In reality, homosexualy are *NOT* being denied equal rights

[Bass v 2.0]

I don't understand why Gays want to be married anyway. All I've heard for the last twenty years is how marriage is like a prison and keeps women down.
Civil unions are just fine for gays.

"Separate but equal..." is unconstitutional.

BS, gays have the right marry like everyone else, they just don't have any special right to have marriage tailored to their particular sexual lifestyle.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So, you're all for imposing your religious beliefs on others? If a church doesn't want to marry same-gender couples, that's their business, just as it's none of their business if same-gender couples want to marry. The state's only interest in marriage in in the contractual relatioship it establishes between the couple involved. Their gender is irrelevant.

It isn't about imposing religious beliefs on anyone, there are many of laws out there that go against the teachings of the Bible or that legalize and allow the portrayal of sinful behavior, like stripping, the sale and promotion of pornographic material, violent movies with murder and rape etc, do you see this as a liberal society imposing its liberalism onto religious people? If Christians were imposing their religious beliefs on gays, homosexuals would be forced to be baptized, things of that nature. The imposing religious beliefs onto others argument is a lame strawman argument because no one is doing that. As Christians we must take a stand for our religious beliefs and follow the Word of God, not bow to the will and pressure of liberal tolerance and acceptance for sin.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

That isn't the argument. The argument is that they are disallowed from marrying who they love without a compelling reason to disallow them from doing so.

That is the argument, they say they're denied equal rights but they are not, they have the right to marry. Using your logic, polygamists are also being disallowed from marrying whom they love and so are adults who are in love with little children.

Well the problem with marrying little children is that they cannot consent to a contract. This problem does not apply to gay marriage, as we are talking about two adults wishing to enter into a contract. I see no inherent problem with polygamy. If all who enter into the contract are consenting adults and they don't get any special privileges then I don't see the problem.

Special treatment would necessarily include getting unearned benefits unavailable to other people. Heterosexual people already can marry the person they love. There is seriously no reason to disallow homosexuals from marrying each other

As pointed out, gays already have the right to marry, to allow gay marriage would be specific to them which makes it a special marriage which makes it a special right. Thats why they call it gay marriage, because they want a type of marriage that suits and fits their lifestyle.

White men attracted to Black women and Black women attracted to White men also had the right to marry within their own ethnicity prior to Loving v. Virginia. Miscegenation was seen as a special and unnatural type of marriage that would harm children. That, too, was discrimination upon the basis of sexual orientation, i.e. a sexual orientation for somebody of another race.

These cases aren't all exactly the same. For example, the problem with incest is that marriage involves sex, and heterosexual sex carries risks of unintended pregnancy. Incestuous pregnancy can violate the rights of another person as the child produced is likely to inherit recessive genetic defects. For that reason, I would say that gay incestuous marriage would be okay, and whether heterosexual incestuous marriage is okay would depend on the moral status of abortion.

BS, it is all the same, you just stated that gay are being disallowed from marrying whom they love, so if two siblings or a person who wants to marry two women are in love, but can't marry is no different than two men or two women who want to get married. If you're going to change the law for one you have to do it for all.

The difference is that there is no compelling reason to disallow gay marriage, unlike heterosexual incestuous marriage. No 3rd parties are harmed by gay marriage. Your argument fails to explain why they should be disallowed from marrying. Who is harmed?

Understand that people made these same arguments against interracial marriage. People of any race attracted to somebody of another race were told they could marry within their own race just like everybody else. In reality, using sexual attraction to other races as a basis of denying the right to marry who you want is totally arbitrary, exactly as it is with homosexual marriage today.

Biological race doesn't exists and its designation is arbitrary, but anyways, interracial marriage is not suiting a particular sexual lifestyle, the homosexual lifestyle is particular sexual lifestyle.

Prior to about 1980, most Americans did see interracial marriage as an unnatural lifestyle. It wasn't a law specifically targetting African Americans per se, but rather disallowing state-sanctioned sexual relations between people of different races. The reason given for this was racial purity, and as you stated race is not a valid biological concept. Hence the reason for disallowing interracial marriage in a legal sense evaporated as judges came to realize this.

When it comes to disallowing certain people from forming contracts with each other, there needs to be a compelling reason for doing so as you are restricting liberty. The fact that you or anybody else find homosexuality disgusting is not a compelling reason. With gay marriage, there is no compelling societal interest served in disallowing these people from marrying each other. The child argument is moot, as they cannot produce children via their relationship. No tangible 3rd party interest is violated by gay marriage, hence the default should be to allow maximal liberty.

Being black and being a ****** is in no way comparable, one involves living an aberrant sexual lifestyle, the other is not.

See Ass Chucker........shit like this is why nobody listens to, or likes you.

Other than the other close minded idiots who are posting in agreement with you.

Its an insult to compare an ethnic group to a group of homosexuals, there is no comparison, ethnic groups are defined by common language, culture, ancestry, etc, homosexuals are defined by their sexual lifestyle, thats a big damn difference jackass.

lol, interracial marriage was not about violating an ethnic group or their culture. Whose culture had prescribed interracial relations? Nobodys. Why couldn't people who wanted to enter into an interracial marriage marry within their own ethnicity? Because they either happened to love an individual who was of another race, or had a specific sexual preference to be with people of another race. Either way, it's about love and/or sexual orientation, not race or culture. If anything, it's a repudiation of the traditional culture of both ethnicities. In 1958, more Blacks disapproved of interracial marriage (33%) than Whites today (19%). Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

So there's a legal reason, which is the entanglement of church and sate caused by allowing gay marriage (as seen in New Jersey and elsewhere).

Marriage is not a religious institution. Atheists can get married by a justice of the peace. Churches can still be allowed to marry or not marry whoever the hell they want regardless of the legal status of gay marriage.

But, the Biblical reason is because as Christians, though loving of everyone, just as you would rebuke a friend who has done wrong of any kind, a Christian ought not support a deadly sin of anyone whom they are instructed to love as Christ loved. And Christ rebuked many sins, and in passing referred to the hellfire and brimstone levied upon Sodom righteously.

Genuine morality cannot exist in the context of forced morality, and Jesus instructed you to look after your own sin rather than judge others. The role of the state is to, at a minimum, protect negative rights, which means people can do what they want so long as they do not harm others. Not all sins involve harming others, but rather oneself, so there is no need to legislate all sins. There is nothing wrong with trying to persuade people to avoid doing things that you believe damage themselves, but if you try to coerce them through force of law, you are not creating morality but rather making morality impossible.

So, there is absolutely no Biblical basis for a Christian allowing gay marriage therefore if they can vote against it they must.

The Bible is a severely flawed book filled with a plethora of contradictions, genocide, sexism, and other archaic and irrational beliefs. It ought not be used as a basis for anything.

How is it dumb? If your friend were committing some crime, would you not rebuke him saying, "do not commit this crime?" Or rather would you simply make that crime legal? For a Christian the law is not able to be rewritten.

Precisely the problem. You follow a book written by bronze age barbarians. In theory a simpler and more just standard would include informed consent and tangible harm to others for laws. If your action does not harm others against their consent, the state does not have the right to stop you.

So, you're all for imposing your religious beliefs on others? If a church doesn't want to marry same-gender couples, that's their business, just as it's none of their business if same-gender couples want to marry. The state's only interest in marriage in in the contractual relatioship it establishes between the couple involved. Their gender is irrelevant.

It isn't about imposing religious beliefs on anyone, there are many of laws out there that go against the teachings of the Bible or that legalize and allow the portrayal of sinful behavior, like stripping, the sale and promotion of pornographic material, violent movies with murder and rape etc, do you see this as a liberal society imposing its liberalism onto religious people? If Christians were imposing their religious beliefs on gays, homosexuals would be forced to be baptized, things of that nature. The imposing religious beliefs onto others argument is a lame strawman argument because no one is doing that. As Christians we must take a stand for our religious beliefs and follow the Word of God, not bow to the will and pressure of liberal tolerance and acceptance for sin.

Sooner or later you and your ideological ilk will lose this culture war and rationality/compassion will prevail.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I don't understand why Gays want to be married anyway. All I've heard for the last twenty years is how marriage is like a prison and keeps women down.
Civil unions are just fine for gays.

"Separate but equal..." is unconstitutional.

BS, gays have the right marry like everyone else, they just don't have any special right to have marriage tailored to their particular sexual lifestyle.

Okay Chucking Ass......what if they told you that because you like white women, that is obviously an aberrant lifestyle (marrying across racial lines), and forbid you to marry one?

Same rules of logic idiot.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

"Separate but equal..." is unconstitutional.

BS, gays have the right marry like everyone else, they just don't have any special right to have marriage tailored to their particular sexual lifestyle.

Okay Chucking Ass......what if they told you that because you like white women, that is obviously an aberrant lifestyle (marrying across racial lines), and forbid you to marry one?

Same rules of logic idiot.

The same rules don't apply, being a ****** and being black are the same and interracial marriages are not an aberrant lifestyle, its and inter-ethnic marriage. people who have gay sex are is no way comparable to people who are black, being black isn't aberrant, being a ****** and having gay sex is.

 

[ABikerSailor]

BS, gays have the right marry like everyone else, they just don't have any special right to have marriage tailored to their particular sexual lifestyle.

Okay Chucking Ass......what if they told you that because you like white women, that is obviously an aberrant lifestyle (marrying across racial lines), and forbid you to marry one?

Same rules of logic idiot.

The same rules don't apply, being a ****** and being black are the same and interracial marriages are not an aberrant lifestyle, its and inter-ethnic marriage. people who have gay sex are is no way comparable to people who are black, being black isn't aberrant, being a ****** and having gay sex is.

Bullshit......it's been proven over and over that a certain combination of genes makes a person gay.

So......if you deny rights to one group based on genetics, then you should apply the same standard to ALL genetic differences.

So yeah.......it is the same.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Bullshit......it's been proven over and over that a certain combination of genes makes a person gay.

BS, there is no such thing as a gay gene or gay genes.

So......if you deny rights to one group based on genetics, then you should apply the same standard to ALL genetic differences.

So yeah.......it is the same.

Since the above is false the rest of your post is moot.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not my fault you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge science.

Take your bigoted fucked up views and shove em' up your ass. Hopefully, there's enough room as your head is already there.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Not my fault you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge science.

Take your bigoted fucked up views and shove em' up your ass. Hopefully, there's enough room as your head is already there.

Anger, frustration and personal attacks, why are you mad? Fact remains that there are no gay genes.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Really? What's this?

Twin studies

Researchers have traditionally used twin studies to try to isolate genetic influences from environmental or other influences. One common type of twin study compares identical twins (known as monozygotic or "MZ twins") who both have a particular trait to non-identical or fraternal twins (known as dizygotic or "DZ twins") with that same trait. Since identical twins have the same genetic makeup (genotype) while non-identical twins share only 50% of their genes, a difference between these types of twins provides evidence of a genetic component. For example, if a high percentage of identical twins both have red hair (while a low percentage of non-identical twins both have red hair), that suggests that red hair has a genetic basis. On the other hand, if identical twins share a characteristic just as often as fraternal twins (such as love of music), that suggests that there is not a genetic basis for that trait.

A number of twin studies have attempted this kind of isolation. As Bearman and Bruckner (2002)[6] describe it, early studies concentrated on small, select samples, which showed very high genetic influences; however, they were also criticized for non-representative selection of their subjects.[7] Later studies, performed on increasingly representative samples, showed much lesser concordance among MZ twins, although still significantly larger than among DZ twins.

For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[8] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[9] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[10] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.

As a counter-example, Bearman and Bruckner (2002), analyzed data from a large longitudinal study of adolescents. They found the data did not support genetic influence:
“ Among [identical] twins, 6.7% are concordant [that is, both express same-sex romantic attraction]. [Fraternal] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5% concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between [identical] twins and others ... are even remotely significant. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.[6] ”

Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."

A recent study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[11] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twin may influence the results (see below).
“ Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences. [...] In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. ”

[edit] Criticisms of Twin Studies

Twin studies have received a number of criticisms including self-selection bias where homosexuals with gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for studies. Nonetheless, it is possible to conclude that, given the difference in sexuality in so many sets of identical twins (who are genetically identical, and shared the same fetal environment), sexual orientation cannot be purely caused by genetics.[12]

Another issue is the recent finding that even monozygotic twins can be different and there is a mechanism which might account for monozygotic twins being discordant for homosexuality. Gringas and Chen (2001) describe a number of mechanisms which can lead to differences between monozygotic twins, the most relevant here being chorionicity and amniocity.[13] Dichorionic twins potentially have different hormonal environments and receive maternal blood from separate placenta. Monoamniotic twins share a hormonal environment, but can suffer from the 'twin to twin transfusion syndrome' in which one twin is "relatively stuffed with blood and the other exsanguinated".[14] If one twin receives less testosterone and the other more, this could result in different levels of brain masculinisation.

[edit] Chromosome linkage studies

Earlier chromosome studies of homosexuality in males have not been replicated, or have had doubt cast on these early suggestions. For example, in 1993, Dean Hamer and colleagues published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families.[15] Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly (but inaccurately) dubbed as the 'gay gene' in the media, causing significant controversy.

However, a later analysis by Hu et al. revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28.[16] Sanders et al. (1998) replicated the study, finding 66% Xq28 marker sharing in 54 pairs of gay brothers.[17] On the other hand, two other studies (Bailey et al., 1999; McKnight and Malcolm, 2000) failed to find a preponderance of gay relatives in the maternal line of homosexual men.[17] Also, a study by Rice et al. in 1999 failed to replicate the Xq28 linkage results.[18]

Additionally, Mustanski et al. (2005) performed a full-genome scan (instead of just an X chromosome scan) on individuals and families previously reported on in Hamer et al. (1993) and Hu et al. (1995), as well as additional new subjects.[19] With the larger sample set and complete genome scan, the study found much weaker link for Xq28 than reported by Hamer et al. However, they did find other markers with significant likelihood scores at 8p12, 7q36 and 10q26, the latter two having approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions.

[edit] Epigenetics studies

A recent study suggests linkage between a mother's genetic make-up and homosexuality of her sons. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is "switched off". The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al. (2006) reported that, in mothers of homosexual men, the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher than in mothers without gay sons. Thirteen percent of mothers with one gay son, and 23% of mothers with two gay sons showed extreme skewing, compared to 4% percent of mothers without gay sons.[20] One problem in building consensus using this type of study stems from their heavy reliance on participants truthfully reporting their sexual orientation.

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

Quoting wikipedia? LOL:


"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project

 

[ABikerSailor]

At least mine isn't a ******* right wing blog you *****.

Saw that you had to go whine in another thread, eh bigot? By the way.......since you have such a fetish with ass sex, have you pumped your new bride up the kiester yet, or do you have her wear a strap on?

 

[sealybobo]

All Americans are allowed to marry, so the argument that gays are not allowed to marry is false, they just want a special kind of marriage specific to them thats suited for their lifestyle, which is special treatment under the law. If polygamists and bigamist and incestuous people can't marry whom they want gays shouldn't be allowed anything special either, if you allow gay marriage you have to allow the others mentioned above special marriages suited to their lifestyle also.


Again, all people have the right to marriage, no law states that gays can't marry, it only places restrictions whom you can marry, so in reality gays are *NOT* being denied the right to marriage, but at the same time this isn't Burger King so they can't have it their way thats special for them.

Two men or two women should be able to marry each other. If Liza Manelli can marry David Gest, then two men who want to be married should be allowed to also.

Can you tell me, besides the fact that Liza is a woman and David is a man, what the difference is between them getting married and a gay couple getting married? Neither are going to have childen.

Marriage means a union between two people. They become one. If one is in the hospital, the other one can make life decisions for the one that is sick. They get tax breaks. They get couples insurance.

Charles. A lot of families disown their gay sons or daughters when they come out of the closet. So the gay person goes off and lives with their lover for years, and one day they die. So the family members come in and take all that person's possessions. But if they were married, the possessions would belong to the suviving gay person, as it should.

Anyways, I'm just glad that gay people are going to get equal rights. No matter what, you are fighting a losing battle. I remember years ago thinking they'd never get this far, and now at most major corporations, they offer domestic partner coverage for healthcare.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

At least mine isn't a ******* right wing blog you *****.

Saw that you had to go whine in another thread, eh bigot? By the way.......since you have such a fetish with ass sex, have you pumped your new bride up the kiester yet, or do you have her wear a strap on?

Watch your mouth genius, the Bass# wife has nothing to do with this topic and just because you're pissed doesn't give you a right to insult the Bass' wife.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

All Americans are allowed to marry, so the argument that gays are not allowed to marry is false, they just want a special kind of marriage specific to them thats suited for their lifestyle, which is special treatment under the law. If polygamists and bigamist and incestuous people can't marry whom they want gays shouldn't be allowed anything special either, if you allow gay marriage you have to allow the others mentioned above special marriages suited to their lifestyle also.


Again, all people have the right to marriage, no law states that gays can't marry, it only places restrictions whom you can marry, so in reality gays are *NOT* being denied the right to marriage, but at the same time this isn't Burger King so they can't have it their way thats special for them.

Two men or two women should be able to marry each other. If Liza Manelli can marry David Gest, then two men who want to be married should be allowed to also.

Can you tell me, besides the fact that Liza is a woman and David is a man, what the difference is between them getting married and a gay couple getting married? Neither are going to have childen.

Marriage means a union between two people. They become one. If one is in the hospital, the other one can make life decisions for the one that is sick. They get tax breaks. They get couples insurance.

Charles. A lot of families disown their gay sons or daughters when they come out of the closet. So the gay person goes off and lives with their lover for years, and one day they die. So the family members come in and take all that person's possessions. But if they were married, the possessions would belong to the suviving gay person, as it should.

Anyways, I'm just glad that gay people are going to get equal rights. No matter what, you are fighting a losing battle. I remember years ago thinking they'd never get this far, and now at most major corporations, they offer domestic partner coverage for healthcare.

Again, giving gays gay marriage is granting a special right, not equal rights since they already have the right to marry, it just isn't suited to their lifestyle. Laws and constitutions don't get changed to grant people special rights that suit their lifestyle.

 

[ABikerSailor]

************.....(speaking to Chucked Ass).........you brought up the fact you were married cock sucker.

I'm just asking.......does your wife let you shove it up her ass, or do you have her wear a strap on?

Perfectly legal to ask that question here............

Or.........do you do gay sex with another dude while she masturbates with a cucumber?

 

[Gurdari]

All Americans are allowed to marry, so the argument that gays are not allowed to marry is false, they just want a special kind of marriage specific to them thats suited for their lifestyle, which is special treatment under the law. If polygamists and bigamist and incestuous people can't marry whom they want gays shouldn't be allowed anything special either, if you allow gay marriage you have to allow the others mentioned above special marriages suited to their lifestyle also.


Again, all people have the right to marriage, no law states that gays can't marry, it only places restrictions whom you can marry, so in reality gays are *NOT* being denied the right to marriage, but at the same time this isn't Burger King so they can't have it their way thats special for them.

Maybe the issue is not all people can marry their non-related lover - only straight people can. Which is unfair.

As for polygamy, you're right - it should be legal, there's no logical basis for prohibiting consensual relationships between people, like if a baseball team all want to live together and f*ck, well that's their business, if they want to give each other rings and have a celebratory party with their families, again - so be it. You cannot mandate how people feel about each other, or who they choose to associate with (effectively) and even laws about sex are nearly impossible to manage... assuming the state has a right in your bedroom in the first place.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

************.....(speaking to Chucked Ass).........you brought up the fact you were married cock sucker.

I'm just asking.......does your wife let you shove it up her ass, or do you have her wear a strap on?

Perfectly legal to ask that question here............

Or.........do you do gay sex with another dude while she masturbates with a cucumber?

You homosexual tinged question is irrelevant to this thread, try staying on topic instead of personally attacking.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

All Americans are allowed to marry, so the argument that gays are not allowed to marry is false, they just want a special kind of marriage specific to them thats suited for their lifestyle, which is special treatment under the law. If polygamists and bigamist and incestuous people can't marry whom they want gays shouldn't be allowed anything special either, if you allow gay marriage you have to allow the others mentioned above special marriages suited to their lifestyle also.


Again, all people have the right to marriage, no law states that gays can't marry, it only places restrictions whom you can marry, so in reality gays are *NOT* being denied the right to marriage, but at the same time this isn't Burger King so they can't have it their way thats special for them.

Maybe the issue is not all people can marry their non-related lover - only straight people can. Which is unfair.

As for polygamy, you're right - it should be legal, there's no logical basis for prohibiting consensual relationships between people, like if a baseball team all want to live together and f*ck, well that's their business, if they want to give each other rings and have a celebratory party with their families, again - so be it. You cannot mandate how people feel about each other, or who they choose to associate with (effectively) and even laws about sex are nearly impossible to manage... assuming the state has a right in your bedroom in the first place.

Nobody is mandating how they feel, the point is that all American, regardless of their sexual lifestyle have the right to marry, nobody is denied that right, whether people can have a marriage that specifically made for their lifestyle is another matter.

 

[ABikerSailor]

************.....(speaking to Chucked Ass).........you brought up the fact you were married cock sucker.

I'm just asking.......does your wife let you shove it up her ass, or do you have her wear a strap on?

Perfectly legal to ask that question here............

Or.........do you do gay sex with another dude while she masturbates with a cucumber?

You homosexual tinged question is irrelevant to this thread, try staying on topic instead of personally attacking.

Listen douche.....I'm not the cock smoking asshole that creates these fucked up threads.

You are.

So.......what is your married sex life like? Does your old lady accept your repressed homosexuality?

Perfectly acceptable to ask that question dude. You are the one that mentioned you were married, and, well........I'm interested in how your sex life works with your spouse.

Like I said.......strap on or cucumber?