False.

Nope. The premise of the union itself is production of life. The premise of the social institutions around marriage, including the laws and customs, is largely about property. But that comes after.

Nonsense. Religion was an inherent part of the marriage unions and customs long before the church became the state.

False. The Amish should feel perfectly free to not recognize gay marriages, for example.

False. I ought to refute arguments, not baseless assertions.

Yes, you're doing it again. You're providing baseless assertion, and you're lying.

Yawn. Provide an argument. Provide something to refute. Say what it is about Burke's writings that differ from modern conservatives, or is similar to modern liberals. Go ahead. Quote from Burke talking about basing society on property and commerce, and show how it is more akin to liberals than conservatives. If you want me to provide a shred of refutation, then make an argument.

But that's just not in you, is it?

Yes, he did. As do I.

Someone who prefers a monarchy. Shouldn't you know that?

False. (ProTip: if you're going to lie, you should make your lie plausible.)

Sex is defined by chromosomes. Gender is defined by a combination of nature and nurture. What does it mean to be the best male or female you can be, without looking to society?

True, but freedom says they should be allowed to be married if they wish (whether or not government recognizes that, or any other marriages, is a separate question).

"Classic liberalism" is, by today's standards, conservatism.

No. He is talking about how the progressivism movement began, which have little to do with "opportunity" and are mostly about fairly extreme socialism.

Again, that was the explicit point of the beginning of the movement: to end slavery.

False. It is. All claims that it isn't are pure fiction. It was created by the government, it is regulated by the government, it's within the Executive Branch, its leadership is appointed by the President, and so on.

You mean other than the massive regulation over it by the federal government. And whether the federal government exercises control over the Fed, is irrespective of whether it is a part of the federal government ... which it is.

Unless the federal government wants them to do something else, in which case it has all power to step in and mandate it.

Thanks for proving the point: the federal government was deeply involved in all of those decisions you're referring to.

Most of those who have studied advanced math have heard of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but not every single one of them understand it

Putting the same Heisenberg's Unvertainty Principle to the "average Joe on the street" and you would most probably get a blank stare

This has nothing to do with elitism, this is about reality

Most people simply do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2, and if you do not believe me, go ask the people around you, why 1 + 1 = 2, and not 1 + 1 = 3 ?

If Apple is that better they would STOP letting their contractor abusing the workers a long time ago

Back in 2010-2011, another contractor, Wintek, caused deaths and injuries to several of its workers due to n-hexane exposure - including one engineer who dropped dead while working

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/technology/23apple.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Anyone can come up with any kind of policy, and what Apple is doing is merely giving lip service to their "policy"

Especially after the death and injuries that had occurred in Wintek last time, Apple ought to have wised up and ensure that their so-called "policy" be strictly followed