually an Authority that can be trusted to be completely knowledgeable about a subject AND the subject is such that non-experts can't really grasp the issue.


Marriage was developed over thousands of years, starting thousands of years ago.


Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. You would do better to cite a board of evolutionary sociologists.


Also, neither of us seem intimidated by the idea of addressing and/or understanding the structure of Traditional Marriage. You have been addressing the issue, constantly, though very confusedly for many pages and days.


Indeed, I suspect there is NOTHING that any lib judge could say on the issue that you could not say just as well.

Right Dude! Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. Dhaaaa! But they are authorities on the law and on the constitution. They are authorities on civil rights.

As far as who is confused is concerned, it appears to be you because I have not been discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. You are the one who is obsessed with traditional marriage . I don't give a rats ass about traditional marriage.

You're calling me "confused" is just another pathetic gaslighting attempt. Still not working. I mean what I say and I say what I mean

Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?

Nothing in my post suggested that we keep Marriage as it was, because of it being old or traditional.


Read it again.



Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

You have been bleating about how marriage is based on ancient traditions all along . Are you now saying that you are selective about the traditions that you want to keep or toss. ?? That's pretty ******* hypocritical it that's the case! Is it that the "women as property" tradition would be too unpopular to promote, but you can still get away with discrimination against gays?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".

It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.

Really? THat makes the court rulings even more stupid.


If the restrictions were "arbitrary", and people have the "right" to equal treatment, then arguing about the breakdown of gender roles had no place in the case.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and I don't that you do either. The argument that the restrictions on marriage were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory does not preclude or conflict with the argument that same sex couples function as a family like anyone else- which undermines any claim to a rational basis for restrictions.

As I have said before, gender roles were never an issue during the litigation. Are you just making this shit up as you go??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".

The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.

You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.

Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.


It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nice circular reasoning.

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

More lies. The case was made on both counts 1. Restrictions were arbitrary and discriminatory and 2. The case was made for why same sex marriage would be beneficial. Shit you're confused!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.

I am going to find that article and pick it apart just for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.

And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.

Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.

Nice circular reasoning.

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-evolution-marriage



After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and , the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage with this:

One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. “It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”

Two thing about this drivel:

1. An evolutionary non starter ? What does it have to do with evolution? Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story

2. The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .

He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms

Then there is this:

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.

As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof. Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit . There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage

We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a ******* joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit. You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.

You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid

 

[Correll]

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. YOur point is invalid.

It may be an appeal to authority but all such appeals are not equal and not automatically invalid. If an authority makes a baseless claim that you are going to hell for not worshiping god- that is an invalid appeal to authority. If you reference the scientific community to say the earth rotates around the sun-that is a valid appeal to authority.

In the case of bans on same sex marriage, you cannot dispute the fact that multiple authorities have found them to be arbitrary and without so much as a rational basis. In our Constitutional Republic- whenever the government seeks to limit rights- the burden of proof is on the government to justify those limits. There is an extensive judicial record that documents the failure of the government to justify those limits. That is an indisputable fact.

Correct. Sometimes an "Appeal to Authority" is valid.


If the Authority is actually an Authority that can be trusted to be completely knowledgeable about a subject AND the subject is such that non-experts can't really grasp the issue.


Marriage was developed over thousands of years, starting thousands of years ago.


Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. You would do better to cite a board of evolutionary sociologists.


Also, neither of us seem intimidated by the idea of addressing and/or understanding the structure of Traditional Marriage. You have been addressing the issue, constantly, though very confusedly for many pages and days.


Indeed, I suspect there is NOTHING that any lib judge could say on the issue that you could not say just as well.

Right Dude! Courts of law are not authorities on ancient cultures and customs. Dhaaaa! But they are authorities on the law and on the constitution. They are authorities on civil rights.

As far as who is confused is concerned, it appears to be you because I have not been discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. You are the one who is obsessed with traditional marriage . I don't give a rats ass about traditional marriage.

You're calling me "confused" is just another pathetic gaslighting attempt. Still not working. I mean what I say and I say what I mean

Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

Appeal to tradition . Women were the property of men and slavery was commonplace for thousands of years as well. She we maintain those norms as well because tradition is more important that the realities of modern life and the evolving standards of human decency?

Nothing in my post suggested that we keep Marriage as it was, because of it being old or traditional.


Read it again.



Yet the development of Marriage took place over literally thousands of years, literally thousands of years ago. So, using modern life as an argument to support that the set up of that, was "arbitrary" is literally insane. as you are losing the concept of time, in your mind.

You have been bleating about how marriage is based on ancient traditions all along . Are you now saying that you are selective about the traditions that you want to keep or toss. ?? That's pretty ******* hypocritical it that's the case! Is it that the "women as property" tradition would be too unpopular to promote, but you can still get away with discrimination against gays?

1. When you make a claim that the "restrictions" against same sex marriage in Traditional Marriage, is arbitrary, you are discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. Your denial of that is absurd.

2. I have been very clear about what I have been saying. That you keep needing to twist and misunderstand what I say, in order to make your points, shows that on some level, you know that your argument is weak.


My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.


That is not an Appeal to Authority. Stop wasting my time and yours.

 

[Correll]

That is the type of argument you guys should have made, instead of arguing that the restrictions are "arbitrary".

It was made numerous times as documented in the briefs that were filed, and the opinions of the various courts. You should review them some time. It would be an eye opener for sure.

Really? THat makes the court rulings even more stupid.


If the restrictions were "arbitrary", and people have the "right" to equal treatment, then arguing about the breakdown of gender roles had no place in the case.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and I don't that you do either. The argument that the restrictions on marriage were arbitrary and therefor discriminatory does not preclude or conflict with the argument that same sex couples function as a family like anyone else- which undermines any claim to a rational basis for restrictions.

As I have said before, gender roles were never an issue during the litigation. Are you just making this shit up as you go??

If something is a "RIGHT" then arguing about effectiveness is not required. One demands it as a right, not because it is "effective".


I have the right to free speech. I don't have to justify my speech to anyone as being "effective".


Again, that should not be hard for you to understand.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. When you make a claim that the "restrictions" against same sex marriage in Traditional Marriage, is arbitrary, you are discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. Your denial of that is absurd.

What??!! I said that the restrictions were arbitrary and discriminatory -period! I said nothing about the structure of Traditional Marriage. YOU are absurd! Don't try to obfuscate what I am saying by throwing in references to traditional marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. I have been very clear about what I have been saying. That you keep needing to twist and misunderstand what I say, in order to make your points, shows that on some level, you know that your argument is weak.

I am not twisting or misunderstanding anything. Yes you have been very clear. You oppose same sex marriage. However, you keep dishonestly trying to claim that there is some rational and defensible reason for it when there is none that you actually articulate. ,What I know is that your argument is weak-actually non-existent.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My discussion of the Ancient Tradition of Marriage was in response to YOUR claim that the restrictions against Same Sex marriage was arbitrary (based on developments of the last few decades). YOU were the one making the insane argument of judging an institution developed thousands of years ago, based on the current environment. I was merely pointing out that absurdity of that.

The year is 2019

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If something is a "RIGHT" then arguing about effectiveness is not required. One demands it as a right, not because it is "effective".

I didn't say that it was required. The fact that marriage was denied to same sex couple while opposite sex couples were able to take it for granted was more than enough to show discrimination. I was responding to your insistence that advocates for marriage equality should have argued that there were benefits allowing gays to marry which we did -while the states failed miserably in demonstrating that there was any down side to gay mariage. It was "icing on the cake sort of speak - but it also erased all doubt that the restrictions were arbitrary and had no rational basis . Please stop wasting my time and yours with your dishonest idiocy.

And once again I will ask, what is the issue that you keep alluding to -that you keep accusing me of avoiding- while you yourself seem to be fearful of broaching?

 

[Correll]

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.

I am going to find that article and pick it apart just for you.

You, address what I actually presented? I will believe it, when I see it.

 

[Correll]

I would not even call it a "ban" on same sex Marriage. Marriage was made a certain way, for reasons discussed in the linked article.

And your side, as the side requesting a change, is the one who should have made the argument that the change would be for the better. NOt the other way around. Your side is extremely arrogant and divisive.

Bullshit! Once again the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit or restrict rights . However, I will add that those advocating for same sex marriage NOT ONLY were able to show that there was not rational basis for the bans, but also that there were concreate benefits to families as the result of legal same sex marriage -as documented in the judicial record which you apparently did not bother to read.

Nice circular reasoning.

You decide that the structure of marriage is a restriction of rights, and then cite that as an excuse for not making your case for change.

The article I linked to, not only described the development of traditional marriage, and the reasons for it, it also contrasted it with the alternate forms of marriage and societies and why our Western form was superior.



NOne of the reasons listed had anything to do with "banning" homosexuals or anything like that.


You libs are lying or wrong when you claim that it is about restricting rights or bigotry.


But doing so, gives you an excuse to attack those you hate.

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-evolution-marriage



After jabbering at length about the virtue of monogamy and one man and one woman, and , the evils of polygamy the author finally gets around to same sex marriage with this:

One topic that receives relatively little discussion is that of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. “From an evolutionary standpoint, gay marriage is a non-starter,” he states. “It is only a few decades old and has played no part in evolutionary or human history.” Tucker takes no position in this book on same-sex marriage, but cautions those who do support it: Given the importance of social rules for sustaining social monogamy, he insists that “supporters of same-sex marriage draw a stark line . . . between acceptance of gay marriage and acceptance of an ‘anything-goes’ attitude toward marriage, which says that it makes no difference whether people tie the knot or live in sin, whether they marry a man and a woman or marry two wives or three wives.”

Two thing about this drivel:

1. An evolutionary non starter ? What does it have to do with evolution? Gay people have children and the species evolve. The end of that story

2. The rest of it is nothing but slippery slope fear mongering .

He then returns to the topic of monogamy in a failed attempt to associate promiscuity with gay marriage . I’m am here to tell you that there is, and was, a hell of a lot of promiscuity among heterosexuals prior to same sex marriage. There is no cause and effect. The most that can be said is that both non-monogamy and same sex marriage are the result of evolving social/ sexual values and norms

Then there is this:

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.

As I said days ago when you asked what I disagreed with about the article, I said that this view of marriage excludes not only LGBT folks but also people who see a different purpose in marriage, and this is the proof. Then in the end it is back to polygamy. It is all a bunch of bullshit . There is still not rational basis or compelling government / societal interest in banning same sex marriage

We’re lying when we say that it about civil rights and discrimination?? What a ******* joke. Do you actually believe your own bullshit?

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what it is that I’m avoiding and afraid to say. That is just more of your manipulative horseshit. You can't gaslight me as hard as you try. I know who I am. I know what I believe I say what is on my mind. I fear nothing from you or anyone else. I am totally confident in my beliefs and values and have backed up my position with fact and logic, as well as something that you seem to lack, compassion for other human beings.

You're trying so hard to make me look dishonest and stupid, that you are making yourself look.....well, .dishonest and stupid

1. One of the major points of the article was that marriage was developed to "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."


You did not address this.


2. One of the other major points of the article, was that monogamy, is better for social stability than polygamy.

You did not address that either.



3. I knew that you would not. Even though you said you would.


4. It seems pointless to address what you do bring up, when you refuse to actually discuss the points I do bring up. It seems more and more that ALL you do, is "muddy the waters", and "poison the well".


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/muddy-the-waters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

[Correll]

Again, the type of argument you should have made, instead of making it about "rights".

The issue of gender roles as a condition for marriage was not a question that was before the courts. However, is was successfully argued that there is essentially no difference between same and opposite sex couples and that it is discriminatory to treat them differently.

You don't like the idea that it was about rights because the argument that it is not a right proved to be a loosing proposition for you people.

Gender roles being the basis of Marriage, is not the same as being a "condition" of marriage.


It is not a subtle difference. Stop being confused on this. This should not be so hard for you.

Bullshit!! Have you not been arguing that same sex marriage should not be allowed because :men and women are different" in terms of gender roles? Are you trying to walk that back now? Again, your the one who is confused.

I said the Marriage was based on gender roles, and thus the "restriction" against same sex marriage was not arbitrary.

 

[Correll]

1. When you make a claim that the "restrictions" against same sex marriage in Traditional Marriage, is arbitrary, you are discussing the structure of Traditional Marriage. Your denial of that is absurd.

What??!! I said that the restrictions were arbitrary and discriminatory -period! I said nothing about the structure of Traditional Marriage. YOU are absurd! Don't try to obfuscate what I am saying by throwing in references to traditional marriage.

THe structure of traditional marriage is one man, one woman. When you claim that that is an "arbitrary discrimination" you are discussing the structure of traditional marriage.


That you want to fight against discussing the structure of traditional marriage, after attacking the structure of traditional marriage,


that is a fine example of the dishonesty I have accused you of.