Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say Gay BillFollow

#402 Apr 28 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Thank you.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#403 Apr 28 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Thank you.


I do what I can.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#404 Apr 28 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Seriously, come on, dog rape? This guy does not have it together.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:03pm by Guenny
#405 Apr 28 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Guenny wrote:
Seriously, come on, dog rape? This guy does not have it together.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:03pm by Guenny


I don't know, to me dog rape proves that gays are evil.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#406 Apr 29 2011 at 6:48 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Driftwood wrote:
I'm not saying people shouldn't be against it, I'm just saying that the problem is that the people who are against it make a point of trying to make sure that everyone else ends up being against it, to the point of spending hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars to make sure that legislation doesn't go through.


I feel the same way towards people who push homosexuality acceptace.

Driftwood wrote:
Why don't you show us? You're being just as ridiculous as the other side by acting like you have the manual. You're against it, I get it, I'm fine with that, you just need to be able to admit that you can't say that it's unnatural.


The point is there is no manual of the human body and it doesn't matter if it is or isn't natural. Being blind is natural, but not considered normal. People have made that determination by examining our bodies and how they work.

Driftwood wrote:
We have established that penis goes in vagina, baby comes out 9 months later. What we don't have all the details about is the way the human brain and attraction works. Not completely at least. You're basically saying that procreation is the only reason anyone should have sex ever. And if you really believe that, then it really must suck to not be getting laid.


Basically my argument is based around that at all. You're projecting an argument unto me that I'm not making. People have sex for pleasure all of the time. The FOCUS was on the fact of how the vagina and the penis compliment each other, the fact that reproduction is a result is just a nice bonus.

As for the brain and attraction, I just saw a commercial of a show talking about people who are in LOVE with objects, i.e. their car. What is your honest opinion of those people?

Nadenu wrote:
I'm not surprised he doesn't get this. And now I'm even more afraid of him.


I'm surprised that I can state the opposition numerous of times and it's completely ignored. I question it to prove the very thing wrong and ALL OF THE SUDDEN people "get it". Actually, I'm not surprised at all. You should read more before posting...

Ugly wrote:
You realize that in order for there to be a normal person to set as the 20/20 standard, you have to have set an usual eye sight level, yes?


I'm fully aware of that. I was focusing on the fact that we determine what is normal by examining our bodies.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#407 Apr 29 2011 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm fully aware of that. I was focusing on the fact that we determine what is normal by examining our bodies.
Ok, I wasn't following all that closely and only saw the original quoted text, but weren't you disputing that Doctors/science have set what the normals are? If so, either you're jumping around again, or I'm completely missing where you're going with this. I'd state which I think is the actual issue here, but we all know which one I feel it is.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#408 Apr 29 2011 at 6:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,661 posts
Think of your sig Ugly, you can do it.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#409 Apr 29 2011 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
If you're saying that reproduction through sex is "just a nice bonus" and that pleasure is the main point of sex, then you can't say that anything that give you that pleasure isn't normal. Your argument never make any sense and your comparisons are still terrible.

This message is not directed at you.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#410 Apr 29 2011 at 7:00 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm fully aware of that. I was focusing on the fact that we determine what is normal by examining our bodies.
Ok, I wasn't following all that closely and only saw the original quoted text, but weren't you disputing that Doctors/science have set what the normals are? If so, either you're jumping around again, or I'm completely missing where you're going with this. I'd state which I think is the actual issue here, but we all know which one I feel it is.


I'm confused on the question. If I understand your concern correctly, are you referencing to who is actually making the determination? If so, that was a failure of my own words. I mean people, but I used doctors as examples because that's typically what they do.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#411 Apr 29 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I feel the same way towards people who push homosexuality acceptace.
And the people who pushed desegregation?

Heh, don't worry, I know you don't.

His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Think of your sig Ugly, you can do it.
It's so hard, and I'm ashamed when I fail. That's what differentiates myself from some though, I have the capacity to feel shame.



Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:58am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#412Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 10:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ???
#413 Apr 29 2011 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Segregation and acceptance are two different things.
Exactly. So what's wrong with a law allowing SSM? You don't have to support them or even accept them as, I don't know, a couple? Humans? They just want the legal benefits of a heterosexual couple.

On the point at hand, what's wrong with allowing a teacher to discuss homosexuality in any form? We're not talking about classes dedicated to acceptance by force.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#414 Apr 29 2011 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
I got a little sad when I read the China thread and started missing BT, but I'm glad he lives on in Alma's ironic signature quote, which I'm 100% sure he takes as a compliment, judging by the other quotes around it.

Ah, I don't need Ugly's sig to remind me that Alma has no social functioning whatsoever, I just need the end of every one of his posts where he has the two people that ever agreed with him and my favorite person ever insulting him.
#415 Apr 29 2011 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
Gays should have the same opportunity to be miserable just like the rest of us married straights.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#416 Apr 29 2011 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
And the people who pushed desegregation?

Heh, don't worry, I know you don't.


???

Segregation and acceptance are two different things. Churches are predominately self-segregated, but any race is accepted to attend. Nice failed attempt to try to link skin color to sexuality.

I find it funny that when people argue about SSM and bring up bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. proponents say that they are completely unrelated stating it's a slippery slope argument. Yet, at the same time, will reference the civil rights movement, segregation, slavery, women rights, etc. in every sentence possible.


Yeah, weird that they would compare it to civil rights. Comparing it like a dumbass is much better.

Edit: this reminds me of that time when they tried to outlaw sodomy and legalize beastiality in Texas.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 1:38pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#417 Apr 29 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I find it funny that when people argue about SSM and bring up bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. proponents say that they are completely unrelated stating it's a slippery slope argument. Yet, at the same time, will reference the civil rights movement, segregation, slavery, women rights, etc. in every sentence possible.

SSM is unquestionably a civil rights matter. The courts have ruled and upheld that marriage is a fundamental right and can only be denied under special circumstances. It is upon opponents to SSM to explain why this fundamental right should be denied to this specific group. Unfortunately, due to politics and homophobia, it has fallen upon the proponents to convince people supposedly tasked with protecting our rights why they should be allowed to have them.

There is no legal "slippery slope" argument from SSM to [boogeyman sexual thingie] because [boogeyman sexual thingie] has its own specific reasons for being denied this right. If people can adequately defend why [boogeyman sexual thingie] shouldn't be allowed, it won't be. If they can't, then maybe it should be. But whether they can or not has nothing to do with SSM; it's nothing more than a desperate proxy being used because the opponent is losing the SSM debate and wants to change grounds to something "scarier".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#418 Apr 29 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
something "scarier".


Something I've noticed: when people use this argument, and cite the example of "What if people wanted to marry an object?", 9 out of every 10 times they use "toaster."


Toasters: the most marriageable appliance.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 3:51pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#419 Apr 29 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ toasters
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#420 Apr 29 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
Toasters: the most marriageable appliance.

Slots, man. Slots.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#421 Apr 29 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
******
43,122 posts
Guess that makes vacuums more adulterous.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#422 Apr 29 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,661 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
@#%^ toasters
I wouldn't try that if I were you.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#423 Apr 29 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Toasters: the most marriageable appliance.

Slots, man. Slots.


How do you know which slot is the non-gay one?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#424 Apr 29 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Because its not the one on the back.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#425Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 3:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.
#426 Apr 29 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... ok
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#427 Apr 29 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:


You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying one way or the other that SSM is or is not a "civil right" movement (in this thread). The fact is, proponents are referencing it. Do you think those people were fighting for SSM? I doubt it, because if so, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. So whether or not SSM was part of the intent, it's still applicable, which is the point. Regardless if you want to accept it, the same applies to every other denial of marriage if you were to allow SSM from a dumb inclusive argument such as "As long as they love each other" or "two adults should be able to marry". It has to be explicitly defined to exclude unwanted marriages. If not, you have created precedence for other illegal forms of marriage.


Anyone know what the hell is going on up there?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#428 Apr 29 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying one way or the other that SSM is or is not a "civil right" movement (in this thread). The fact is, proponents are referencing it. Do you think those people were fighting for SSM? I doubt it, because if so, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. So whether or not SSM was part of the intent, it's still applicable, which is the point. Regardless if you want to accept it, the same applies to every other denial of marriage if you were to allow SSM from a dumb inclusive argument such as "As long as they love each other" or "two adults should be able to marry". It has to be explicitly defined to exclude unwanted marriages. If not, you have created precedence for other illegal forms of marriage.


Anyone know what the hell is going on up there?


Slippery slope + A misunderstanding of legal precedent + Poor communication skills = That mess

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 5:38pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#429 Apr 29 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying one way or the other that SSM is or is not a "civil right" movement (in this thread). The fact is, proponents are referencing it. Do you think those people were fighting for SSM? I doubt it, because if so, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. So whether or not SSM was part of the intent, it's still applicable, which is the point. Regardless if you want to accept it, the same applies to every other denial of marriage if you were to allow SSM from a dumb inclusive argument such as "As long as they love each other" or "two adults should be able to marry". It has to be explicitly defined to exclude unwanted marriages. If not, you have created precedence for other illegal forms of marriage.


Anyone know what the hell is going on up there?


Slippery slope + A misunderstanding of legal precedent + Poor communication skills = That mess

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 5:38pm by Eske


It read like it was a google translation of...i don't know...sanskrit?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#430 Apr 29 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Just gave it another read-through. Most of the confusion stems from his unspecified reference to "those people", which seems to actually mean "historical civil rights leaders".

Anyway, he's got one massive, gaping hole in his argument, but Joph already pointed it out, essentially (for what good that did). There's no point in going into it, though....y'all can sort out what it is. The only person who couldn't figure it out on their own is Alma, and good luck trying to explain anything to him.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#431Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 4:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Your refusal to accept reality doesn't equate to a "gaping hole" in my argument.
#432 Apr 29 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Yes, of course, its everyone else, not you. Never mind that there's both left and right leaning people seeing you as an idiot, its totally all them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#433 Apr 29 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Just gave it another read-through. Most of the confusion stems from his unspecified reference to "those people", which seems to actually mean "historical civil rights leaders".

Anyway, he's got one massive, gaping hole in his argument, but Joph already pointed it out, essentially (for what good that did). There's no point in going into it, though....y'all can sort out what it is. The only person who couldn't figure it out on their own is Alma, and good luck trying to explain anything to him.


Your refusal to accept reality doesn't equate to a "gaping hole" in my argument.


Swing and a miss.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#434 Apr 29 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,958 posts
Almalieque in GIF form.
Screenshot
____________________________
MyAnimeList FFXIV Krystal Spoonless
#435Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 5:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Hey, in this case.. yes. It's part of the "image"
#436 Apr 29 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Alma, I'm not being funny but if everyone disagrees with you and thinks it's okay to ridicule you for being an idiot, don't you think it's time to reassess your position?

I mean, sticking to your convictions could be seen as admirable, if you had any basis for them other than "I just don't like gays"(I'm summarising, not quoting, before you get uppity). It always makes me laugh when people who I'm certain know what it's like to receive prejudice are such strong advocates of it.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 7:28pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#437Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 5:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope, because as I always state, when I have these same exact arguments in other forums to include in real life with people I disagree with, the outcomes are completely different. The simple fact that you think "I just don't like gays" is even remotely a "summary" after all of these pages clearly demonstrates your failure of comprehension.
#438 Apr 29 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nope, because as I always state, when I have these same exact arguments in other forums to include in real life with people I disagree with, the outcomes are completely different. The simple fact that you think "I just don't like gays" is even remotely a "summary" after all of these pages clearly demonstrates your failure of comprehension.

Alma hangs out with like-minded people who always agree with him? Shock!

Almalieque wrote:
As always, I'll take fault the first two explanations, but after that, you have to man up and take some fault as well. This is a TWO WAY conversation.

Maybe if you didn't try to turn every conversation into a series of increasingly poor analogies, and instead were capable of actually talking about the issues at hand, this would quit happening.
#439 Apr 29 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Almalieque wrote:
"If you don't exclusively argue for a right and or privilege in anything in life, regardless if it were your intent or not, groups that are applicable to your reasoning can and will use it as precedence."
I believe that statement to be true. What I don't beleive though, is the ridiculous examples you give as potentials to follow that up with.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#440 Apr 29 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nope, because as I always state, when I have these same exact arguments in other forums to include in real life with people I disagree with, the outcomes are completely different. The simple fact that you think "I just don't like gays" is even remotely a "summary" after all of these pages clearly demonstrates your failure of comprehension.

As always, I'll take fault the first two explanations, but after that, you have to man up and take some fault as well. This is a TWO WAY conversation.
So you do like gays? Excellent.



Now I'm trolling.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#441 Apr 29 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nope, because as I always state, when I have these same exact arguments in other forums to include in real life with people I disagree with, the outcomes are completely different. The simple fact that you think "I just don't like gays" is even remotely a "summary" after all of these pages clearly demonstrates your failure of comprehension.

As always, I'll take fault the first two explanations, but after that, you have to man up and take some fault as well. This is a TWO WAY conversation.
So you do like gays? Excellent.



Now I'm trolling.


He never said he didn't like gays, just that he couldn't care less about them...and also that he doesn't like them Smiley: sly
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#442Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 7:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you understood the issue at hand, I wouldn't need to use analogies. We can point fingers all day long, at some point, you have to take some credit.
#443 Apr 29 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,446 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Alma, I'm not being funny but if everyone disagrees with you and thinks it's okay to ridicule you for being an idiot, don't you think it's time to reassess your position?

I mean, sticking to your convictions could be seen as admirable, if you had any basis for them other than "I just don't like gays"(I'm summarising, not quoting, before you get uppity). It always makes me laugh when people who I'm certain know what it's like to receive prejudice are such strong advocates of it.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 7:28pm by Nilatai


Nope, because as I always state, when I have these same exact arguments in other forums to include in real life with people I disagree with, the outcomes are completely different. The simple fact that you think "I just don't like gays" is even remotely a "summary" after all of these pages clearly demonstrates your failure of comprehension.

As always, I'll take fault the first two explanations, but after that, you have to man up and take some fault as well. This is a TWO WAY conversation.

What other forums do you post in about these types of topics? Im truly curious if this is true or if youre just trying to save your ass. =)
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#444 Apr 29 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
DSD wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Alma, I'm not being funny but if everyone disagrees with you and thinks it's okay to ridicule you for being an idiot, don't you think it's time to reassess your position?

I mean, sticking to your convictions could be seen as admirable, if you had any basis for them other than "I just don't like gays"(I'm summarising, not quoting, before you get uppity). It always makes me laugh when people who I'm certain know what it's like to receive prejudice are such strong advocates of it.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 7:28pm by Nilatai


Nope, because as I always state, when I have these same exact arguments in other forums to include in real life with people I disagree with, the outcomes are completely different. The simple fact that you think "I just don't like gays" is even remotely a "summary" after all of these pages clearly demonstrates your failure of comprehension.

As always, I'll take fault the first two explanations, but after that, you have to man up and take some fault as well. This is a TWO WAY conversation.

What other forums do you post in about these types of topics? Im truly curious if this is true or if youre just trying to save your ass. =)


Facebook.com
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#445 Apr 29 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Fucking lol.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#446 Apr 29 2011 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
Almalieque wrote:
the fact that reproduction is a result is just a nice bonus.

Derr, so eating is just a bonus to our months, which are firstly all about kissing - two pairs of lips fit so nicely together?

Why is sex better with someone you love?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#447Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 8:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't know, ask all of the people who cheat on their spouses.
#448 Apr 29 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,958 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
the fact that reproduction is a result is just a nice bonus.

Derr, so eating is just a bonus to our months, which are firstly all about kissing - two pairs of lips fit so nicely together?

Why is sex better with someone you love?


I don't know, ask all of the people who cheat on their spouses.
I'm a newb and all, but is it even possible to love someone, and also be cheating on them?
____________________________
MyAnimeList FFXIV Krystal Spoonless
#449 Apr 29 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Kirby the Eccentric wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
the fact that reproduction is a result is just a nice bonus.

Derr, so eating is just a bonus to our months, which are firstly all about kissing - two pairs of lips fit so nicely together?

Why is sex better with someone you love?


I don't know, ask all of the people who cheat on their spouses.
I'm a newb and all, but is it even possible to love someone, and also be cheating on them?


My argument has always been no, but I'm sure your penis reacts the same way regardless.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#450 Apr 29 2011 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Lust and love are not the same thing. It's perfectly feasible for you to screw someone's brains out and not really give a damn about them for some people.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#451 Apr 29 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Lust and love are not the same thing. It's perfectly feasible for you to screw someone's brains out and not really give a damn about them for some people.


While I don't want to ruin the opportunity of us actually agreeing, I think the differentiation is between being capable of having sex with someone you don't love vs actively having sex outside of the marriage.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CDT
stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (66)