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

[Correll]

Remaking society with out consent? Who's consent? Yours? And what about the results. Where is the harm? We have had same sex marriage for quite a while now. Tell us all about the harm it has caused.

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other ***** while married to his nude model.
calm the **** down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

 

[G.T.]

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other ***** while married to his nude model.
calm the **** down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

You are not capable...its too much ignorance within you.

You were told why gender roles are arbitrary ~ you havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

You havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.


You're not logical. You piss, moan. ***** and complain about name calling and literally all youve done is ignored the arguments and went "poopy liberals!!! Poopy gays ruining marriage!! all liberals do is x y,z amd name call!!"

^ all ad hom, all name calling....and all at the same time as whining about name calling and ad hom...and Im not even a liberal..

Youre a ******* schmuck and have lost every, literally every... argument Ive ever seen you engaged in.

Bottom tier debater = Correll. Youre the table scraps.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.

I think it is important to point out that traditional does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b]. Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.

Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.

Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.

The LIbEral attacks on “traditional” marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.

Thank you. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between me and Progressive on that.

What miscommunication? Horseshit to both of you. There was no miscommunication. I know exactly where your coming from with your appeal to tradition fallacy. Let me tell you something. I have a" traditional " family. Tradition has it's place. But traditions change. They evolve , and that is healthy. Stagnation is not healthy. Advocation for more inclusiveness is not an attack on the traditional family. To claim that it is , is just idiotic, paranoid, lugubrious horseshit.!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bullshit! That is not my task. You are not going to suck me into a discussion about the origins and history of gender rolls-or whether or not they were arbitrary. . That is not the issue. It is just another one of your logical fallacies intended to obfuscate the issue -which is whether or not the bans on same sex marriage were arbitrary- and they were.

Now I know what you problem is. You are hung up on tradition and stuck in the past as evidenced by your obsession with gender rolls. Regardless of why people adhered to gender rolls then, or the fact that some still do, the fact is-as I have pointed out-that two people of the same gender can and do form a family unit and fulfill all of the necessary rolls to do so. I don't have to prove that. The evidence is all around us in the form of hundreds of thousands of same sex couples who maintain households and who have formed families. You're so called argument is bogus and beyond laughable. End of story.

So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,

while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.



And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls. Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

Sufficiently blurred? By what?

Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life... You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up. Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences is ridiculous and demonstrably false.

Wow. Your reading comprehension is not so great.


I said that Marriage, an ancient institution was based, note paste tense, on traditional gender roles.


Ok. so now you are making the point, finally, that in the modern age, that gender roles have changed, or lessened in importance. (you are still very poor at communicating)


Ok, that is a fair point. BUT.


1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.


2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.

3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.



It is sad not only that I have to lead you to your own points, to have a real discussion, but that it takes so long to do so, because normally all you can do is spout various logical fallacies. I really get the feeling that when you finally made your point, that you sort of did so by accident.

We did not agree on anything Dude!! You have been claiming that the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary when I have contended that they were. You are hung up what marriage was thousands of years ago and I am saying that the only thing that matters is what marriage, and gender rolls are now.

 

[Polishprince]

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.

So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.

Most likely result, imo, massive rate of divorce, with all the problems that the brings.

BUT, as we have seen with other social changes brought by progressives, the connections and results of such progressive social changes are often surprising and generally negative.


Generally, it is on the person advocating the change, that has to make the case that the change will be good.


Quite clever the way you dodged that. Very divisive and dishonest and harmful to the nation as as whole, but effective.

What the **** are you blathering about now? Gay marriage contributes to divorce ? I can't wait to hear you try to explain that horseshit. And by the way, the divorce rat is down. You seem to be struggling to come up with something but you have nothing.

I will add that the burden of proof is on those who want to place restrictions on rights and social progress -to show that thos restrictions or limitations are justifiable

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1. Correct. The Courts are not "Democratic". THere were no votes. Indeed, voters were generally overruled.

2. We have had same sex marriage for very little time. It is too early to tell the harm. Based on other liberals assaults on marriage, it does not look likely to be good.

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other ***** while married to his nude model.
calm the **** down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

 

[Polishprince]

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other ***** while married to his nude model.
calm the **** down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

Just because someone doesn't want it in the caboose doesn't make them a "bigot" or have a "fear of change". A lot of Americans, a lot of people in every country, find that kind of thing to be very disturbing.

What, IMHO, is more disturbing isn't the legality of Gay Marriage- but instead the fact that it is shoved in the face of Americans who want nothing to do with it. If people were to keep their sodomical relationships discrete and confidential, revealing them to people on a "need to know" basis, they would get a lot less negative feedback. But that would defeat the purpose of the Institution of Gay Marriage, which is to freak out and outrage Straight Arrows and "prudes".

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Govt.
Even if you don't get the mechanism in their thinking behind this,
just know
it's roughtly parallel (not exactly the same)
as you NOT wanting churches to get law enforcement power.
That's crossing a line where you understand these should stay separate.
Well, that's how they see same sex marriage beliefs
going too far by getting involved with government.
That crosses the line for them.

More of you usual convoluted blather where you seem to be trying to placate both sides of the issue.
"They don't want beliefs they don't agree with endorsed, established, imposed or enforced through Gov"? To damned bad. Np one is imposing anything on them . The "beliefs " that they don't agree with is treating a group of people with respect, dignity and equality.

My position on granting a church police powers is in no way equivalent. I want to keep religion out of government, they wan government based on religion

I imagine I am with the majority in my opinion on this.
I don't 100% support either side. I totally support a private business not wanting to do something if it is against their beliefs. Even not serve minorities if that is their thing. And then I will enjoy sitting back and watch their business crumble. People should be able to do what they want to do. We don't need the government mandating our morals.
At the same time, I have no issue with gay marriage. Because...wait for it... people should be able to do what they want to do.
I do not support a church having to perform a gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. Why the **** would two gay people want to get married there if not to antagonize?
Gay marriage? No problem.
Gay people trying to force themselves onto people who clearly don't want it... problem.

 

[G.T.]

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

Your life is offensive to the public

 

[Polishprince]

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

Your life is offensive to the public

I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.

But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass. And my point is, they really don't. They just don't want to hear about it.

 

[G.T.]

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

Your life is offensive to the public

I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.

But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass. And my point is, they really don't. They just don't want to hear about it.

You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen

 

[Polishprince]

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

Your life is offensive to the public

I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.

But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass. And my point is, they really don't. They just don't want to hear about it.

You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen

Hardly, I'm just observing reality.

Out in San Fran, its certainly considered ordinary for people to pitch their tents on the sidewalks, crap in the streets and openly engage in butt sex. But that's not everywhere. If certainly isn't the case in the Great City of Hermitage or in Youngstown, Canton, or the other great cities of the American Heartland that libs hate.

 

[G.T.]

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

Your life is offensive to the public

I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.

But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass. And my point is, they really don't. They just don't want to hear about it.

You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen

Hardly, I'm just observing reality.

Out in San Fran, its certainly considered ordinary for people to pitch their tents on the sidewalks, crap in the streets and openly engage in butt sex. But that's not everywhere. If certainly isn't the case in the Great City of Hermitage or in Youngstown, Canton, or the other great cities of the American Heartland that libs hate.

good for you

 

[Correll]

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other ***** while married to his nude model.
calm the **** down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

You are not capable...its too much ignorance within you.

You were told why gender roles are arbitrary ~ you havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.

You said the left is attacking marriage ~ you were countered by the behavior of the current Republican President of the United States' behavior.

You havent countered that except by saying nuh uh.


You're not logical. You piss, moan. ***** and complain about name calling and literally all youve done is ignored the arguments and went "poopy liberals!!! Poopy gays ruining marriage!! all liberals do is x y,z amd name call!!"

^ all ad hom, all name calling....and all at the same time as whining about name calling and ad hom...and Im not even a liberal..

Youre a ******* schmuck and have lost every, literally every... argument Ive ever seen you engaged in.

Bottom tier debater = Correll. Youre the table scraps.

1. You found some examples showing that gender roles are not absolute or completely rigid. I correctly pointed out to you, that that does not make your claim that they are thus arbitrary. You ignored that, and now tell yourself that you made a point. This is standard liberal dishonesty.


2. The Left has been attacking Marriage for quite some time. The fact that the current President of the Untied States has personally failed at two marriages, does not challenge my claim. Your logic is very weak.

3. I try to construct logical arguments to support my positions. I know that it alien to you.

4. You misunderstand, or pretend to misunderstand my point in referencing your insults. My points are twofold. A. to point out that a personal insult is not a supporting argument, and B. to insult you back to avoid letting your vile lies pass unchallenged.

5. You are an asshole.

 

[Correll]

The basis for your claim to a "right" to marriage, is unsupported. My point about Marriage being based on Traditional Gender roles, is far more grounded, that your empty assertions.

I think it is important to point out that traditional does not mean, nor even imply, [arbitrary[/b]. Many, perhaps most, traditions are a result of determining what works and what does not.

Thousands of years of human experience, across many unconnected cultures, proves that it is marriage between a man and a woman, as the basis of a family, and such a family, as the basic unit of society, is what consistently produces the best outcomes for individuals, for families, and for a society as a whole.

Wherever a society deviates very far from this, the results are never good.

The LIbEral attacks on “traditional” marriage and family are ultimately attacks on society itself.

Thank you. Perhaps there was a miscommunication between me and Progressive on that.

What miscommunication? Horseshit to both of you. There was no miscommunication. I know exactly where your coming from with your appeal to tradition fallacy. Let me tell you something. I have a" traditional " family. Tradition has it's place. But traditions change. They evolve , and that is healthy. Stagnation is not healthy. Advocation for more inclusiveness is not an attack on the traditional family. To claim that it is , is just idiotic, paranoid, lugubrious horseshit.!

I made no Appeal to Tradition. If you believe that, you just demonstrated your poor communication skills.


AND ironically, supported Blaylock's point on communication.

 

[Correll]

So, you argue that same sex marriages can work, because both sexes are capable of performing both gender roles,

while at the same time arguing that Marriage is NOT based on gender roles.



And you accuse me of using pretzel logic. lol!

No Dude....I said that both parties- same sex or otherwise, are capable of performing all necessary rolls. Not gender rolls. The lines between gender rolls in todays society have been sufficiently blurred to make the term "gender roll" more or less obsolete . There is no contradiction there .You need to work on your reading comprehension skills

Sufficiently blurred? By what?

Dude! Get real!! Blurred by the reality of modern life... You are still living in the days of little house on the prairie when Paw went out to hunt dinner and Maw cooked it up. Again, you contention that only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage because of gender roll differences is ridiculous and demonstrably false.

Wow. Your reading comprehension is not so great.


I said that Marriage, an ancient institution was based, note paste tense, on traditional gender roles.


Ok. so now you are making the point, finally, that in the modern age, that gender roles have changed, or lessened in importance. (you are still very poor at communicating)


Ok, that is a fair point. BUT.


1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.


2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.

3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.



It is sad not only that I have to lead you to your own points, to have a real discussion, but that it takes so long to do so, because normally all you can do is spout various logical fallacies. I really get the feeling that when you finally made your point, that you sort of did so by accident.

We did not agree on anything Dude!! You have been claiming that the bans on same sex marriage were not arbitrary when I have contended that they were. You are hung up what marriage was thousands of years ago and I am saying that the only thing that matters is what marriage, and gender rolls are now.

No walking it back. You've admitted that at least part of your reasoning, is that gender roles have changed with time.


That means, that the institution of Marriage, created thousands of years ago, cannot be attacked as arbitrary, based on changes in gender roles occurring in the last few decades.



Thus, My response to that admission on your part, stands, and you addressing it, is the next step in the debate. Repeated assertions of your initial position, ignoring legitimate points of discussion over 60 pages of debate,

is the logical fallacy of proof by assertion and the act of an asshole.


Please don't do that.


Try again.






1. Does not change the fact that our agreed upon point, is that the restrictions have to be arbitrary to be discrimination, is still true, because the institution of Marriage developed thousands of years ago. SO, again, going to the Courts was based on a false premise. That you are still defending. Badly.


2. That is the type of point that would have, should have been used in the debate to pass laws either changing marriage, or creating civil unions.

3. Your side instead felt it was more important to divide Americans against each other and smear anyone that disagreed as bigots. That was really quite vile of your side. Instead of having a reasonable debate on the issue.

 

[Correll]

2. Ten years is a drop in the bucket. It took generations before we realize how terrible single motherhood was. Thanks for that one, btw. Good job, lefty.

So what horrors do you anticipate.? What slippery slope fallacies are you contemplating and ruminating about.? You're just a pearl clutching hysterical who is living in the past and terrified of social change and evolution.

Most likely result, imo, massive rate of divorce, with all the problems that the brings.

BUT, as we have seen with other social changes brought by progressives, the connections and results of such progressive social changes are often surprising and generally negative.


Generally, it is on the person advocating the change, that has to make the case that the change will be good.


Quite clever the way you dodged that. Very divisive and dishonest and harmful to the nation as as whole, but effective.

What the **** are you blathering about now? Gay marriage contributes to divorce ? I can't wait to hear you try to explain that horseshit. And by the way, the divorce rat is down. You seem to be struggling to come up with something but you have nothing.

I will add that the burden of proof is on those who want to place restrictions on rights and social progress -to show that thos restrictions or limitations are justifiable

OMG, you directly asked me a question, and I answered it.


Well, when I put it down like that I can see how, as a liberal, you would not understand what just happened.


Go back, read it again, and try responding again. Or not. I know you don't really care about answers to you questions.

 

[Polishprince]

The fact that President Trump has had divorces is irrelevant to any argument. People have a right to divorce, that's the law, for any reason or no reason at all.


But, personally , I have a real problem with Gay Divorces. Normative judges- many of them who are broads in 2019- really don't have to hear the details of what a couple of Bum Buddies are doing and why they think they are "incompatible".

Gay Divorces should be done strictly online or by correspondence. Airing this kind of dirty laundry publicly is abusive to the general public.

If People want engage in sodomy, that's one thing, but making a public spectacle of it is pushing the envelope. Keeping someone's Gay Marriage information sealed, where the couple can do the right thing and keep it confidential, is the decent thing to do.

Your life is offensive to the public

I think I know that already, that the Ruling Liberal Elite finds ordinary Deplorable Americans to be "offensive", especially Honky Christian normative male Americans.

But you are off the beaten path here of this discussion- which is why people have a problem with others taking it in the ass. And my point is, they really don't. They just don't want to hear about it.

You aren't ordinary, you are a drama queen

Hardly, I'm just observing reality.

Out in San Fran, its certainly considered ordinary for people to pitch their tents on the sidewalks, crap in the streets and openly engage in butt sex. But that's not everywhere. If certainly isn't the case in the Great City of Hermitage or in Youngstown, Canton, or the other great cities of the American Heartland that libs hate.

good for you

Like I said, homosexuality is something to share on a need to know basis.

I'm 62 and a decade ago, at the advice of my physician, I was given a screen colonoscopy. I was a little bit concerned. A homosexual acquaintance volunteered to have the test instead- he explained that taking the large instrument in the keister was exciting to him.

I didn't find it to be that thrilling at all- but it did give me assurance that I would probably be ok with it

 

[Correll]

lol liberal assaults on marriage

the potus...the leader of the free world..... is on his....what number marriage, and even talks about grabbing other ***** while married to his nude model.
calm the **** down, grampa

Correll is always good for a laugh.

You are always good to make fun of people and think that you are supporting an position.


LIbs are dim like that.

Making fun of you. ? You reap what you sow Dude. You are ridiculous!

It is ridiculous that I try so hard to get you libs to actually discuss the issues, instead of degenerate to your normal mode of behavior.


That more deserves sympathy, not ridicule.


You are just an asshole. You and yours.

More horseshit! I made my points, that were all lost on you because you are stuck in the mud with your traditionalism, fear of change and bigotry

You have repeated your initial position over and over again, and made a lot of personal attacks and unsupported assertions.

So far you have only made two actual points.


1. That the idea of Gay Marriage being a civil rights case, is based on the idea that the restrictions against it, were arbitrary.


2. That the gender roles have changed in the modern era.



Everything else has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.