#1 2010-01-15 19:14:35

Atlanta Falcons' Ovie Mughelli Was Just Outed By a Jilted Ex-Lover

Last edited by fnord (2010-01-15 19:15:28)

Offline

 

#2 2010-01-15 19:35:46

Speaking of which...

Offline

 

#3 2010-01-15 20:29:12

Taint wrote:

Speaking of which...

Fucking awesome.

For those confused the manly sport of intimidation is strictly about physical domination.  Homo-eroticism isn't a part of it, regardless of what the 5% want to say in order to validate the shit on their dick.

On the fun side, it does have the ability to expose the closeted deniers - the only thing I don't get is why the deniers are usually the most aggressively anti-gay.

So many fags are so fucking whack, so intent on forcing the world to validate their little view of the world.  We get the "same sex marriage" pushed on us because "one man & one woman" is prejudiced while in the same breath they condemn polygamy.

Yeah, we fucked with people as part of a humiliation routine - but let's be frank, it wasn't about sex and those claims from the 5% are mostly rooted in a jealous reaction to the bonding mechanism.

Offline

 

#4 2010-01-15 21:18:19

Emmeran wrote:

So many fags are so fucking whack, so intent on forcing the world to validate their little view of the world.  We get the "same sex marriage" pushed on us because "one man & one woman" is prejudiced while in the same breath they condemn polygamy..

Emmerdeur:  Unless you've had a big ol' gay dick pounded into your shithole against your will, gays have done nothing to you.  If they want the same things you've got, well, remember you want 'em too. 

Of course, if you have had a big ol' gay dick pounded into your shithole against your will, then I owe you an apology, which you can claim any time you see fit to tell us all about it.

Offline

 

#5 2010-01-15 21:24:21

Me thinks you react too strongly Em.  Heh.

Offline

 

#6 2010-01-15 21:34:49

Offline

 

#7 2010-01-15 21:57:36

http://www.queerty.com/wp/docs/2010/01/tanyaletter.jpg

A politician in the making?

Offline

 

#8 2010-01-15 23:53:09

I saw this title and thought Lurker was back

Offline

 

#9 2010-01-16 01:24:47

Dmtdust wrote:

Me thinks you react too strongly Em.  Heh.

I am undone!!

Tis true, I over-react only because I feel the gays shall divert the true movement of "freedom of/from marriage" into a focused marital freedom for fudge packers & carpet munchers; the rest of us shall remain shackled to the ancient Catholic definition of marriage.

I hate the selfish, leather-clad bastards for this and this alone.

Offline

 

#10 2010-01-16 01:34:25

Em... I suggest you read Markale's "Celtic Women"... the Celts had 12 different varieties of marriage.  The form that you are probably familiar with (and successfully escaped from, correct?) was but one, and a minor functioning one of our ancient forebears.  They had every type of marriage from 1. "For a year and a day" (to test the waters I suppose) to "Marriage for Children", "Group Marriage", and on and on.  The great shocker for the Romans was the fact that females had property rights, and could divorce husbands, take wives if they liked etc.  Imagine at the collusion between the Romans and the recently established church to crush this out.

There was marriage between 2 men and a woman, 2 women and a man, and same sex marriages as well.  We are so limited and constrained by circumstances from ancient times, and we don't even know it.

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com