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

[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.

Good grief. You're equating your fucking sexual perversions to slavery? You're an imbecile.

 

[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.

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.

In other words, you have no valid argument so you try and insult me with your sick problems. That's the standard defense mechanism of all faggots I've encountered on this forum. I don't accept weird sick sexual perversions so there must be something the matter with me, not the pervert.

 

[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?

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

You convinced a mealy-mouthed leftist court to make queer marriage the law of the land. And as if that isn't outrageous enough you've opened to way for boys against girls in high school sporting events like wrestling and track.

 

[Cosmos]

Same sex couples’ function as families and responsible members of the community just like everyone else and are entitled to equal treatment.

No they are not. They are mentally deranged perverts that should be registered as sex offenders and be kept thousands of yards away from any child.

 

[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.

Good grief. You're equating your fucking sexual perversions to slavery? You're an imbecile.

First of all, you don't know anything about my sexuality and make such assumptions is as stupid as stupid gets. Secondly, I am not equating it. You are bitching about changes in culture and tradition and I am asking an appropriate question.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Same sex couples’ function as families and responsible members of the community just like everyone else and are entitled to equal treatment.

No they are not. They are mentally deranged perverts that should be registered as sex offenders and be kept thousands of yards away from any child.

 

[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

You convinced a mealy-mouthed leftist court to make queer marriage the law of the land. And as if that isn't outrageous enough you've opened to way for boys against girls in high school sporting events like wrestling and track.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

First of all, you don't know anything about my sexuality…

It's not like you aren't very obvious about it.

If the insufficiently-massive item of slip-on footwear is the correct size, put it on.

 

[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....

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

Yeah, I suspect that you have some unresolved issues with sex. A counselor can help you with that.

 

[Correll]

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.



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.



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.




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.....E

Dude. You challenged me to back up my position on gender roles being the foundation of the structure of marriage.


Any discussion on the reasons for the development of the structure of marriage, would focus mostly on the time period when that structure of marriage was developed.


Obviously.


But even so, I did not limit my answers to that time frame, but included references to more recent time periods. So, your lack of a seriously response is disappointing.

 

[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.

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.

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

 

[karpenter]

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.

Funny Thing That
When Progs Lose
They Just Re-File And Re-File, Like Nothing Happened
Until They Get Their Way No Matter How Long It Takes
They Win One Case About Anything
Then It's Suddenly Decided Forever And Law Of The Land

BTW
Marriage Is Not A Concern In The Constitution
Neither Is Abortion
The 'Establishment Clause' As We Commonly Use It
Does Not Exist

'An Establishment Of Religion'
As Used In The First Amendment Is Clearly A Noun
Not A Verb

So When You Say Trumpified Courts
What You Really Mean
Is Jurists That Don't See What Isn't There
And Ignore Or Re-Interpret What Plainly Is

Which Is What You've Gotten Used To Over The Last 60yrs
So Naturally You Think That's How It's Supposed To Work

 

[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.

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.

 

[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.

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.

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.

I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.


Asking for clarification was completely called for.

 

[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.

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.

I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.


Asking for clarification was completely called for.

Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....

 

[Correll]

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.

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.

I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.


Asking for clarification was completely called for.

Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....

YOu going to explain your intent, or just play silly games?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.

I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.


Asking for clarification was completely called for.

Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....

YOu going to explain your intent, or just play silly games?

I think that the problem is that you are not old enough to remember how things were in the "good old days." That being the case, never mind.

 

[Correll]

Funny, you talk about a lot of stuff, just nothing relating to the topic or anything I said.


Is that your way of admitting that I am right?

I find it odd that suddenly you think this thread is about me.

I was asking about your post. YOu hit the "reply" button, but did not address anything I said, nor anything about the topic.


Asking for clarification was completely called for.

Seems to be perfectly self-explainatory follow up to your post 1022 to me....

YOu going to explain your intent, or just play silly games?

I think that the problem is that you are not old enough to remember how things were in the "good old days." That being the case, never mind.

Got it, silly games.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.

That's rich. Someone who is rather obviously a degenerate faggot, and worse, is telling normal people that we “…have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.”

 

[Correll]

Sounds to me that you have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.

That's rich. Someone who is rather obviously a degenerate faggot, and worse, is telling normal people that we “…have some psych-sexual issues that you need to get help with.”

View attachment 271102

I can only assume that at some point in the past, this "you must be compensating or hiding something, blah, blah, blah," must have been fresh and funny.



If so, it was well before I was born. As long as I can remember, it has been old and tired and weak, and is increasingly so, every time it is dragged out again.