Not another homosexual thread

unclehobart said:
Is it still cheating if they film it for you and hand you a 30 VHS tape retrospective for Christmas?
Click to expand...

thats a touchy thing makin porno......making porno is like riding a moped it's fun untill your friends see you doin it... how a fun thing turns bad when the "wrong" vhs tape makes it's way to the vcr when friends and family are over...im seing alot of emotions used within your messages im kinda slow on this forum so if someone wouldn't mind filling in the ignorant
 
MrBishop said:
I heard a little bit about this on the radio. One person who called in mentioned that this whole thing might be a way to discredit same-sex unions. If homosexual sex doesn't even fall under the terms of Adultery because it's not considered a 'real relationship', then same-sex marriage shouldn't be considered at all, for the same reasons.

Seems more like a conspiracy theory, but you never know how politicians think, eh?
Click to expand...


Damnit, I was gonna post that. :D

Makes it an interesting ruling. If non-heterosexual unions are not considered a violation of the sanctity of marriage & therefore not allowed to be used as grounds for divorce, then homosexual couples couldn't properly consecrate their marriage & thus thewir marriage becomes null & void, since lack of consecrating a marriage is considered grounds for divorce.

The conspiracy wouldn't be with the politicians, Bish, it would be with the rulings of the courts, since they are suddenly in the job of making law as well as judging it.
 
Nitro_RaiDen said:
thats a touchy thing makin porno......making porno is like riding a moped it's fun untill your friends see you doin it... how a fun thing turns bad when the "wrong" vhs tape makes it's way to the vcr when friends and family are over...im seing alot of emotions used within your messages im kinda slow on this forum so if someone wouldn't mind filling in the ignorant
Click to expand...
seems i have discovered the power of smilies on my own
:blow: <-----thats a rather interesting smile mebbe i better go with a warning on this

the following post may have images of a graphic nature please use your parental discresion when allowing minors to view this post.........mebbe i should have put the warning before the picture ?
 
Why bother, they could explain it to you if you're having problems.
 
In California, this would all be a moot point. The only grounds for divorce here are "irreconcilable differences" and "incurable insanity." If your wife leaves you for another woman and you can't handle that, just check the "irreconcilable differences" box.
 
or if she won't let you watch/join in, in which case it could end up with the 'uncurable insanity' option. :D
 
ris said:
kind of reminds me of the victorian homosexuality laws in the uk. It might be an old wives tale but it was often said that Queen Victoria didn't believe lesbianism existed as they had nothing to perform sexual pentration with [as compared to male homosexual relationships, which were illegal for many decades under the same laws], as a result lesbianism was not part of the law.

could all be bollocks but still amusing if true.
Click to expand...

No tongues in the Victorian age? :confused: Then again, women didn't have orgasms then, either, so it's pretty much a moot point. ;)
 
MrBishop said:
I heard a little bit about this on the radio. One person who called in mentioned that this whole thing might be a way to discredit same-sex unions. If homosexual sex doesn't even fall under the terms of Adultery because it's not considered a 'real relationship', then same-sex marriage shouldn't be considered at all, for the same reasons.

Seems more like a conspiracy theory, but you never know how politicians think, eh?
Click to expand...

conspiracy theory? didnt this happen in New Hampshire? come on. live free or die.
 
Unless you hold some retarded opinion that sex is some sacred part of a loving relationship, and more importantly, vice versa, the only relevant issue is what you and your partner deem to be acceptable. If you're okay with your partner having a same-sex lover then you've got NO basis for objecting to an opposite-sex relation - unless you're a retard.
 
a13antichrist said:
Unless you hold some retarded opinion that sex is some sacred part of a loving relationship, and more importantly, vice versa, the only relevant issue is what you and your partner deem to be acceptable. If you're okay with your partner having a same-sex lover then you've got NO basis for objecting to an opposite-sex relation - unless you're a retard.
Click to expand...


so your basically saying that im noti allowed to be turned on by my wife/gf having sexual relations wiht another woman if im turned off by her being wiht a guy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top