Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

the goverment need their heads read i voted no its a ****ing disgrace

Nobody cares.

Originally posted by Impediment
Nobody cares.

Marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman. Period. End of discussion.

Long as they don't force churches to marry anyone, it doesn't matter. No marriage but your church's ever mattered to begin with, just like no other religion was ever valid, let alone what unbelievers do.

Couldn't agree more. Same sex marriages r the worst. Ive been married to the same woman for over a decade and we've been having the same sex for years. Finaly a thread where i can ***** about it. Thank u

Originally posted by Raptor22
Couldn't agree more. Same sex marriages r the worst. Ive been married to the same woman for over a decade and we've been having the same sex for years. Finaly a thread where i can ***** about it. Thank u


The Chinese have a saying about the 7 orifices or the "7 Holes." Truly ill people bleed from all 7 holes.


You can try more than 1 out of those 7 if you want to change your marriage.

Originally posted by Impediment
Nobody cares. Originally posted by Raptor22
Couldn't agree more. Same sex marriages r the worst. Ive been married to the same woman for over a decade and we've been having the same sex for years. Finaly a thread where i can ***** about it. Thank u

Originally posted by robert christen
the goverment need their heads read i voted no its a ****ing disgrace

^Starfly made another sock for this instead of just posting under his "eThneoLgrRnae" account.

Originally posted by Robtard
^Starfly made another sock for this instead of just posting under his "eThneoLgrRnae" account. He has several more live here a few years old.

Aww...poor wittle robbie is so obsessed with me... and Fly.. and Star...


Edit: ^and so is pathetic wittle pooty/bashy as well. I feel so sorry for you two... smh.

Originally posted by Raptor22
Couldn't agree more. Same sex marriages r the worst. Ive been married to the same woman for over a decade and we've been having the same sex for years. Finaly a thread where i can ***** about it. Thank u

Barack Obama circa 2008, is that you?

Most, if not all states, had civil union laws in place for a variety of reasons. Those laws were started so elderly relatives could live together if they were widowed or infirmed, and later for common law couples.

My issue was the definition of marriage. I saw no reason to actually redefine the word, not to oppress same sex couples. This is a common misconception in the gay marriage debate.

The poster that said this gets it.

nah

Originally posted by Badabing
Most, if not all states, had civil union laws in place for a variety of reasons. Those laws were started so elderly relatives could live together if they were widowed or infirmed, and later for common law couples.

My issue was the definition of marriage. I saw no reason to actually redefine the word, not to oppress same sex couples. This is a common misconception in the gay marriage debate.

It could very from state to state, but civil unions do not offer the same protections as marriages. Marriages grant Federally protected rights.

Originally posted by Badabing
Most, if not all states, had civil union laws in place for a variety of reasons. Those laws were started so elderly relatives could live together if they were widowed or infirmed, and later for common law couples.

My issue was the definition of marriage. I saw no reason to actually redefine the word, not to oppress same sex couples. This is a common misconception in the gay marriage debate.


Aside from what Rob said, even if existing laws did offer the same protections, the name would be a sticking point.


Because pro same sex union activists don't want separate but equal civil unions. They want marriages. And the push back happens because religious activists believe they have a right to a monopoly on the term, even though that simply isn't the case.



I don't know, why would a religious institution care a whit what someone outside their institution is calling their heathen practices? Absolutely nothing that happens outside your house should be your concern, because I'm more then certain they'd feel different if someone told them how to run that house.


Freedom from meddling means not to meddle.

Originally posted by Killjoy12
The poster that said this gets it.

The left loves to redefine words. Look what they did to the word "racism".

Originally posted by cdtm
Aside from what Rob said, even if existing laws did offer the same protections, the name would be a sticking point.


Because pro same sex union activists don't want separate but equal civil unions. They want marriages. And the push back happens because religious activists believe they have a right to a monopoly on the term, even though that simply isn't the case.



I don't know, why would a religious institution care a whit what someone outside their institution is calling their heathen practices? Absolutely nothing that happens outside your house should be your concern, because I'm more then certain they'd feel different if someone told them how to run that house.


Freedom from meddling means not to meddle.

I imagine the religious institutions care for the same reason the pro same sex marriage people are about the name.

They're morons.

Equalizing the side that wants to deny equality with the side that wants equality for all. Oh my.

Lol they do not want equality for all though. Don't ever lie again in this thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol they do not want equality for all though. Don't ever lie again in this thread.

^ Not sure if legit dense here or just trying to pick a fight because reasons/emotions.

But marriage equality people want marriage equality for all consenting adults. They're not saying: "you two can get married, but you two can't", like those who oppose** same-sex marriages.


**seems you've now jumped in this boat or are finally just being honest, too funny

I will repeat: leftists do not want equality for all.

You are just not an intelligent human being if you believe they do.

^ *Strawman argument aside* Legit thinks marriage equality people and the push for marriage equability was/is strictly a Left-side issue, it's not, tolerant people from all walks of life are pro marriage equality. Too funny.

I never said that, I just know the left doesn't want equality for all.

Which side are people claiming wants equality for all?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah


Yah.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said that, I just know the left doesn't want equality for all.

We're talking about 'Pro marriage equality people' and those against marriage equality. So, yes, you're strawmanning and trying to make this a strict "Leftist" Vs Right thing like you always do.

Originally posted by Killjoy12
The poster that said this gets it.

Who doesn't want equality?

Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about 'Pro marriage equality people' and those against marriage equality. So, yes, you're strawmanning and trying to make this a strict "Leftist" Vs Right thing like you always do.

Yzu4WgUOWUM

Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about 'Pro marriage equality people' and those against marriage equality. So, yes, you're strawmanning and trying to make this a strict "Leftist" Vs Right thing like you always do.

You simply should have been accurate and described it as the side that wants equality for all when it comes to marriage.

If two people are stupid enough that they want to get the government involved in their relationship, I say let them.

Originally posted by Surtur
You simply should have been accurate and described it as the side that wants equality for all when it comes to marriage.

"Yep, I tried to rape you with my strawman but it was your fault because you wore such a short skirt of an argument"

Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.

Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?

Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing


Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yzu4WgUOWUM


1. That's 100% the greasiest motherf*cker I've ever seen. And I'm Italian.

2. The way he says "disgusting" reminds me of the angry Scottish mom:

RFpnPm1YSlc

Originally posted by Bentley
"Yep, I tried to rape you with my strawman but it was your fault because you wore such a short skirt of an argument"

Bingo.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.

Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?

Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing


Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?

This.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.

Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?

Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing


Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?


Skyrocketing divorce rates show the institution is crumbling.



The problem is pretty obvious, and it can't be fixed by an institution. That problem is the decay of bare minimum standards. Your father's father believed in setting boundaries for their kids. They believed in values, and shamed those who didn't follow those values.


Then their kids made good in the Boomer era, and did whatever sent their parents to senior homes. Money flowed, morality got pissed away with excess consumerism.



And then, some of those corrupt Boomers took over society, and continued doing whatever they wanted. While general population, lost all that excess while still maintaining their appetites for excess. But hey, they could still cheat on their wives, or husbands.

Their kids, of course, became even worse, because they never had role models to set boundaries. Bad parents begets bad kids. Bad kids begets bad adults.


And that's where we're at now. Just a society of badly raised kids who were never told "No", never had anyone to look up to, and blindly follows every impulse. Marriages, which require commitment and compromise, are anathema to one who has to be satisfied, every moment of every day, or lash out like the spoiled child they were raised as.

Originally posted by Surtur
You simply should have been accurate and described it as the side that wants equality for all when it comes to marriage.

I was, anyone following the convo saw that. You chose to strawman and attack instead.

Originally posted by Bentley
"Yep, I tried to rape you with my strawman but it was your fault because you wore such a short skirt of an argument"

Bingo.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.

Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?

Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing


Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?

I'd argue how hard "virtue" factored into marriage historically speaking opposed to it being more of a financial exchange, but it's a minor point.

Overall, I give your post a

Originally posted by Robtard
I was, anyone following the convo saw that. You chose to strawman and attack instead.

So in other words:

https://i.imgur.com/hzChx03.jpg

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.

Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?

Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing


Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?


As someone who is completely opposed to same-sex marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, yes, I realize making it illegal won't stop homosexual activity but that's not the point. The point is standing up for truth no matter the consequences or repercussions (getting called "bigot" or "homophobe" or whatever). The reality is marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman. Period.

It also pisses me off when preachers, priests, pastors, or other men of God are forced to violate their own religious beliefs to wed same sex couples. It infuriates me just thinking about it so I tend to avoid doing it as much as possible. Just like the fact that nearly a thousand unborn children are murdered in this country every single damn day while those who support abortion ***** and whine about gun violence and pretending to "care about the children" infuriates me.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
As someone who is completely opposed to same-sex marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, yes, I realize making it illegal won't stop homosexual activity but that's not the point. The point is standing up for truth no matter the consequences or repercussions (getting called "bigot" or "homophobe" or whatever). The reality is marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman. Period.
And so you would fight the battle and lose the war by taking actions that would further encourage a culture of promiscuity by denying them the institution built on commitment and responsibility?

I'm appealing this argument to you in much the same way that even in moral disapproval of casual sex, it is better for people to know how to safely practice sex so that the consequences of inevitable behavior will be mitigated.

Also on the subject to your religious beliefs to you really believe the state determines marriage in the eyes of God? If not, then by pursuing this legalistically rather than merely having a moral view on it, you are fighting a political battle that will set back the electability of the right, and in the long term likely ceding far more legal and cultural ground than merely marriage.

Do you think it is worth it to fight the battle, and as a consequence lose the war?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It also pisses me off when preachers, priests, pastors, or other men of God are forced to violate their own religious beliefs to wed same sex couples.
I agree with you, it is not the place of the state to compel non-consensual economic transactions of this sort, and it is definitely not the place of the state to compel religious service.

Have priest, pastors, pedos, preachers etc. actually been "forced" to perform a same-sex marriage against their will?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And so you would fight the battle and lose the war by taking actions that would further encourage a culture of promiscuity by denying them the institution built on commitment and responsibility?

I'm appealing this argument to you in much the same way that even in moral disapproval of casual sex, it is better for people to know how to safely practice sex so that the consequences of inevitable behavior will be mitigated.

Also on the subject to your religious beliefs to you really believe the state determines marriage in the eyes of God? If not, then by pursuing this legalistically rather than merely having a moral view on it, you are fighting a political battle that will set back the electability of the right, and in the long term likely ceding far more legal and cultural ground than merely marriage.

Do you think it is worth it to fight the battle, and as a consequence lose the war?


I agree with you, it is not the place of the state to compel non-consensual economic transactions of this sort, and it is definitely not the place of the state to compel religious service.


I think you may still seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. The war I'm fighting is for truth... truth at all costs... so no, I'm (or rather 'we' ) are not losing the war because the truth doesn't change based on whether or not homosexuals engage in homo activity.

When we give up on the fight for absolute truth then our "victories" aren't really victories at all, imo.


What you're asking me to do is abandon what I know to be absolute truth and what is morally just. That's akin to people on the left who try to force others to "accept" that there are over five dozen genders lol. I will never submit to a lie of that magnitude no matter the costs.

There is no such thing as 'same sex marriage', as the term is an inherent oxymoron.

Why do they need gay marriage to be legal? They can just identify as married couples. Problem solved.

Man I love that feelings solve literally every problem.

Originally posted by Surtur
Why do they need gay marriage to be legal? They can just identify as married couples. Problem solved.

Man I love that feelings solve literally every problem. come on surt. "Man shall not lay with males as they lie with woman" u should know this.

Identity politics have no place in this discussion. We already have clear cut instructions from an almost 3,000 year old fairy tale that tell us how we should be living our lives today.

Originally posted by Robtard
Have priest, pastors, pedos, preachers etc. actually been "forced" to perform a same-sex marriage against their will?

I posted on this topic, before.

The UK, yes. And hosting weddings on "church property", in the US, yes. But in the US, I don't think they were forced by law to marry people: just had to allow it on their property.


I posted the articles about them and it made Ushgarak so mad, he banned me. He couldn't handle being wrong.

Seen it argued that if church's allow spaces to be rented out, they're potentially bound by public accommodation laws.


I haven't seen any actual cases of church's being forced to do so, yet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted on this topic, before.

The UK, yes. And hosting weddings on "church property", in the US, yes. But in the US, I don't think they were forced by law to marry people: just had to allow it on their property.

I posted the articles about them and it made Ushgarak so mad, he banned me. He couldn't handle being wrong.

In regards to the US: Since no gay-hating priest is being forced to perform a rite against his will, I have no problem with church property being used for same-sex weddings, if other marriages are already allowed to happen, considering churches are tax exempt in part for 'giving to the community' reasons.

That goes the same for synagogues, mosques, or any religious building that gets rented out for public functions.


Either offer space to all, or to no one (Except a strict members only policy, which would exclude non members.)

@Eon" No, he's not trolling. Panthergod is actually correct.

edit: nevermind.

Originally posted by Robtard
In regards to the US: Since no gay-hating priest is being forced to perform a rite against his will, I have no problem with church property being used for same-sex weddings, if other marriages are already allowed to happen, considering churches are tax exempt in part for 'giving to the community' reasons.

It was NJ and it was a property dispute where the church peeps didn't want to let people use their property to hold gay weddings.

Some gay people, or as I call them, progressive social terrorists, wanted to make a point and got to do wedding stuff on the property to show the bigoted Christians that they could win. Something about mixed public property/church property and a technicality on NJ laws made it happen.

Also, the gay peeps tried super super hard to do that same stupid crap to the Mormons back when Prop 8 was being considered because the Mormons got involved with politics too heavily.

Originally posted by cdtm
That goes the same for synagogues, mosques, or any religious building that gets rented out for public functions.


Either offer space to all, or to no one (Except a strict members only policy, which would exclude non members.)

Hey...now that sounds familiar. I think there was another case like that, too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was NJ and it was a property dispute where the church peeps didn't want to let people use their property to hold gay weddings.

Some gay people, or as I call them, progressive social terrorists, wanted to make a point and got to do wedding stuff on the property to show the bigoted Christians that they could win. Something about mixed public property/church property and a technicality on NJ laws made it happen.

Also, the gay peeps tried super super hard to do that same stupid crap to the Mormons back when Prop 8 was being considered because the Mormons got involved with politics too heavily.

The bigoted Christians lost it seems, good, good.

Your homophobia though, work on it.

Originally posted by Robtard
The bigoted Christians lost it seems, good, good.

Your homophobia though, work on it.

Oh? Is it now homophobic to support gay marriage freedom, support freedom of speech, and support separation of church and state?

Sorry, I'm am outdated. I have no idea what kind not stupid racist, sexist, fascist, or homophobic positions the Democrats are taking, these days. Thanks for updating me that Democrats are now homophobes in addition to their standard racism, homicide, genocide, and corporatism.

While ranting, you forgot "sexism"

Originally posted by Robtard
While ranting, you forgot "sexism"

Oh, damn, you're right.


See my updates:


"Oh? Is it now homophobic to support gay marriage freedom, support freedom of speech, and support separation of church and state?

Sorry, I'm am outdated. I have no idea what kind not stupid racist, sexist, fascist, or homophobic positions the Democrats are taking, these days. Thanks for updating me that Democrats are now homophobes in addition to their standard racism, sexism, homicide, genocide, general weird bigotry, and corporatism."

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was NJ and it was a property dispute where the church peeps didn't want to let people use their property to hold gay weddings.

Some gay people, or as I call them, progressive social terrorists, wanted to make a point and got to do wedding stuff on the property to show the bigoted Christians that they could win. Something about mixed public property/church property and a technicality on NJ laws made it happen.

Also, the gay peeps tried super super hard to do that same stupid crap to the Mormons back when Prop 8 was being considered because the Mormons got involved with politics too heavily.


Interesting. So the Mormons were able to fight it off.


The Christian's should hire the same lawyer they used.

Originally posted by cdtm
Interesting. So the Mormons were able to fight it off.


The Christian's should hire the same lawyer they used.

Here's the thing about active Mormons:

We are highly educated, intelligent, and fill all skilled positions in society. We are your doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc.


We just hire ourselves.

Originally posted by dadudemon



"...homophobes in addition to their standard racism, sexism, homicide, genocide, general weird bigotry, and corporatism."


You just described the Republican party from at least 1978-79 to now, the last 40 years or so. Maybe more/earlier.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's the thing about active Mormons:

We are highly educated, intelligent, and fill all skilled positions in society. We are your doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc.


We just hire ourselves.


Saaayyyyy...


Are YOU guys responsible for anti-semitism? Are you the REAL illuminati, and the Jews are your scapegoats, so you can go on Caliguling it up behind the scenes?

Originally posted by Robtard
You just described the Republican party from at least 1978-79 to now, the last 40 years or so. Maybe more/earlier.

"No you!"

TIL: Dadudemon is Republican Party.

The LGBT community in the USA should be super angry that gay marriage was made legal. Now they have nothing legit to whine about being oppressed over anymore.

Awful. I hate to see that taken from them.

Originally posted by cdtm
Saaayyyyy...


Are YOU guys responsible for anti-semitism? Are you the REAL illuminati, and the Jews are your scapegoats, so you can go on Caliguling it up behind the scenes?


Not at all. Mormons love Jews so much that we wrote our own bible 2.0 story about Jews in the Americas. We call it the Book of Mormon. And we carry on with some of the old Jewish customs, believe we are adopted into the 12 Tribes of Israel, and do the genealogy/lineage for everyone.


If this was Tinder, Mormons would superlike Jews. We are the type that would message the Jews with enthusiasm and fervor despite years of no replies back from the Jews. "Still thinking about you, we should get a non-alcoholic drink sometime." "Saw an advertisement and it reminded me of you." etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
The LGBT community in the USA should be super angry that gay marriage was made legal. Now they have nothing legit to whine about being oppressed over anymore.

Awful. I hate to see that taken from them.

^ Trying so hard rn

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Trying so hard rn

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/there-is-no-need-to-be-upset-gif-6.gif

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Trying so hard rn

It also demonstrates an underlying ignorance of the inequalities LGBT people experience in America.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It also demonstrates an underlying ignorance of the inequalities LGBT people experience in America.

Nah.

Originally posted by Impediment
Nobody cares. but sadly some like the creation who socked to start this thread do. It's a ****ing shame.

DDM, explain a little more about Mormon's getting political.

This sounds like an extremely interesting topic, in terms of how political clout actually works. And Mormon's seem like a perfect, textbook example because:

1. They aren't high profile. You aren't tied up in media celebrity circles, aren't nearly "pop culture" enough to gain public support.

2. You're a small religious minority. Yet, by your claims, you have significant clout.



Compare to Christian's, who are VERY high profile, are in the media constantly, make up a majority religion. Yet, their overall clout doesn't reflect their size or prominence.



It's obviously not just about money, because Christian's are rolling in money.

Originally posted by cdtm
DDM, explain a little more about Mormon's getting political.

This sounds like an extremely interesting topic, in terms of how political clout actually works. And Mormon's seem like a perfect, textbook example because:

1. They aren't high profile. You aren't tied up in media celebrity circles, aren't nearly "pop culture" enough to gain public support.

2. You're a small religious minority. Yet, by your claims, you have significant clout.



Compare to Christian's, who are VERY high profile, are in the media constantly, make up a majority religion. Yet, their overall clout doesn't reflect their size or prominence.



It's obviously not just about money, because Christian's are rolling in money.

LDS Mormons make up 2% of the US population. They are not uncommon. That's 2 Mormons for every 100 Americans.

Also, active Mormons really are among the most educated, professionals you'll see in the US. When Mormons get worked up into a tizzy, they change lots of things.

My only issue with Mormons is the self-righteousness. The homophobia is not rampant like outsiders believe. Sexism has no place in the religion contrary to popular outsider beliefs. And racism is far and away not part of the religion.

But that self-righteous judgmentalism...oh boy, let me tell you, Mormons are just as bad as Baptists, depending on which location.

Originally posted by dadudemon
LDS Mormons make up 2% of the US population. They are not uncommon. That's 2 Mormons for every 100 Americans.

Also, active Mormons really are among the most educated, professionals you'll see in the US. When Mormons get worked up into a tizzy, they change lots of things.

My only issue with Mormons is the self-righteousness. The homophobia is not rampant like outsiders believe. Sexism has no place in the religion contrary to popular outsider beliefs. And racism is far and away not part of the religion.

But that self-righteous judgmentalism...oh boy, let me tell you, Mormons are just as bad as Baptists, depending on which location.

If your social circle includes any movers and shakers, we could use all the help we can get on end of life care for senior's who don't fit enough check boxes.


I've learned the hard way how impossible it is to get any sort of care for a 90 something victim of a fall who lost his independence, and only had a recent heart attack victim to rely on for support (Same person who did everything the state told him to do to get help, then was told to his face later "Look, you aren't getting any help from us. Maybe if your father was black, but he's not."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Political_Manifesto


Interesting.


So political activism among mormon's is considered taboo.


I guess that ensures you won't make any enemies, if nothing else.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Political_Manifesto


Interesting.


So political activism among mormon's is considered taboo.


I guess that ensures you won't make any enemies, if nothing else.


Pretty much. Mormons are allowed to participate in politics and are strongly encouraged to do so. But, I've attended Sunday congregation meetings where they local leaders explicitly read decrees from leadership that said to operate and vote based on conscience and "what the Holy Spirit guides you to do."


This is why I think Universal Healthcare is important. It's part of my Mormon beliefs. It drives the costs down, sharply, for healthy people like me. It improves the health of others around me, increasing the chances that they can do good things and/or becomes Mormons.

DDM has been a homo his whole life, I hope he finds the right guy to settle down with.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
DDM has been a homo his whole life, I hope he finds the right guy to settle down with.

Sorry we didn't work out.

You just didn't clench your butthole on my dick like I wanted. I only like men with strong anuses.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry we didn't work out.

You just didn't clench your butthole on my dick like I wanted. I only like men with strong anuses.


WOW.... such a mature post.

You're such an immature wanker, "dude."

https://media.giphy.com/media/pUeXcg80cO8I8/giphy.gif

Star is crazy jelly of Supra talking to the demon of dadu.

Is this thread from 2004?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
WOW.... such a mature post.

You're such an immature wanker, "dude."

Immaturity is talking about poopoo and butts.

Maturity is knowing when to talk about poopoo and butts.

The Newest Highest Form if Immaturity is Voting Democrat.

Its all about the Fee Fee's and Imagination.

Originally posted by BackFire
Is this thread from 2004? channelling ideas from 1954.