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

[Vandalshandle]

Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.

 

[Correll]

Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.

If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.


Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined, have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away. Check mate!

 

[Cosmos]

Your words from post 964.



"The structure of marriage - a man doing man things and a woman doing woman things and having babies together made sense at one time. "


It worked. That is a reason for the different treatment.


A very good reason.


And that was the crux of your argument, if not your world view, debunked, right there.


Booyah!

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

It's in our schools. It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media. It's parading down the street. And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women. You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash. People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.

 

[Correll]

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined, have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away. Check mate!

Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

My point was that there are no gender issues in the present day that should have a bearing on who should marry who

You think that you're clever but I'll bet that your nor so clever to explain how what marriage might have looked like in 1815 -when same sex marriage was not on anyone' radar- has anything to do with marriage in 2015.

For the last time gender roles are non-issue that you pulled out of your ass. During all of the litigation, even the most rabid opponents of same sex marriage were sane enough to not even touch that issue. I am done with it.

Now, once again. Are you going to continue to run from the other issues that you brought up but can't seem to deal with?. Specifically, how society is circling the drain because of same sex marriage, and how children of same sex couples are not being nurtured properly.

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

It's in our schools. It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media. It's parading down the street. And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women. You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash. People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

 

[Cosmos]

Most of what you just posted is partisan filler or misrepresentations.


Consider it all dismissed, except for what I address.



When you agree that there was a time that marriage was structured on gender roles and worked,


you debunk the crux of your discrimination argument that the "restrictions" were arbitrary.




When you stated that TODAY, the situation has changed and Marriage based on traditional gender roles no longer makes sense, you raise a number of interesting questions.


When did ancient or traditional gender roles stop mattering? Was it the change over from an agricultural economy to an industrial one? Or was it when we changed to a Service economy?


Be warned the answers to those questions, will raise more questions. I am not trying to trick you into something. But this is the issue and the questions that have to be addressed, if you want to discuss it seriously.

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?





Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

It's in our schools. It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media. It's parading down the street. And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women. You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash. People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

Nothing but spin and bluster. My point stands.




The crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

You have dealt with those issue? Bullshit!! And you wont because you have nothing. You have been running from them ever since you opened those doors and I suspect that you regret it now.

Regarding this gender role thing, I have established that it is absurd on its face and that absolutely no one is buying you claim that gender role differences, real or imagined, have any bearing on who cannot or should not marry .

The issues of family functioning, the nurturing of children, and negative effects on society is inextricably tied to your gender role theory and the issue of whether the band on same sex marriage were arbitrary or if there was some rational reason for them.

In order for you to show that “differences between men and women” provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to show that 1) the negative effects and outcomes that you allege are real, and 2) that they are the result of gender role conflicts.

I am quite sure that you will even be able to deal with #1 leave alone # 2 . You have a real problem slick. To reiterate, in order to show that gender role differences provide a rational basis for bans on same sex marriage, you have to demonstrate a negative outcome related to those differences.

That is your challenge. Deal with it or go away. Check mate!

Not bad. I accept. *


1. Lack of a father as a provider, means the mother and children starve, or at least are malnourished and die of disease, or at least have miserable lives and grow into stunted, less productive members of society.


2. During the vast majority of the time frame we are talking about, the greater physical strength of men, made them economically necessary for any family to thrive if not survive. Even today, in the Information Age, two incomes are better than one. Unfortunately.





*footnote. It is interesting that after only a month of badgering, that you finally dipped your toe in the concept of actual debate, instead of just jumping back and forth from Assertions and Dodges. I wish I could give you a Good For You, but unfortunately so far, so few liberals engage at all, that I don't have enough data to judge you by.

This is a joke right?? What century are you living in? We are not hunter- gatherers anymore and women can earn their own money and fend for themselves. Are you saying that all of those Lesbian couples are starving because they don’t have a man to protect them and to provide for them? You need to provide some actual evidence. In case you don’t know, a debate consists of backing up your assertions with facts


And what about male- male couples. With all of their might and testosterone, they must be doing pretty well!


And you still have not backed up your inane assertion about children not being adequately nurtured. I assumed that you meant emotionally and just being starved of food by the Lesbians.


Then there is the negative impact on wider society that you alluded to but still have not dealt with Oh right, the stunted growth children of gay couples. Show us some.

And what the hell was that about two incomes?? A Lesbian couple can't both work??

Footnote: You really suck at this and have no clue as to how to debate and are clearly out of touch with reality. I'm beginning to pity you.



Yet another FAILURE

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am not going to be warned about anything by you. I told you that gender roles is your own pet, made up horseshit that has no bearing on the issue of marriage equality and never came up as an issue during the litigation, and as far as I know, in any other context.

They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?





Your inability to challenge my argument, is pretty obvious from the way you try to spin, and dodge.


THe crux of your argument is that the "restrictions" were arbitrary. Yet you have admitted that in the past, the same past that the institution of marriage was developed in, that that structure of marriage, with gender roles worked.

"Works" debunked the crux of your argument, the "arbitrary".

That only I see the issue this way, is not evidence that it is wrong. Obviously.

Your dismissal of the other issues that I called you on is not going to make them go away. I intend to hold your feet to the fire for as long as this goes on. The smoke screen of "gender roles " and all your horseshit about how the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary because of gender roles will not save you.

Lots of minor issues you raise, that I have or would be happy to address. But on the cost of giving you the excuse to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you cannot refute my primary point, nor defend the crux of your argument.

I basically laid out an indictment of you, detailing all of the stupid shit that you've said and all of the wild and bizarre claims and predictions that you made and you have yet to deal with any of it.

Yes, you obviously feel a need to pepper your posts with a lot of spin and filler. Obviously because on some level, you realize that you cannot actually defend your position on it's merits, and hope to hide that with bluster and misdirection.

For starters , tell us how and why same sex couples are inferior parents. You said it and since then you ran from it.

You predicted that there would be unspecified consequences to same sex marriage, but when pressed on what evidence you have, you ran from that too.

You are truly a mess.

Yes, minor issues compared to the fact that your central premise is false. I'm not going to allow you to distract from the central point of the issue.

Not only have I challenged your argument, I have destroyed it. Unfortunately your cognitive limitations don't allow you to see that. Or, you are too dishonest and entrenched to admit it

You can continue to dismiss my assessment of you that documents all of you bigoted, bizarre, and unfounded claims about gay people and same sex marriage. but that does not change that fact that you have painted yourself into a corner with your claims about gay parenting, societal decline and procreation-and the double standards between heterosexual and homosexual couple that you have endorsed.

You can call those minor issues but they speak to your deep seated bias and your motive in pushing this ridiculous gender role theory. The fact is that you are too much of a coward to deal with those issues and anyone who is watch knows that except your fuck buddy Bob.

It's in our schools. It's plastered all over the news and entertainment media. It's parading down the street. And the latest atrocity is this attempt to completely destroy women's sports by allowing trans-men to compete as women. You fucking freaks better get back in your faggot closets or there will be a backlash. People are generally very tolerant but they can only be pushed so far.

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Just a quick glance at this page reveals that there sure are a lot of people still stuck in Ozzie and Harriet days, when the Hays code required that if a couple were in bed in a movie, one foot of each had to be on the floor. Of course it was even worse with Ozzie. He wasn't even allowed to sleep in the same bed as his wife. Moving on to gays, etc., I find it amusing how the RW evangelicals are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. I'm surprised that nobody has posted a recording of "Gimme that Old Time Religion". When I come across the mindset that I see here, it reminds me that I could make a fortune selling clocks and watches that run backward.

If you magically turned back the clock on illegitimacy to that time period, crime, drug abuse, teen suicide, and a host of social ills would also magically, and vastly improve.


Saving and improving millions, tens of millions of lives.

No, everything was peachy back then. Blacks knew their place, girls had D&C's instead of abortions, gays were lynched, and Ozzie never had to go to work.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

It is all part of the same broad category of madness and evil.

 

[Cosmos]

I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts. The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.

5000 years of cultural development be damned. Right. Fuck the people who built our civilization. Let's support the perverts instead.

 

[Cosmos]

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?

 

[Vandalshandle]

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?

I sense that you are carry a heavy load of sexual insecurity....

 

[Cosmos]

What does transwomen in women's sports have to do with same sex marriage?

They're all part of the same batch of LGTBQP perverts you claim to support, moron. Don't you even read your own idiotic posts?

I sense that you are carry a heavy load of sexual insecurity....

It's got nothing to do with me you idiot. I sense that you're a faggot. Amiright?

 

[Cosmos]

What the hell is the matter with you queers? You think on account of one court decision that says you can buttfuck each other the rest of the world is supposed to forget everything we've been taught for the last 5000 years? Ain't happenen'. Go back in your faggot closets.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts. The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.

5000 years of cultural development be damned. Right. Fuck the people who built our civilization. Let's support the perverts instead.

It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.

 

[Cosmos]

I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts. The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.

5000 years of cultural development be damned. Right. Fuck the people who built our civilization. Let's support the perverts instead.

It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.

What makes you think you can force your "evolution" on other people? That's rather fascistic and arrogant. Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the hell is the matter with you queers? You think on account of one court decision that says you can buttfuck each other the rest of the world is supposed to forget everything we've been taught for the last 5000 years? Ain't happenen'. Go back in your faggot closets.

My question is what the hell is that matter with you bigots who just hate for the sake of hate, and so that you can feel superior. Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I support marriage equality because the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary and thus discriminatory as determined by the courts. The states failed miserably in their attempts to ban same sex marriage because they were unable to establish a compelling government/society interest in doing so , or even a rational basis. Attempts to invoke “tradition” also failed.

5000 years of cultural development be damned. Right. Fuck the people who built our civilization. Let's support the perverts instead.

It's called cultural evolution. Do you also lament the lost cultures of slavery, and women as property. And try to keep in mind that those "perverts" are human beings that just want the chances in life that you tale for granted.

What makes you think you can force your "evolution" on other people? That's rather fascistic and arrogant. Have you ever heard of the First Amendment?

No one is forcing anything. It just happens. The fact that some knuckle draggers are left behind is not my problem