I was one of the clowns that said it was a slippery slope.

I was one of the clowns that said let them have a legal social union but don't call it marriage.

Who is the clown now?

Scenes from the all-ages "family friendly" Drag Queen Christmas Tour. I hate to sound like a far-right extremist bigot but we just not do this in front of kids please? pic.twitter.com/CrCRGgkKMb

— Leo Kearse - comedian - come to my shows! (@LeoKearse) December 20, 2022

I could care less who sleeps with whom and who marries who. However, kids at a drag show is NOT OK.

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Asking the wrong crowd. The homo got grouped in with the groomers. Up to the homo now to end it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Asking the wrong crowd. The homo got grouped in with the groomers. Up to the homo now to end it.

---

LBGTQ+MX+B, +=PEDO

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

NSIS. In case you've been in a coma for five years, new types of sexual deviants have been attaching themselves to the alphabet city, and the Gaystapo seems happy to oblige.

I agree with you however; the radical trainey movement is the most anti-gay movement in 20 years.

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Freedoms weren't denied. Access to a subsidy, which was established for very specific purposes of binding families together, specifically parents and children, and to promote a nuclear family structure, is what was "denied". That was gradually eaten away not by gay marriage, but by easy divorce. Gay marriage was just the coup de gras or throwing in the towel on the subsidy. Once anti sodomy laws and related private behavior restrictions were done away with (rightly so), the freedom of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle were protected.

What you're conflating to freedom is simply ideas and expressions of opposing thought. As I've said many times, the challenge of free societies is to have the freedom to do something but the restraint to contain harm. That crosses all types of freedoms, economic, social, behavioral, etc. There's nothing ridiculous about the negative social impact of familial decline and the fracturing of social relationships. You know there's a relationship to the normalization of homosexual behavior and where we are today with the movement. The same organizations that pushed for same sex marriage are the same ones defending the trans movement and activities like drag queen story hour.

Gay marriage (subsidized, because it wasn't illegal even before) was the most legitimizing action taken by government which didn't change any behavioral freedom, only the amount of government money committed to it. It is literally a statement of we want to promote this behavior. Because the government promotes all sorts of behaviors it views as supporting impact on societal issues. Not sure how you don't realize that. From subsidies for electric cars and solar panels, to charitable contribution deductions, to marital tax benefits.

And grooming started long before we got to this point. When something moves from a more cultural taboo to accepted you will see a social shift. It's happened with things like premarital sex, divorce, pornography, etc. with real negative impacts. This is just one more along the away, and proving human nature struggles with restraint in free societies.

I am against the restriction of private behavior. I am also against what we are prioritizing as culturally important, especially as we move toward protected classes of those behaviors, which ironically creates government restriction on other private behavior.

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queery theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queery theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

***

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

---

With tax incentives!

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.
Silly distraction ploy. But the irony is amusing (of seeing a progressive extol the virtue of individual liberty).

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?
Mercy sakes. A progressive describing taxation as punishment. Don't often hear that.

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time. And neither did I. You imputed it because your argument needed it to be there. It was a founding document most unique in that it LIMITED the powers of the government, as the founders realized that government itself is the most direct threat to natural rights.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?
.....but not the freedom to the public to define marriage in a way that best serves the needs of society. The ONLY reason the state gets involved at all (state interest) is because those priorities serve the common good, the general welfare, etc.....by fostering continued population growth, which fosters economic growth, which is a prerequisite for growth of the tax base to do stuff the public deems to serve the common good, general welfare, etc..... If marriage doesn't offer a benefit to those aims, then the state has no interest in getting involved in it at all.

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

---

Your ignorance of the concept of state interest in the context of American constitutional law is profound, and completely undermines your ability to understand what you are talking about.

Explain, clearly, the state interest in providing tax incentive for an individual to marry a thing it loves (a bird, a tree, a same-sex lover, etc....) if that marriage cannot produce issue? Sure, same-sex couples might feel happier to have their love recognized as a marriage, but wouldn't the happiness itself be the reward? What additional benefit is to be derived from public subsidy of the relationship?

The issue of issue is hardly a trivial one. Replacement birth rate is 2.1 and we are smoking on on about 1.58. If we are to avoid the the costs of demographic collapse, we need to consider policies that can at least maintain population levels. Getting that growth by letting every Tomas, Ricardo, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande at 5m per year is going to be very socially destabilizing.

Stop feeling your way thru this. Think.

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

---

If you had a time machine and could go back to the framers and float your idea that what they were crafting allows men to marry other men....after they got done laughing in your face and threw you out on your arse, you'd return home hopefully with a very different idea about the original intent of "freedom" and "spirit of America".

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

Think and write more clearly.

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.
Silly distraction ploy. But the irony is amusing (of seeing a progressive extol the virtue of individual liberty).

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?
Mercy sakes. A progressive describing taxation as punishment. Don't often hear that.

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time. And neither did I. You imputed it because your argument needed it to be there. It was a founding document most unique in that it LIMITED the powers of the government, as the founders realized that government itself is the most direct threat to natural rights.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?
.....but not the freedom to the public to define marriage in a way that best serves the needs of society. The ONLY reason the state gets involved at all (state interest) is because those priorities serve the common good, the general welfare, etc.....by fostering continued population growth, which fosters economic growth, which is a prerequisite for growth of the tax base to do stuff the public deems to serve the common good, general welfare, etc..... If marriage doesn't offer a benefit to those aims, then the state has no interest in getting involved in it at all.

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

---

Your ignorance of the concept of state interest in the context of American constitutional law is profound, and completely undermines your ability to understand what you are talking about.

Explain, clearly, the state interest in providing tax incentive for an individual to marry a thing it loves (a bird, a tree, a same-sex lover, etc....) if that marriage cannot produce issue? Sure, same-sex couples might feel happier to have their love recognized as a marriage, but wouldn't the happiness itself be the reward? What additional benefit is to be derived from public subsidy of the relationship?

The issue of issue is hardly a trivial one. Replacement birth rate is 2.1 and we are smoking on on about 1.58. If we are to avoid the the costs of demographic collapse, we need to consider policies that can at least maintain population levels. Getting that growth by letting every Tomas, Ricardo, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande at 5m per year is going to be very socially destabilizing.

Stop feeling your way thru this. Think.

---

Thinking is regressive kryptonite. It's all FEELINGS! If I feel like a woman then I can chest-feed. The idiots will destroy us all.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Mankind. Thru thousands of years of civilization, every single society learned it was the only practical way to build and maintain society over successive generations. Over and over and over again, experience shows traditional marriage is the best way to ensure replacement population growth and social stability.

But you defined all that as systemic oppression, embraced queer theory, and now we have drag shows in public elementary school classrooms. And berating your critics for trying to deny freedom of others to groom children into deviant lifestyle choices.

---

I don't think you understood the argument, but no matter. You and I are saying the same thing. The US government didn't create marriage, it just recognized it.

Your argument that it should be done x way because it used to be is old as the hills and almost directly opposes the spirit of America. This is a nation where we, or at least we used to, embrace the values of all sorts of people. A grand experiment to see if different people can be neighbors. In 1776 an entirely, 100% progressive idea. Something nobody but real Americans thought would work.

The fact that in 2022 you think the US government should do things the way humanity did things millenia ago is..... Precious.

Truly, you are in a glass tower so fine I hope you get out of it and sell it on ebay to make your fortune.

Merry Christmas!

---

Perhaps the most unique aspect of our founding is that the framers of our Constitution were learned men who applied the philosophical lessons of history to craft a document that sought to protect the Republic from what history over and over showed to be the worst impulses of mankind. And it is in that regard your comment in bold is most stupefyingly arrogant. So mankind had it wrong for 20k years of social contract, until Team Porteroso showed up with the brilliant and never before considered idea that civilization would be far stronger, wealthier, and more durable if built upon same sex marriage? I suppose that would not be out of character for like-minded people to have decided that mankind's discovery of fire and subsequent millennia of experimentation resulting in the transformation of it into internal combustion engines which afforded things like electricity to heat homes and engage in intercontinental travel & trade was all a cunning plan to destroy the earth's climate.

The Poli-Sci 101 answer here is that state policy must serve state interest. States recognize and promote marriage for the purpose of maintaining population growth and economic growth, tax base, and stable 2-parent families which every study ever done shows to have best outcomes for children. States have NO INTEREST whatsoever spending public monies to register the creation and dissolution of emotional relationships which cannot create children.

Now that we decided to go the route of same-sex marriage rather than using contract law to accomplish equity, we have to rework tax law to make sure we only affording tax preferences to marriages which can produce children.

Why on earth would we give a marriage tax break to a same sex couple?

---

You know what state interests are in America? FREEDOM!!! Beautiful isn't it? I'm joking you don't really want freedom for everyone.
Silly distraction ploy. But the irony is amusing (of seeing a progressive extol the virtue of individual liberty).

You are confusing 2 things in the government's arsenal to promote its interests, punishment and reward. It's fine to reward child bearing couples with a tax break, but not find to punish couples who won't bear children. Do I need to tell you why?
Mercy sakes. A progressive describing taxation as punishment. Don't often hear that.

And go read a book in the meantime, because what the framers did radically broke the mold of previous rebellions and revolutions. Nobody has ever described the Constitution as conservative for its time. And neither did I. You imputed it because your argument needed it to be there. It was a founding document most unique in that it LIMITED the powers of the government, as the founders realized that government itself is the most direct threat to natural rights.

The way on which it was the most radical and progressive, was the amount of freedom and power given to the citizens. This is essentially the spirit of America, but you would destroy it to make sure couples are only allowed to marry if they serve state interests?
.....but not the freedom to the public to define marriage in a way that best serves the needs of society. The ONLY reason the state gets involved at all (state interest) is because those priorities serve the common good, the general welfare, etc.....by fostering continued population growth, which fosters economic growth, which is a prerequisite for growth of the tax base to do stuff the public deems to serve the common good, general welfare, etc..... If marriage doesn't offer a benefit to those aims, then the state has no interest in getting involved in it at all.

Please, comeback with a coherent argument.

---

Your ignorance of the concept of state interest in the context of American constitutional law is profound, and completely undermines your ability to understand what you are talking about.

Explain, clearly, the state interest in providing tax incentive for an individual to marry a thing it loves (a bird, a tree, a same-sex lover, etc....) if that marriage cannot produce issue? Sure, same-sex couples might feel happier to have their love recognized as a marriage, but wouldn't the happiness itself be the reward? What additional benefit is to be derived from public subsidy of the relationship?

The issue of issue is hardly a trivial one. Replacement birth rate is 2.1 and we are smoking on on about 1.58. If we are to avoid the the costs of demographic collapse, we need to consider policies that can at least maintain population levels. Getting that growth by letting every Tomas, Ricardo, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande at 5m per year is going to be very socially destabilizing.

Stop feeling your way thru this. Think.

---

Thinking is regressive kryptonite. It's all FEELINGS! If I feel like a woman then I can chest-feed. The idiots will destroy us all.

---

change from future-will to are-current and you are all good.

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

---

If the government is going to get involved in social issues, yes it is.

MSM sucks pic.twitter.com/DRiHUpu7Ij

— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) December 30, 2022

SHUT THE FRONT DOOR .. mentally ill are mentally ill.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

---

so is butt sex between consenting heterosexual couple ok. Or is it just wrong for Homosexuals ? Asking for a friend!

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

---

so is butt sex between consenting heterosexual couple ok. Or is it just wrong for Homosexuals ? Asking for a friend!

---

Probably not something you want to be doing to a partner you care about…if you don't want them getting rectal cancer or having incontinence problems at a young age.

J.R. said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

A little ridiculous to think this is on the same plane as homosexual behavior. There is a difference between grooming a child in public, and wanting to marry a consenting adult. How are the 2 being equated?

---

Because a slope has a directional progression.

---

These are 2 separate slopes though. Rights for adults, versus society grooming children.

---

It's the same slope. When you legitimized homosexual behavior as a normal part of social and cultural mores, this is the progression that occurs. We didn't establish gay marriage for the same reasons we established traditional marriage.. And that break in the social contract delegitimized the reason for government subsidized marriage.

What we champion in culture will influence and push the boundaries of the acceptable at every turn. Sometimes that's a force for good and sometimes it has unintended consequences. So if you can't see how embracing the homosexual lifestyle could lead to this, as well as the current insane perspectives on transgenderism, I'm not sure what to tell you. We don't get to here without having crossed the gay marriage threshold then,

---

Wait who established traditional marriage? Can you explain your view of that? How government gradually recognized it is a sort of establishment, but the government did not begin the institution of marriage for any given purpose.

Not that its worth arguing. I'm not embracing the homosexual lifestyle, because I'm not gay. I am however embracing the American lifestyle, because I love me some freedom. In the end all you want is to deny others freedom because you think you're right on the social issues. You even might be! But the government's job is not to be right on social issues.

You know how ridiculous your post is, I can tell. You are grasping hard to equate child groomers with homosexuals.

---

Government's - in theory - should be utilitarian not psychologists. Governments have a cultural interest in incentivizing stable, child-producing marriages. Hence, that is why it got in the recognition of marriage business. Personally, I would get government out of it as marriage is a religious institution, but I respect the legal necessity for things like property rights, inheritance.

Freedom has never been absolute. And I know you do not really "love you some freedom" as much as you love the freedom you love and don't love all freedom. Now, I apologize if that's personal but just an educated guess. Just like when others post "they don't want government in healthcare" really want government in healthcare just they want post-birth abortion.

---

I'm glad you apologized! You were right to do so, after such a wrong statement. One of my core political beliefs is that Americans spend far too much time trying to deny others the freedoms they themselves don't value.

I make a point to try to value anyone's perceived values even if I disagree. The fact that at first you were so terribly wrong just tells me you have this image of people built up in your mind, maybe call it a stereotype, and you expect me to fit neatly into it. But apology accepted, and no harm done.

Merry Christmas!

---

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

---

Did you try reading? I can break it down for you if necessary.

---

You support butt sex. Pretty simple.

---

so is butt sex between consenting heterosexual couple ok. Or is it just wrong for Homosexuals ? Asking for a friend!

---

Totally ok if you want to wear depends the rest of your life.