Study Indicates HOMOSEXUAL ACTS Shorten Lifespan

[nakedemperor]

Your assertion is somewhat off the mark. There is no Constitutional right, written or inferred, regarding marriage. So it is not an issue of "rights", rather it is a demand by homosexuals for their unions to enjoy similar legal status as heterosexual couples. Since marriage is not covered by the Constitution, that means that as a society, we have the collective right to determine upon whom the status of "married" is bestowed. The same applies to "civil unions" - which are nothing more than marriage in secular guise.

So the bottom line is this - the majority of the American people have rejected the homosexual plea for equality in regard to marriage. Our society has decreed that same sex unions are not acceptable and should not be sanctioned by the benefit of legal status. That's the way it is, at least for now.

There are laws concerning marriage. Tax laws, inheritance laws, etc. These laws protect specific rights of heterosexuals; the "right" to marry whenever and whoever they want, specific "rights" on how they can be jointly taxed, etc. Homosexuals do not have the right to to civil unions, a secular establishment. Its not 'marriage' in disguise. I don't want to have anything to do with 'marriage' as the Christian Church defines it, but I want the right to have my union recognized just as heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the government.

Plus, just because the majority of Americans don't want homosexual to be able to marry each other doesn't mean its not right. The majority wanted to have slavery at one point. The majority wanted to stay out of WWII. The majority wanted antimiscygenation laws. Etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the majority is wrong

And there you go again with the typically leftist reaction. Anyone who is not sufficiently obsequious regarding your issues is either a homophobe or a hate monger. I wish you'd knock that shit off. It really gets tiresome and annoying.

Apparently it never occurrs to leftists that an opposing view can be both rational as well as factual and based on ethical convictions instead of fear or hatred.

No, people who are not sufficiently obsequious with my views are entitled to their opinions. People who think gays want "special" rights are intentionally trying to make them out to be bad people who are asking too much, and generally these people who intentionally distort the sitation hate or strongly dislike gays, and try to restrict what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't hurt them at all. This intentionally misleading language is hateful.

 

[OCA]

Hey i've got an idea, lets leave it up to a vote on a state by state basis, the issue of gay marriage.......maybe homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists can win :clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[OCA]

Who fucks other guys in the ass? Sounds uncomfortable. Not for me.

So Nakey you are a pipe eater? Either way you're fucked up mentally.

 

[OCA]

To all the queer lifestyle choiceists on USMB why not just marry someone of the opposite sex and then cheat? I mean it wouldn't really be cheating, you just get married for the benes then suck all the cock or eat all the hairpie you want, since there will be no love(just like with your "partner" lollllll) your spouse will not care.

See...situation fixed, all nice and legal.

 

[Merlin1047]

There are laws concerning marriage. Tax laws, inheritance laws, etc. These laws protect specific rights of heterosexuals; the "right" to marry whenever and whoever they want, specific "rights" on how they can be jointly taxed, etc. Homosexuals do not have the right to to civil unions, a secular establishment. Its not 'marriage' in disguise. I don't want to have anything to do with 'marriage' as the Christian Church defines it, but I want the right to have my union recognized just as heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the government.

My short-term memory may not be as good as it once was, but as I recall, I was making the case that there is no Constitutional basis for your support of homosexual unions. You are attempting to support your view by shifting the basis of the argument. Yes, there are laws concerning marriage -but that has NOTHING to do with rights spelled out in the Constitution. Civil law may not violate the constitution and no one has yet made a case that a ban on homosexual marriage rises to that level.

First, let's deal with the current homosexual lie - that being that a "civil union" is somehow different than a marriage. To support your argument, you cited a marriage based on religious beliefs. In taking this approach, you are simply attempting to cheat your way around the issue. Let's compare apples to apples. You well know that there is secular marriage, licensed by the state, which has NOTHING to do with the religious ceremony. Secular marriage and your so-called "civil unions" are in fact one and the same. Through the establishment of civil unions, homosexuals seek to gain the same legal status and privelige currently reserved for heterosexual couples only. The assertion that civil unions and secular marriage are somehow different is nothing but a dishonest shell game promoted by homosexuals in a transparent attempt to worm their way around the issue. Homosexual groups seem to think that the rest of society is too stupid to see what is happening. They apparently think that by calling marriage civil unions that we won't know what is really happening here.

Yes, homosexuals are denied the tax benefit of joint returns. Tough. That's a tax code issue. Take it up with the IRS. Exemptions are placed in the tax code to encourage certain things like home ownership and investments.

Your claim that heterosexuals have the right "to marry whenever and whoever they want" is demonstrably false. You can't marry your sister, you can't marry more than one spouse, you can't marry below a certain age etc etc. I'm not sure what point you intended to make with this, but this one's a no-go.

When you seek to justify your view by citing civil law, you tread on very shaky ground. Secular marriage or, if you prefer "civil union", is simply a license granted by the state. Like any other license, it is regulated. Twelve year old children are not allowed to marry or drive on the public roads. Blind people are not allowed to have a pilot's license. A high school dropout is not allowed to practice medicine as an MD. There are many restrictive licensing requirements in our society and the concept that secular marriage or civil unions should be between one man and one woman is simply one of many such restrictions.

Plus, just because the majority of Americans don't want homosexual to be able to marry each other doesn't mean its not right. The majority wanted to have slavery at one point. The majority wanted to stay out of WWII. The majority wanted antimiscygenation laws. Etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

A childish argument which typifies leftist views. Not only does your desperation to seek support for your argument takes you all the way back to days of slavery but you seek to throw out democracy in the same sentence. Anytime leftists don't get their way they resort to the "majority is not alway right" whine. That may be. But the majority is always the majority and so long as we have a representative democracy, the will of the majority should be the law of the land. But leftists don't see it that way. They seek instead to impose the tyranny of the minority. They seek to use the courts as the agent of their desire. A tiny minority of militant atheists have imposed their will on the majority through the courts. They have perverted the intent of the Constitution and denied the will of the people. Homosexuals are attempting to follow in atheist footsteps and do the same.

No, people who are not sufficiently obsequious with my views are entitled to their opinions.

Ah but you know that's not true. Tolerance for disagreement is certainly not a hallmark of liberalism. Matter of fact, just the opposite is true. Liberals accuse conservatives of fascist tendencies, yet it is liberals who seek to stifle religious expression. It is liberals who seek to impose politically correct speech. It is liberals who go into towering rages whenever confronted with a differing view. It is liberals who, having failed to win by referendum, now seek to impose their agenda through the courts.

People who think gays want "special" rights are intentionally trying to make them out to be bad people who are asking too much, and generally these people who intentionally distort the sitation hate or strongly dislike gays, and try to restrict what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't hurt them at all. This intentionally misleading language is hateful.

Finally, you shoot yourself in BOTH feet with this argument. The fact is that homosexuals DO demand special rights. Throughout our history, marriage - secular or otherwise - has been a union between a man and a woman. Now homosexuals want to change that. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a "special" demand.

Your claim that some "distort the situation hate or strongly dislike gays" proves that you remain incapable of objective argument on this topic. Distortion depends on one's view. I could accuse you of distortion when you attempted to shift the argument from constitutional principle to civil law. But that's not distortion, that is simply choosing your reference. Furthermore, you are incapable of separating the concept of homosexual marriage from the individuals. I can loathe a homosexual lifestyle without hating the people involved. I can argue against homosexual marriage without promoting violence or hatred toward homosexuals. I can separate my opposition to homosexual "civil unions" from my dealings with homosexuals as individuals. Apparently you are incapable of doing the same or you think that I am.

and try to restrict what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes that doesn't hurt them at all. This intentionally misleading language is hateful.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not the bedroom police, nor do I think we should have such an entity. What homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes is no business of mine and frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's ass. But now homosexuals demand that the state legitimize their relationships by granting them the status of marriage. Call it civil unions till you're blue in the face, it's a secular marriage until you can prove there's a difference. By making this demand, homosexuals have placed their argument into the public domain. By insisting that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, homosexuals have taken their private conduct and made it public. They have taken that which was none of my business and have forced me to take sides - and I have every right to do so. And so long as I present a rational argument, I should have the right not to be villified and painted as a hate-monger and a bigot simply because I present an argument which homosexuals cannot successfully refute.

 

[OCA]

Merlin what Nakey is doing is typical of the left, when losing on subject matter they will go to the smear campaign against their opponent i.e. "hatemonger", "homophobe" etc. etc., they cannot justify their actions with any logical argument so they go to the nefarious tactics of the left. Quite sad actually.

And yes to all the queers I do use some terms for y'all but hey they are just descriptive adjectives, don't ya think? Kind of like "the suspect was 6 feet tall 220 lbs", nothing i've said differs from the truth on this matter.

 

[nakedemperor]

My short-term memory may not be as good as it once was, but as I recall, I was making the case that there is no Constitutional basis for your support of homosexual unions. You are attempting to support your view by shifting the basis of the argument. Yes, there are laws concerning marriage -but that has NOTHING to do with rights spelled out in the Constitution. Civil law may not violate the constitution and no one has yet made a case that a ban on homosexual marriage rises to that level.

The constitutional right to "equal rights", ever heard of it? It implies that laws cannot be made that benefit some and exclude others from the same benefits when no harm can come from equal benefits.

First, let's deal with the current homosexual lie - that being that a "civil union" is somehow different than a marriage. To support your argument, you cited a marriage based on religious beliefs. In taking this approach, you are simply attempting to cheat your way around the issue. Let's compare apples to apples. You well know that there is secular marriage, licensed by the state, which has NOTHING to do with the religious ceremony. Secular marriage and your so-called "civil unions" are in fact one and the same. Through the establishment of civil unions, homosexuals seek to gain the same legal status and privelige currently reserved for heterosexual couples only. The assertion that civil unions and secular marriage are somehow different is nothing but a dishonest shell game promoted by homosexuals in a transparent attempt to worm their way around the issue. Homosexual groups seem to think that the rest of society is too stupid to see what is happening. They apparently think that by calling marriage civil unions that we won't know what is really happening here.

As much as you love misinterpreting my words (I dont know if this has to do with your stubborness or your reading comprehension skills), when I said a civil union is different from marriage, I meant a civil union is different from marriage. If I'd said "secular marriage" obviously I wouldn't have had to make the distinction. I said "marriage" because obviously its silly to ask the Christian Church to marry gays when being gay is a sin. By calling what gays want a "civil union" I'm implying that its NOT RELIGIOUS, which is an important distinction to make; I'm trying not to get bogged down in semantics in this argument, but if you makes you happy, here, have a cookie, I'll call it "secular marriage".

Yes, homosexuals are denied the tax benefit of joint returns. Tough. That's a tax code issue. Take it up with the IRS. Exemptions are placed in the tax code to encourage certain things like home ownership and investments.

The IRS follows the law not makes the law. I think I'll talk to someone else. Remember "equal rights"?

Your claim that heterosexuals have the right "to marry whenever and whoever they want" is demonstrably false. You can't marry your sister, you can't marry more than one spouse, you can't marry below a certain age etc etc. I'm not sure what point you intended to make with this, but this one's a no-go.

Well shit, and here I thought "they can marry whoever they wany whenever they want" wouldn't be interpreted as including family members and dogs and stuff. Merlin <3 petty semantic debates.

When you seek to justify your view by citing civil law, you tread on very shaky ground. Secular marriage or, if you prefer "civil union", is simply a license granted by the state. Like any other license, it is regulated. Twelve year old children are not allowed to marry or drive on the public roads. Blind people are not allowed to have a pilot's license. A high school dropout is not allowed to practice medicine as an MD. There are many restrictive licensing requirements in our society and the concept that secular marriage or civil unions should be between one man and one woman is simply one of many such restrictions.

This argument tells me that blind people can't drive and also tells me why blind people cant drive. It also tells me gays cant marry...but doesn't give me a good reason, other than unequal rights of course, WHY they can't.

A childish argument which typifies leftist views. Not only does your desperation to seek support for your argument takes you all the way back to days of slavery but you seek to throw out democracy in the same sentence. Anytime leftists don't get their way they resort to the "majority is not alway right" whine. That may be. But the majority is always the majority and so long as we have a representative democracy, the will of the majority should be the law of the land. But leftists don't see it that way. They seek instead to impose the tyranny of the minority. They seek to use the courts as the agent of their desire. A tiny minority of militant atheists have imposed their will on the majority through the courts. They have perverted the intent of the Constitution and denied the will of the people. Homosexuals are attempting to follow in atheist footsteps and do the same.

Ok buddy. I want to impose the tyranny of the minority. Look, I'm a gay rights activist. That doesn't mean that if I could push a button that changed the law and everyone just had to deal that I would. You've got to change people's minds, of their own volition. That's democracy, not tyranny.

Ah but you know that's not true. Tolerance for disagreement is certainly not a hallmark of liberalism. Matter of fact, just the opposite is true. Liberals accuse conservatives of fascist tendencies, yet it is liberals who seek to stifle religious expression. It is liberals who seek to impose politically correct speech. It is liberals who go into towering rages whenever confronted with a differing view. It is liberals who, having failed to win by referendum, now seek to impose their agenda through the courts.

You're just a FAKE tolerant person!!! Liar-head!!
You were saying something about childish arguments?

Finally, you shoot yourself in BOTH feet with this argument. The fact is that homosexuals DO demand special rights. Throughout our history, marriage - secular or otherwise - has been a union between a man and a woman. Now homosexuals want to change that. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a "special" demand.[/QUOT]

Throughout our history women have not had the right to vote. Now woman want to change that. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a "special" demand.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not the bedroom police, nor do I think we should have such an entity. What homosexuals do in the privacy of their homes is no business of mine and frankly, Scarlet, I don't give a rat's ass. But now homosexuals demand that the state legitimize their relationships by granting them the status of marriage. Call it civil unions till you're blue in the face, it's a secular marriage until you can prove there's a difference. By making this demand, homosexuals have placed their argument into the public domain. By insisting that they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, homosexuals have taken their private conduct and made it public. They have taken that which was none of my business and have forced me to take sides - and I have every right to do so. And so long as I present a rational argument, I should have the right not to be villified and painted as a hate-monger and a bigot simply because I present an argument which homosexuals cannot successfully refute.

Your argument is based on bigotry. You can say you're not a bigot until you're blue in the face but you want to deny the right to civin un--er, SECULAR MARRIAGE (have another cookie) to gays, when only good things can come from it. This is the land of the free, where all men are created equal, but you want things to be unequal for those who were created gay.

 

[Mariner]

"hatemonger" and "homophobe" are simply "descriptive adjectives" that seem to fit your view of gay people perfectly. Where's the smear in calling a spade a spade? You've said numerous hateful things towards gays on this thread, and made clear that you're disgusted by them. I can honestly say you're the most hate-mongering homophobe I've ever encountered.

I never referred to you as a hatemonger, though, only as a homophobe, and I intended it descriptively, not as a smear. Interesting that you classify it as a smear, since that suggests tacit acceptance of my viewpoint: that it's wrong.

I fully support your right to your own opinion on these subject, but as I said above, I don't think you have any right to seek to limit others' pursuit of happiness, and to deny them equality in the eyes of the law, simply because of your disgust.

Mariner.

 

[Patriot]

"hatemonger" and "homophobe" are simply "descriptive adjectives" that seem to fit your view of gay people perfectly. Where's the smear in calling a spade a spade? You've said numerous hateful things towards gays on this thread, and made clear that you're disgusted by them. I can honestly say you're the most hate-mongering homophobe I've ever encountered.

I never referred to you as a hatemonger, though, only as a homophobe, and I intended it descriptively, not as a smear. Interesting that you classify it as a smear, since that suggests tacit acceptance of my viewpoint: that it's wrong.

I fully support your right to your own opinion on these subject, but as I said above, I don't think you have any right to seek to limit others' pursuit of happiness, and to deny them equality in the eyes of the law, simply because of your disgust.

Mariner.

But he isnt a homophobe... The dictionary definition of a homophobe is someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals...Well fuckin prove that OCA is fearful of homosexuals.

I saw nothing of the sort. In fact all I saw was disgust for their lifestyle choices. But I saw no hate for the homosexuals otherwise he wouldnt be even talking to Naked E!

And just because he says what YOU consider hateful things doesnt mean he is a hate monger either. In fact you must prove that fucked up allegation as well.

So is this the liberal way of dealing with things? I mean you get all mad at others for labeling yet you do the same damn thing?

 

[Mariner]

I was writing a little tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it came out more seriously than I intended. You're right about the word: it can be used in many ways. There's a good review of the many meanings at a religious tolerance website:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm

They finally settle on the following for their own purposes:

"Homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, etc. These rights include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government."

By that definition, OCA is a homophobe, and that is the idea I had in mind when I wrote before. As for hate-mongering, well, there is a certain amount of emotion in his posts, but if he says he doesn't actually hate gay people, I'm willing to take his word for it.

Mariner

 

[007]

I don't "personally" know any queers... right now. I've known them in the past. As a matter of fact I worked at this place back in Wisconsin called Universal Silencer. I MIG welded huge mufflers that would go on anything under the sun. Ships, you name it, anyway, there was a guy that worked there name Gary, and I'd drank, smoked pot, pulled his car out of a snow bank, LOOOOOOOONG before I found out he was a FAG! Someone had to TELL me. He didn't ACT like a sissie, or queer, he just prefered cock instead of pussy.
So when I found out he was a queer, I told him "man, that's some sick fuckin' shit, and I don't like it", but it didn't really change the relationship I already had with the guy. I continued to stop at the bar and drink beer and smoke dope with the guy, (he always had some good shit), just like nothing had happened. The only difference was, I told him how I felt about his lifestyle choice.
So it's not the "person" I "hate", it's the "sexual" part of it all that purely and simply turns my frickin' stomach.

There's NOTHING "homophobic" about that. My reaction to it absolutely "NORMAL".

 

[OCA]

Yes I do and so do many tens of millions of others, please reference the vote of the past election in the 11 states it was on the ballot. There will eventually be a ban in at least 49 of 50 states.

If one is not disgusted by this obviously morally lacking behavior then one must not have common sense. Do you not have common sense Mariner?

This story is almost over, homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists are dead in the water in America, better go to Canada.

 

[OCA]

I was writing a little tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it came out more seriously than I intended. You're right about the word: it can be used in many ways. There's a good review of the many meanings at a religious tolerance website:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm

They finally settle on the following for their own purposes:

"Homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, etc. These rights include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government."

By that definition, OCA is a homophobe, and that is the idea I had in mind when I wrote before. As for hate-mongering, well, there is a certain amount of emotion in his posts, but if he says he doesn't actually hate gay people, I'm willing to take his word for it.

Mariner

There is no such thing as homophobia, again its a madeup term by the left meant to demonize and stigmatize with no basis in reality. If i'm against heroin am I a heroinphobe?

 

[OCA]

I don't "personally" know any queers... right now. I've known them in the past. As a matter of fact I worked at this place back in Wisconsin called Universal Silencer. I MIG welded huge mufflers that would go on anything under the sun. Ships, you name it, anyway, there was a guy that worked there name Gary, and I'd drank, smoked pot, pulled his car out of a snow bank, LOOOOOOOONG before I found out he was a FAG! Someone had to TELL me. He didn't ACT like a sissie, or queer, he just prefered cock instead of pussy.
So when I found out he was a queer, I told him "man, that's some sick fuckin' shit, and I don't like it", but it didn't really change the relationship I already had with the guy. I continued to stop at the bar and drink beer and smoke dope with the guy, (he always had some good shit), just like nothing had happened. The only difference was, I told him how I felt about his lifestyle choice.
So it's not the "person" I "hate", it's the "sexual" part of it all that purely and simply turns my frickin' stomach.

There's NOTHING "homophobic" about that. My reaction to it absolutely "NORMAL".

Pale you did the right thing, of course you had to continue to work with him but stopping the socializing and telling him that he was a sick fuck was absolutely correct. If you continue to hang with a homosexual lifestyle choicist and don't tell them what they are doing is wrong and harmful to themself its the same as if you hang with a crackhead and buy him crack.

 

[Shattered]

Pale you did the right thing, of course you had to continue to work with him but stopping the socializing and telling him that he was a sick fuck was absolutely correct. If you continue to hang with a homosexual lifestyle choicist and don't tell them what they are doing is wrong and harmful to themself its the same as if you hang with a crackhead and buy him crack.

I was under the impression from reading, that Pale is NOT stop socializing with the guy.. He says right here:

I told him "man, that's some sick fuckin' shit, and I don't like it", but it didn't really change the relationship I already had with the guy. I continued to stop at the bar and drink beer and smoke dope with the guy, (he always had some good shit), just like nothing had happened. The only difference was, I told him how I felt about his lifestyle choice.

...that nothing changed.

 

[OCA]

I was under the impression from reading, that Pale is NOT stop socializing with the guy.. He says right here:



...that nothing changed.

Oh wait you're right, I read it wrong.

If I was Pale i'd have stopped seeing this guy at the bar, i'm not in the habit of hanging with degenerates.

 

[Shattered]

So long as they're not throwing their choices in your face, what would be the difference? Apparently, it took a long time for him to figure out the guy *was* gay, which means he wasn't making ridiculous demands, throwing it around, etc, and was just acting like a normal person...

Everything in life, regardless of what studies show, what a Bible reads, etc. comes down to personal choice.

I'm just curious, because I know a few gay, and bisexual people, and their personal lifestyle is not enough to bother trashing very good friendships for...

(and no, that does not make me a degenerate)

 

[OCA]

So long as they're not throwing their choices in your face, what would be the difference? Apparently, it took a long time for him to figure out the guy *was* gay, which means he wasn't making ridiculous demands, throwing it around, etc, and was just acting like a normal person...

Everything in life, regardless of what studies show, what a Bible reads, etc. comes down to personal choice.

I'm just curious, because I know a few gay, and bisexual people, and their personal lifestyle is not enough to bother trashing very good friendships for...

(and no, that does not make me a degenerate)

Ohhhh they would not be able to hide it for very long around me and my circle, we would sniff that shit out. "Hey Greg why you don't want to tag team this broad with us?" "Uh what is this stupid ass Streisand crap doing here?" "Whats with the Queer As Folk videos?"

I'm Greek, no matter your preconceptions about us the modern Greeks don't go for that shit, makes you less of a man, well not really a man at all.

Plus the fact that their decision making process is all fucked up, can't trust them to do the right thing on important matters.

 

[janeeng]

I am going to have agree with shattered here! her comments make sense.

I think it's pretty funny to see comments from some of the guys about FAGS, QUEERS, etc.. Let's be honest here, your problem is only that it sickens you that 2 men be together. Now let it be 2 woman and then the story changes, this is ok in most mens eyes. Oh, what a turn on it is for you, or how your wildest dreams would allow you to take part. Who really are we to judge any of them? If they aren't trying to pick you up, what business is it of yours to pass any judgement? And any disease can be passed whether Gay or NOT! Simple example are drug users using dirty needles, how many of them wound up with AIDS? ALOT! and then, because of getting it, they decide to have sex with as many people as they could. And right away to blame anal sex as the only way to pass AIDS. Don't you think men/woman perform anal sex? you think it's just the gays only that carry AIDS? Alot has changed from years ago on the causes of this and how it is contracted. Still comes down to the fact that some just can't stand the fact that there are gays out there. It's their lives, let them live it as they see fit. If no harm being done to you personally, then you have no right to judge others.

 

[OCA]

Janeeng baby baby. Its all about male with female, not the other way. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you argue it everything we know about science and nature and all that other crap goes back to that same fact, its MAN AND WOMAN. We are all born with that innate sense, that cannot be argued, some others make the bad choice to eat pipes or muff bump, hey in your own house git er done, but don't try and force society to recognize your perversion as normal and natural, its wrong.

Now as for the lesbo shit, yeah I like the two at one time but not them focusing on each other, I want their attention focused squarely on me, hell the lesbo scenes in porn I usually ff through, I need an end result, get my drift?