I would elaborate, but we have to keep this PG . . .Turquoise wrote:
LOL.... I won't ask, but I'll take your word for it.Stingray24 wrote:
You'll miss out on the joy of prego sex, man.Turquoise wrote:
When I get married, I'm not having kids. Fuck that shit. You know what usually happens to a woman after pregnancy? Goodbye metabolism....
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- New law REQUIRES married couples to have a child within 3 years.
No seriously, I quit. I'm moving to Canada. My country is so fundamentally fucked up on so many levels, I ponder just how it manages to function on a day to day basis. This is the government clamping down on Gay rights--Normally I wouldn't care, but seriously--forcing people to marry and have kids within three years? This is the product of those fucking conservatives that currently rule our country, and I sure as fuck didn't elect them either.
So which part of Canada is warmest, eh? I need to start making travel plans.
So which part of Canada is warmest, eh? I need to start making travel plans.
If you're serious, I suggest Toronto. It's the warmest, and it supposedly has a lot of jobs.Magius5.0 wrote:
No seriously, I quit. I'm moving to Canada. My country is so fundamentally fucked up on so many levels, I ponder just how it manages to function on a day to day basis. This is the government clamping down on Gay rights--Normally I wouldn't care, but seriously--forcing people to marry and have kids within three years? This is the product of those fucking conservatives that currently rule our country, and I sure as fuck didn't elect them either.
So which part of Canada is warmest, eh? I need to start making travel plans.
I'm a big fan of Canada myself, but I'd probably move to either Calgary, Toronto, or Vancouver. The last one would be very expensive though.
Higher taxes are in Canada, but yes... as far as I can tell... they tend to leave your personal life alone more there.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-06 18:28:47)
Turquoise are you a chick? This takes on an entirely different meaning if you are....made me laugh at least....Stingray24 wrote:
I would elaborate, but we have to keep this PG . . .Turquoise wrote:
LOL.... I won't ask, but I'll take your word for it.Stingray24 wrote:
You'll miss out on the joy of prego sex, man.
LOL... You know, I went back and read my first post, and I just realized how ambiguous that was.Pug wrote:
Turquoise are you a chick? This takes on an entirely different meaning if you are....made me laugh at least....Stingray24 wrote:
I would elaborate, but we have to keep this PG . . .Turquoise wrote:
LOL.... I won't ask, but I'll take your word for it.
No, I'm a dude.
giggidy.
They should stop people procreating unless they have the interlect and abilities to actually rear children...worldwide...period
If gay people teach their kids that gay is wrong, thats ok.
Am i the only one that thinks gays/lesbians are just sooky hetro quitters (ie,as a man its easier to befriend another man,same goes for woman) but to convince the opposite sex of something...never easy
Hands together for all those men and woman still pursuing the opposite sex, no matter how futile...
If gay people teach their kids that gay is wrong, thats ok.
Am i the only one that thinks gays/lesbians are just sooky hetro quitters (ie,as a man its easier to befriend another man,same goes for woman) but to convince the opposite sex of something...never easy
Hands together for all those men and woman still pursuing the opposite sex, no matter how futile...
That's a pretty simplistic viewpoint.Superglueman wrote:
They should stop people procreating unless they have the interlect and abilities to actually rear children...worldwide...period
If gay people teach their kids that gay is wrong, thats ok.
Am i the only one that thinks gays/lesbians are just sooky hetro quitters (ie,as a man its easier to befriend another man,same goes for woman) but to convince the opposite sex of something...never easy
Hands together for all those men and woman still pursuing the opposite sex, no matter how futile...
Although, I do wish that it took a significant amount of intelligence to breed. It would solve a lot of the world's problems.
Not exactly. They are arguing that if the states don't allow gay marriage because procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, they should not allow marriage without procreation. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Then they shouldn't allow divorce, either ("'til death do us part", no?).Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Marriage is a term originally designated as part of a religious ceremony joining a couple. Let the religious institutions keep the term.
It isn't a revenge mentality. They are simply forcing the lawmakers to admit that marriage isn't about having children.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
However, I find this revenge mentality to be moronic, and childish.
Did you read? They didn't proprose it to pass it. It won't get passed. It's just a statement.Magius5.0 wrote:
No seriously, I quit. I'm moving to Canada. My country is so fundamentally fucked up on so many levels, I ponder just how it manages to function on a day to day basis. This is the government clamping down on Gay rights--Normally I wouldn't care, but seriously--forcing people to marry and have kids within three years? This is the product of those fucking conservatives that currently rule our country, and I sure as fuck didn't elect them either.
So which part of Canada is warmest, eh? I need to start making travel plans.
hmmm what if the wife only wants it in the ass, how would that work?
Then don't marry (esp. since if marriage is a religious thing, that would be sodomy).
I hope the hell you are joking, otherwise your either a virgin, or 12 years oldBubbalo wrote:
Then don't marry (esp. since if marriage is a religious thing, that would be sodomy).
Because only 12 year olds know what sodomy is
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- New law REQUIRES married couples to have a child within 3 years.