Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you really are a woman and not Lesbo then I am surprised based on your posts in this thread and others. Or you have some other issues which are not my concern. I think you are not being truthful.
I am sure. But as you have confirmed and I have stated if you are not a guy then you do not understand what I wrote because it is about orientation. Ask your husband if you have one.
What I do understand is that you're afraid to answer the question because it would make you a hypocrite of the first order. You like oral sex. Admitting would blow your argument out of the water, that it's designed to fit into a vagina and not in any other orifice because that would be an aberration.
You lose, and thanks for playing.
Yes, you can say whatever hate-filled words you want. Don't complain when your company fires you for smearing their image (more importantly, their bottom line).
Next we will not be able to say anything bad about a deviant pedophile. We will be called bigots and hateful.
Then they would be married. That's the point. What constitutes marriage. This is not discrimination, that would like saying we can block the man who wants to marry his laptop from having certain rights. Well at some point you have to draw the line. Everyone can't marry the way they want to. What's the standard? Should people be able to marry kids? Their own kids? How do you define what marriage is if you are trying to determine that what it was defined as before was wrong?
The "standard" should be what society deems acceptable. If someday we accept men marrying laptops, or horses marrying battleships, or any other idiotic scenario you could dream up, then so be it.
Who are you to say that gays can't marry each other? Hint: your side is losing.
Of course it changed the definition of marriage. Before Loving v. Virginia, civil marriage in Virginia was defined as being between people of the same race. Loving v. Virginia re-defined marriage in Virginia (and 15 other states) by eliminating the same race requirement.
Semantics. You are saying redefinition, I am talking about removing a provision. A state saying you can't marry your cousin, is not redefining marriage, it is stating a provision.
Sure, everyone is different and every relationship is different, but they are all still couples
I'm not talking about the kind of relationship or closeness. I'm talking about the fact that the relationship involves a man and a woman vs a woman/woman or a man/man. There's a HUGE difference between gay couples and straight couples.......creation of life and having a vagina and penis involved. A penis was made for a vagina, not a rectum. The vagina has two function and a penis has two functions. A rectum only has one function.
The "standard" should be what society deems acceptable. If someday we accept men marrying laptops, or horses marrying battleships, or any other idiotic scenario you could dream up, then so be it.
Who are you to say that gays can't marry each other? Hint: your side is losing.
That's fine. If society defines that to be okay, then so be it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
