So true. Obama has just done the same. He knows it’ll never be a decision he will make in office; it was about getting votes.nGilmore has been a sham.

Red herring while we are being robbed and rest of constitution eroded. The insolvency bill did not go far enough time to get rid of some rights

He has stated a number of things before – then (like Enda) done a complete u-turn or done nothing whatsoever!
When its done – ONLY then can he (and Enda) be trusted – for once!

Very well said.

So people who red thumbed me believe that if you’re Gay, it makes you a lesser person that someone who is straight.

I sometimes wonder is Dana and the lads patrolling these sites or do some people genuinely believe that Gay Men and Women are lesser people ?

For the sake of human decency, I’ll go with my first point.

If there was a god, he/she would have to be bi. AT LEAST.

The other 30percent are those who are being told / have been told that homosexuality is a mortal sin and they believe it.

They’re bigoted old idiots who, for some reason, want to stop other people living their lives.

catholic comment haven’t started the social media debating class yet.

well said!

Milkey, interesting turn of phrase. nLord of the Rings…..

TROLOLOLOLOLOL. Perhaps my subconscious is in sleazy mode today.

Worth noting that they voted against Clare Daly’s X Case bill too. How progressive of them.

Always with that sneaky little Fianna Fáil plug ;)

To be fair, Labour have had and LGBT wing for a number of years now. I wish I could say it was nice to see FF and FG LGBT in the pride parade yesterday, but it’s obvious that it’s nothing more than a vote getting excercise. FF were quite happy to be cheek to cheek with the Catholic church for many decades. The idea that they’ve suddenly changed is kinda hard to believe.

@ Stephen Carroll

When Labour in government introduce legislation for gay marriage they’ll get due credit. Not a second before that.

I am caught on how to answer this… Should i be optimistic on Gilmore being progressive and making these sound bites, but voting against the motions when they are presented in the Dail, or should i be annoyed that FF are trying to score points off the issue… let me think… dumb, de dee, dumb. Says it all really.

It’s ok for them to change their position in response to changes in public opinion. That is a good thing to happen in a democracy. As long as they actually follow through on what they say, of course…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome Read this if you don’t believe me

That’s the stupidest ,historically inaccurate thing i’ve seen all day .Who wrote it the Spartacus screen writer :) Romans where at some points in there history liberal about sexuality but homosexuality was never seen as the norm

To be fair we should be aiming to give equal rights to all sections of society, why shouldn’t gay people have the right to marry? Considering that state marriage is a completely different institution to religious marriage

no1curr old man.

Many people today get married without the intention to have children, wither for health reasons or personal reasons. Do you suggest their marriages are also illegitimate? Hard to understand why some people are so passionate about gay couples and their children not being entitled to equality under the law.

To the best of my knowledge there is only one marriage in Ireland, and that is a state institution, traditionally for the protection of children should they ensue. There are many ways to enter that institution. nWhy the ageism? That is in breach of a valid human right.

Not really addressing my point Paddy. If you think the only valid reason for marriage is for procreation then what about all the married couples who don’t want or can’t have kids?

Someone’s pressed.

Recommended reading for poor Paddy:

Gay Community Apologizes For Ruining Minnesota State Senator’s Marriage

@ Mark PhillipsnYour point had not yet got through when I replied. Society’s standard has been ‘a possibility of having children’. This has been applied without age or other considerations. Only that it includes one man and one woman. It has worked very well for society. Break this rule tested by time and enshrined wisely in the laws of nations for many generations. nWhat’s next, why can’t I have multiple spouses, why can’t I marry my pet cat?

@ Paddy

What’s the weather like on the wrong side of history? :)

I wish I could marry my cat. AT LEAST THEN SOMEBODY WOULD LOVE ME.

@Paddy,nThank goodness you are by and large in the lesser side of general opinion.nThis is not about some perverted person marrying an animal nor is it about bigamy. It’s about allowing two human beings (like yourself) to receive the same equal rights as a couple as every other human couple be they a man and a woman, two men or two women!nAnd yes gay people be them men or women can procreate, requires less conventional methods but nothing heterosexuals in this country and around the world aren’t already doing in an attempt to have families and those children born to or in the care of gay parents deserve the same security and legal benefits that straight couples have over their children!

I was wondering how long it’d take before you brought up marrying animals and polygamy. That’s a stupid straw-man argument. People want equality under civil law for a couple of the same sex and bestiality/polygamy has nothing to do with it.

You still haven’t said what you want to happen to non-procreational marriages by the way but I guess you aren’t likely to come up with something if you have already turned to the “marrying my pet” line…

@ Paddy, the concept of marriage existed long before Christianity. No religion should have a monopoly on what the definition of marriage is. Strict Islam allows men to marry multiple women at any one time. The same occurs with Mormons. In Ancient Ireland women were allowed to have multiple husbands (indeed, there is still no word in Irish for either wife or husband, with fear or bean chéile used instead which simply translates as man or woman mate). Apart from anything else, it was in Galicia in Northern Spain when the first Catholic gay marriage occurred in the year 1061 (although link is in Galician). Christianity has claimed ownership of the concept of marriage for 2,000 years. Marriage has been around since at least the beginning of recognisable civilisation (c. 10,000 years). Even excluding the Catholic Church’s modern narrow definition of what is and what is not a marriage, it should also be noted that the word “marriage” itself is simply the noun of the verb “marry”, a word which is still commonly employed in rural areas of Ireland and the UK and which simply means to join together. My own uncle uses it when joining pieces of wire together. Don’t tell me he is no longer allowed, under the Catholic Church’s own rules, to use the English language in its correct manner?

Y’know, everytime some bigot breaks out that “gay marriage will lead to marrying animals/children/toasters” line, I just think of Kent Brockman screaming “IT’S IN REVELATIONS, PEOPLE!”

#CoolStoryBro

@ Old Nokia Charger. Time will tell, the tide of fashion is with you, but we did buck the trend with abortion, perhaps the silent majority with the protection on the constitution will work again. I enjoy looking back at the red thumbs here, I usually get 3/1 against, but that’s a function of the readership, not the voters in a referenda.

Question for Paddy: how exactly would this “redefinition” negatively affect marriage? I have yet to hear anyone answer that question but I’m sure you can.

@Brian Ó Dálaigh Hear, Hear!

@ Paddy

You’re right on the red thumbs, they don’t reflect general public opinion. Polls do though!

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-shows-strong-support-for-same-sex-marriage-363584-Feb2012/

Thats right Paddy, no Irish women are forced to take the humiliating trip to England every year. People are not born Gay, they chose it, and no Priests ever abused Children…

Meanwhile back in the 21st century, people look back on the historical ignorance and religeous control of our peoples with disgust, horror and incredulity.

Get to know some gay couples. I guarantee you that you will change your mind very quickly.

Can’t type fast enough. I believe if marriage is redefined, it opens an old, reliable, institution to all forms of abuse. I have no problem with marriages, of the opposing gender form, that don’t have children. Can’t agree with the multiple spouse scenario either, it is usually of course applied as one man with multiple wives. I don’t think I’m a bigot, but insults flow easily from some. The redefinition effects marriage by making marriage exclusively based on the couple and excludes it’s role towards children for the benefit of society. And yes I do know and love at least two gay people (not married).

Sorry, Paddy, I’m not quite following you. Are you implying that extending the right of civil marriage to same sex couples will discourage straight (married) couples from having children?

Paddy as you mention atheism in one of your arguments I can only assume you are a Catholic. The premise which religion is against homosexuality is based on the teachings of Leviticus. If such as you say you do not believe in gay marriage as its a christian institution then I take it you are aware of the other things in Leviticus such as not having sex with a menstruating woman,not eat shellfish and we can all own slaves? Children need a caring and loving home with gender roles being constructed by society but both parents whether same sex or hetro will each share the responsibility of raising a child . This notion that it needs a mother and father and that there is predefined roles are outdated notions, there is stay at home dads and career women now. Finally Paddy if you do want to marry your cat, fire ahead it might be one way you get pussy inside marriage……

@ Paddy, I really don’t understand how changing the civil definition of marriage is going to negatively effect children. The provisions for the well-being of our nation’s children are not going to be affected by any change in the definition of marriage. Do you really think that if members of the LGBT community are allowed marry that the state will simultaneously remove the provisions providing for the well-being of our nation’s children? The answer is no. Our children will still be cared for. In fact, probably even more so as it will provide a legal foundation for the children of non-heterosexual couples. The worrying thing about what you are saying, is that the more you analyse your position the more it becomes obvious that you don’t trust members of the LGBT community with children. Which basically shows that while you pretend (both to yourself and others) to “know and love…gay people”, the reality is you are actually homophobic and a bigot, no matter how you try to deny or conceal that fact, even if it’s denying it to yourself.

@ Chris Dunphy. What I’m saying Chris is that societies interest in marriage has been for facilitating a stable environment for children, the next generation. The statistics show that a man/woman low conflict environment is the best place for bringing up children. Redefining marriage breaks this relationship between state and marriage, and state support for marriage is no longer required. The introduction of marriage for gay couples, leaves marriage as no more than a good day out for all.

That makes absolutely no sense. You’re saying that if civil marriage is extended to same sex couples that the Sate will cease to support marriage? How would the extension of marriage rights eliminate the “low conflict environment” in which to raise children? Of COURSE state support is still required. How do you reach those conclusions??

You fail to recognise that it is possible for state marriage and religious marriage to be two different things! If I, a straight Irish person living in what would be classed as a relatively conservative part of the country can see that giving gay people the right to marry will have no affect on my quality of life WHATSOEVER then surely you can?

@ Paddy, that is completely untrue. Studies have time and again shown that children of same-sex couples do suffer as a result of such an upbringing, but that the only reason for any negative outcome is not as a result of the parenting skills of the same-sex couple, but as a result of society’s intolerance to the children of such couples. In the words of the 2004 report “Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children”:

There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. . . . Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

A 2009 study in the US by the University of Texas concluded:

Our research shows that there is no difference in children raised by gay or lesbian parents and heterosexual parents. People are people

Perhaps you should read up more about the topic, as I stated earlier, before making ridiculous comments.

@ Deadly Buzz. @Brian Ó DálaighI have only given societal arguments, religion is inappropriate in this environment. The tone is taking a downturn with the label homophobic. I was wondering how long it would take. Talking about environment, I feel like I’ve walked into an inappropriate bar, and it’s time for me to go home to my wife and children. May the wisdom of ages and common sense prevail.

The idea of “one man/one woman” marriage that is the basis of Christian opinion, and is the basis behind its current definition in the constitution, is nonsense. The idea that marriage is “one man, one woman” only came to prominence in the 19th century. The United States, in that century, had to pass 3 separate laws banning polygamy among Christian groups. The Bible itself orders men to take as many wives as possible. It is only since society began to make grounds on treating woman as equal citizens that marriage as an idea became “one man, one woman”. Throughout history marriage has been a constantly evolving idea, again, the idea that it must be one man, one woman is less than 150 years old.

Paddy I never labelled you homophobic that is bandied about too often these days . What I did do was give you a response in a societal and a religious context for you to digest. As is the case enlightenment never comes all at once, that would be overwhelming, it comes in bits and pieces so keep that in mind a chara :)

@Paddy

“The statistics show that a man/woman low conflict environment is the best place for bringing up children.”

Well of course they do (!), as the statistics available are only based on children raised by heterosexuals whether married, civil partnerships, co-habiting, or single parent homes.

Paddy, I labelled you homophobic because that is what you are. You see a fundamental difference between the LGBT community and the rest of society. You are an advocate of continued discrimination against them (denying them the right to marry). You doubt their ability to raise healthy children in a caring and loving environment to the same standards as the children of heterosexual couples. These are classic markers of homophobia. A small piece of information for you, homophobia is not simply the hatred of homosexuals. Homophobia also includes much lesser degrees of discrimination or prejudice as you have openly displayed. Whether or not I labelled you as such doesn’t really matter. My labelling you as such does not change the fact that you have presented yourself, via your opinions, as someone who is indeed homophobic. If you understood what homophobia was you would not have argued that point.

Paddy Paddy Paddy! Your argument is screaming WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! In fact you will find that many studies have found that the highest achieving and most adjusted children with the lowest rate of behavioural problems are infact children from families where 2 mothers are present….i.e Lesbian relationships. See Gatrell et al., (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). It all comes down to whether or not we want to live in an equal society where everyone is treated fairly and with respect. you mightn’t but looks like the majority do!

@ Niall Dooley @ Brian Ó DálaighnNiall the stats had a significant proportion of same sex couples. Brian the standard for the homophobia label is set very clearly at the level of anyone who has a different opinion from yours. I definitely qualify, and so does most of the world.

Paddy, the problem with a lot of people of your generation, is religion. Forced down your throat as a child which in turn, as an adult, won’t allow you to evolve. The Catholic Church is a cancer on this country. Equal status should be for everyone, Gay or Straight.

BTW Paddy, did Catholic Comment train you to link gay marriage with marrying your pet? Claiming your argument has nothing to do with religion seems a bit dishonest.

FYI everyone, Paddy is a speaker for Catholic Comment, a group which trains people to “represent” the Catholic viewpoint in the evil secular media. (http://www.catholiccomment.ie/speakers/)

Paddy, I hope your children feel that, if they were gay, you would be invited to their respective marriage ceremonies to their partners. It would be a Shame if you were left out. nnAlso, if you have a daughter, let’s hope she’s not barron, cos apparently she will never be able to get married either.

Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.
Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one.
Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them.
Don’t like sex? Don’t have it.
Don’t like your rights taken away? Don’t take away anybody elses.

People have the right to get married.

And telling people they can’t get married because their partner is the wrong gender, is an idiotic excuse.

Paddy – why do you feel so strongly about something that has absolutely no affect whatsoever on you? How is it any of your business what other people want to do with their lives if it doesn’t affect you? Baffling why you’d care at all. Go live your own life, FFS.

Ok first Catholic marriage is just a continuation of the Jewish tradition ,so is far older than 2000yrs.It has no history of polygamy ,the issues in the States are simply cults putting there own misogynistic spin on the bible.Next ,marriage is the only sacrament in the Catholic tradition that does not require a priest .It is between the 2 participants ,the priest just blesses the union .State marriage was invented for tax collection purposes ,and that is still it’s main purpose not children .So as long as the state doesn’t order religious groups to perform same sex marriage contracts ,the point is moot as the church doesn’t recognize state marriage anyway !

So, after all of the statements and personal opinions, we have once again failed to establish that extending civil marriage to same-sex couples would be in any detrimental to the institution of marriage. Cool. Can we just get on and legislate for it now? :-)

“The statistics show that a man/woman low conflict environment is the best place for bringing up children.”

What statistics are you talking about?
A slew of recent studies contradict you.

Think it hilarious you banging on about how well marriage is workin when over half ends in divorce, more and more children left languishing in care for want of loving ‘acceptable’ people to adopt and the precious institution you hold so high in regard did everything to protect themselves at the cost of a generation of vulnerable youths…. Please good say your a minnority, our children cant withstand any more damage from people like you and your ignorance

Daddy, I’m married but can’t have children. Does that render my marriage invalid in your eyes?

Soon as I read Paddys post I knew there was some bible thumping going on.

Paddy, you can’t make a rational argument when you set up your stall on something as irrational as Catholicism. Hence why you have not been able to answer peoples questions with a modicum of common sense.

@ dublinlad72. Sorry to disappoint your simple view of ‘my generation’, but my beliefs as now practiced only started at 19 years of age. My beliefs were not ‘forced’, in any way by my parents or teachers. My beliefs were very against the current of my generation. But I suppose if you oppose faith, you’ll always find an excuse for other peoples faith, it is so convenient to believe others are the problem. n@ mark Phillips. I don’t think I made any religious arguments above! The argument about the pet, is just a means of conveying that as soon as marriage is redefined, it opens the floodgates to all other forms of relationships to claim the marriage status hitherto preserved, in the most part, for a man/woman relationship. n@ Martin murphy. I get on very well with all of my children TG. I won’t bring them into this discussion. Just to say I never objected to ‘barren’ persons getting married. That is you putting your misconceptions on me. n@ Damien Knox. I believe we all have a right to marriage, only within the existing criterion. If that is not appropriate then civil partnership helps those with other criterion. There is no wrong gender, just male of female. The idiot comment is probably correct, I’m answering your comment. n@ Sean Herbert. I believe a healthy, life supporting, society is in my interest. Gay marriage is one of these new, 10 years old, ideas of a ‘modern’ society that is an irreversible and dangerous social experiment. n@ Richie. I agree with your comment about how sad marriage has become in western society. This in my way of thinking has been brought about by the separating of sex from procreation, now widely practiced in and out of marriages. Gay marriage is an extension of this already sad state of affairs. As for my ignorance, it not I calling you ignorant. n@ Deborah. Where did I say your marriage was invalid? Read my words not what others say I said, or in their eyes implied. Your marriage I’m sure is as valid as mine. n@ too trueleft. I neither quoted the bible or catholic teaching. As for sense, perhaps it’s in the eve of the beholder.

What about people who can’t have kids? Is their marriage not real! You are entitled to your bigot believes! Like the fashion comment! I always liked to keep up with the current trends!

Ok Paddy, so you are a speaker for ‘catholic comment’ whos mission is to communicate the message of your church but you are communicating your message here in relation to gay marriage completely free of the influence of said church.

Anytime you want a real debate on gay marriage paddy let me know. I will revel in doing to your talking points what your church has done to vulnerable children the world over.

Paddy- you are wrong in saying that gay marriage as an idea is only 10 years old. Same sex marriages have existed in ancient civilisations such as Ancient Rome, Greece, the Ming Dynasty in China and 17th century Spain. At least research your arguments before trying them out.

Paddy, I feel kinda bad for you at this stage so won’t argue with you on this topic (until the next time!). That said, do stop pretending you aren’t arguing from a religious viewpoint. It is obvious from the biases you hold about homosexuality and the language you use that you are a very conservative Catholic. Perhaps in future you’d be best off being more honest about that. The whole “Catholic Comment” thing kinda blows your cover anyway!

Maybe looking into things further would show you gay marriage isn’t some “fad” and the world (including it’s gay people) isn’t such a bad place after all.

I don’t see why being gay and wanting mainstream acceptance are mutually incompatible.

As for wanting to get married and raise children, surely those are the desires of any loving couple, gay or straight?

Erm, equality has nothing to do with the economy.

Daragh you fail to say that homosexuality is, as Genet put it, intrinsically morbid and gays refuse to own up to that. My point is that ‘gays’ only speak for themselves. Some homosexuals don’t care what people think of them and would rather emulate subversive figures such as Genet or Pasolini.
Mikey there is no inequality here in the sense that the State does not recognise sexual orientation (to my knowledge anyway). A citizen heterosexual or homosexual has the same rights and suffers from the same limitations i.e they can marry a person of the opposite sex but not of the same sex so from a strictly LEGAL point of view there is no inequality. Also what’s the point of getting married if you can’t afford to pay your rent or can’t find a job.

Call me a dreamy romantic, but I thought people married cuz they were “in love”. You make it sound awfully like some horrible business agreement.

Flop argument is flop.

Get back under that rock you crawled out from under. A pathetic attempt to deflect this issue back onto the economy. Why don’t you grow a pair and say that you are against marriage for gay people (I don’t like the term ‘gay marriage’ as in and of itself implies difference) based on your religious convictions?

Mikey, kindly point out where my argument is ‘flop’. Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. This is not Harry Potter’s world and there is no magic wand.
Historically ‘love’ marriages are a recent thing. In the past most marriages were arranged which doesn’t necessarily mean forced. If marriage is only about ‘love’ should we also legalise polyandry and polygamy as polyamorous people claim to love several people at the same time.

I know about arranged marriages. I always wanted to be Cersei Lannister.

Niall, it is both and I don’t live under a rock. I am entitled to my religious beliefs whether you like it or not. I am also entitled to have more respect for creative individuals like Genet, Abu Nuwas and Pasolini then a shower of conformist bourgeois homosexuals.

Darren, what the hell are you taking about?nGay people should be allowed Marty who ever they want. Being able to marry the opposite sex cos hetros can is not the same!nAlso what the hell has this to do with the economy?nI’m gay, I’m broke, I’m paying a mortgage ON MY OWN which I’m struggling with, I don’t have a bourgeois lifestyle, I’m suffering like everyone else but why shouldn’t I be allowed to officially marry whoever the lucky lad happens to be? nnIf you don’t like it move to Saudi Arabia!

So, let’s see: a Government can only focus on one issue at a time? Why have so many different Ministers with different portfolios then? And why prioritize debt over, say, healthcare or education. I love this RIDICULOUS notion that gays are some kind of wealthy, bourgeois elite. There are quite a few unemployed gays, quite a few gays up to their eyes in debt. Can I offer you some salt and vinegar for that chip on your shoulder?

@Darren you most certainly are entitled to your beliefs and I will defend your right to have them. Hence, why I was disappointed you lead with an argument about the economy. What I have issue with is where you would like to force your beliefs on society as a whole. I urge you to read Brian Ó Dálaigh excellent post above regarding marriage.

@Darren

Gay people aren’t adopting a heterosexual lifestyle. Gay people have always been this way, you just didn’t know it.
Gay people and straight people aren’t any different. It’s perfectly natural for gay people to raise children and want to raise children. We are just not able to have children.

Joey Teehan – A very proud homosexual.

Tony, as an Irish citizen which I assume you to be, you are entitled to marry a person of the opposite sex. I am an Irish citizen too and cannot marry a person of the same sex if I wanted too. So you see we have the same rights and restrictions. When I say bourgeois I mean conformist and respectability craving.

@Darren what a terrible argument!

“I am an Irish citizen too and cannot marry a person of the same sex if I wanted too. So you see we have the same rights and restrictions.”

The problem is Darren I assume you don’t wish to marry a man. Therefore, you are restricted by law to marry who you wish. A homosexual person is restricted as they may want to marry someone of the same sex.

@Darren

I agree. Arguing with you is completely pointless. Take some time and come back with something better. Get some crayons and some paper and plan it out. If you need help get an adult. Be careful with the scissors.

Niaill how I am forcing my opinions on others? Do you actually think I have any power? I even suggested a referendum on the topic. Let the people decide if marriage should be extended to same-sex couples and let’s move on.
Chris, I like to believe that it is ‘gays’ who have a chip on their shoulder. If they didn’t they wouldn’t crave society’s respect and would do their own thing as Jean Genet did.

Therefore, you are *not restricted by law to marry who you wish.

It must be really frustrating that “the gays” don’t conform to your stereotypes.

Right Darren, youre clearly just an idiot!nnIt’s about having the choice to get married to who we wish like straights can do. You have no right to dictate whether I should be allowed to do this. I don’t rub my sexuality ( which I was born with) in other peoples faces which seems to be you’re problem (narrow minded much) but I still deserve the same rights as idiots like yourself are privileged to have! nI’m not a Jewish person in prewar nazi Germany!

Tony, thanks for the abuse I love you too. Do you support same sex marriage or homosexual marriage? They are actually not the same thing. In the first case the state doesn’t differentiate between straight and gay citizens. As a result there is no equality. There is no only ONE type of citizenship. The second case entails that the state recognises your sexual orientation. Do you really want your sexual orientation to be specified on your passport? That would be going back to the pink star all right…

It was a triangle.

I support same sex marriage Darren and that is what this debate is if you want to nit pick!nMy sexual preference is of no ones business no more then my hair colour, favourite food or the side my knob hangs to!

Privileged minority as in?

And being gay or lesbian does not make them immune from being in debt, and facing the down turn like everyone else.

Plus what’s wrong with being proud of being gay and looking for respectability? Alot of straight peope do that do and no-one complains about that

There are a huge amount of differences between civil unions and marriage before even looking at adoption issues. I think there are less differences in the UK and that causes the confusion here. Check this out if you are interested: http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/justlove/missingpieces.html

There are over 160 differences, Eilish. People are either equal or they’re not. It’s like being pregnant: you can’t be “a little bit” pregnant or “nearly” pregnant.

are both mutually exclusive?

@ Darren Delaney – meh! Yawn!

Yeah because the government can only do one thing at a time.

If more people could marry then think about all the money being pumped into the economy. Problem solved. Simples.

Yes. Good news. That OK with you?

“overt display of sexuality in our streets in daytime is disgusting” I find that highly ironic considering you posted this comment in the day time, from an account where you profile is a picture of a naked torso.

I think it’s time to take off the chastity underwear, it’s cutting off the blood to your brain.

” I am a Mormon”

Yeah, it’s a bit rich about you calling things “crazy” then.