100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Edited by
ViaMusica
on
Wed 07/03/13 05:04 PM
|
|
Zoom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A to Z Movies or TV - part 7
|
|
Spaceballs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mushroomhead
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
wtf
|
|
WTF is up with my knee now? Stupid knee...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achoo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Maternity or Eternity
|
|
Because two things can never happen at once....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
Well, if it helps, I'm bailing out of this discussion. I've said all there is for me to say, outlined and explained the logic as well as can be done, and have run out of time and patience to endlessly debate those folks whom logic eludes and whom I shall neither name nor enumerate. See y'all around. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ViaMusica
on
Tue 07/02/13 10:44 AM
|
|
If you're okay with liberal churches marrying gay couples, and you're okay with gay couples having the same rights as straight couples through what you're referring to as a civil union (which would be the same rights AND terminology for gay or straight alike), then why are you even bothering to argue against gay marriage being legally recognized? Your argument makes no sense, because you are now arguing both for and against the same thing. because I take issue with calling it 'marriage',, its that simple So if a gay couple get married in a church that allows them to do so, what exactly are they (the couple and the church) supposed to call the marriage? Sorry, but you don't own the term "marriage" and neither does anybody else. You can call it whatever you like, but that doesn't mean others have to abide by your prejudices. if its not about the SEXUAL Relationship and is indeed about the rights, than lets truly have equal rights not based in a sexual relationship Which is exactly what is accomplished by giving legal recognition to all marriages, regardless of the genders of the couple. Restricting that recognition or even the use of the term 'marriage' on the basis of which type of sexual relationship a couple has WOULD make it all about the sexual relationship. Removing those restrictions removes the connection to sex. wby not have 'civil unions' that recognize any adults who want to join their lives,,,, For the same reason we don't have marriages like that. calling it MARRIAGE , indirectly, refers to a SEXUAL element in the relationship No, and that statement doesn't even make logical sense. and I don't think the government should validate or invalidate sexual choices,,,,,period,, if it causes this issue for people By saying this, you're actually speaking in FAVOR of marriage recognition for all couples regardless of gender. Restricting marriage to hetero couples only is a prime example of the government validating heterosexuality and invalidating homosexuality. Removing the restriction takes the "validation/invalidation of sexual choices" element out of the equation altogether. I understood validating commitment between the life creating relationships of males with females,,,,, I've asked this before, but never received a response so I'll ask again: What about heterosexual marriages that do not and will not produce children? Should those who will not or cannot reproduce be forbidden to legally marry? I can't have kids. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to get married? but if its really going to be used as ammunition to try to equate ALL Sexual behaviors as equal behaviors,, than I am definitely opposed,,, It isn't. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are both already legal. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. so, to make it 'equal' I suggest governments get out of marriage, based in consummation(sex), and get in the business of civil unions based in 'rights',,, "Marriage" is the term our government uses for what you're calling a "civil union". So, mission accomplished; please quit complaining already. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're okay with liberal churches marrying gay couples, and you're okay with gay couples having the same rights as straight couples through what you're referring to as a civil union (which would be the same rights AND terminology for gay or straight alike), then why are you even bothering to argue against gay marriage being legally recognized?
Your argument makes no sense, because you are now arguing both for and against the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So where did people named Steve come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SEX: Isn't over-rated?
|
|
I think sex is overated. The first time I was like, is that what everyone is raving about? I think women make sex more difficult then it could be. Masturbation is actually more satisfying because a person can press their own buttons. Having sex you actually have to listen to the women because she is trying to give you instructions on hitting the right spot. Personally the only thing I ever enjoy is a blowjob, for want of a better word. It feels way better then normal sex and after my very first one, I could never really enjoy normal sex. Oral sex is not overated but some women can be weird about that. Proper sex is only good when you take very long breaks inbetween. Why wouldn't men thirst for sex? I just think that sex would be better if women thought like men. Sex would be better if women had better attitudes and were better at it. ha ha right ((((sweet)))) NOTED.  Ah-ha! Proper hose sizing can solve a host of problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SEX: Isn't over-rated?
|
|
Because life is tough. We need to blow off some steam from time to time. Sex is a temporary euphoria that lifts our spirits. Sorry - new here and still learning the system. The post above is what I was replying to earlier with this...... And you're ok with 'using' women to blow off a bit of steam? Don't you dare say 'women do it too'. Any real woman has a far higher regard for herself than that and can be honest about it. Be honest enough about what you're looking for to go and pay for it if all you need is a steam outlet - you'll probably get far better bang for your buck than taking a lady out for dinner........... I dunno about that. I'm a real woman, and sex is an outlet sometimes for me too; no "using" of anyone involved. No, I'm not into doing it with random strangers, but that doesn't mean I need a wedding or engagement ring on my finger first, either. (And even within a marriage, it's still sometimes a matter of capturing that moment of euphoria in the middle of a difficult day or week, etc.) If he and I both wind up happier, how is that "using" anyone? Real women often DO enjoy sex, you know. I'm reading u loud and clear, Hun, and I'm wondering how it makes u feel when a man that u would really like to like/love you, treats u as just a stress reliever and nothing more? Also, What's your take on male prostitution? Would you go out and pick up just a random guy if you had say 6mths of 'steam to blow off' just for sex? Isn't sex a more u know... intimate, sharing of two bodies and spirits to u? Me personally, I use to use my ex to blow off steam but I guess that was because I was still in love with him etc... I had to stop that and go out and purchase a nice little Rampant Rabbit. ;) Ladies if u don't have one u've never had an orgasm. No, of course I wouldn't want to be treated that way if I want more from a guy. (Same as a guy wouldn't want to be treated that way by a woman he was interested in.) But fortunately, I don't run into a whole lot of that, maybe because I'm picky to begin with. As for male prostitution, it isn't a service I could see myself using. If I really wanted sex with no strings attached, I'd be more likely to seek out a friends-with-benefits arrangement with one of my trusted single male friends. I don't do much of that, but neither is it something I've never done. Believe it or not, I've never used a vibrator or other sex toy. Nothing against them, but thus far I've never felt the need. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SEX: Isn't over-rated?
Edited by
ViaMusica
on
Mon 07/01/13 11:48 PM
|
|
Because life is tough. We need to blow off some steam from time to time. Sex is a temporary euphoria that lifts our spirits. Sorry - new here and still learning the system. The post above is what I was replying to earlier with this...... And you're ok with 'using' women to blow off a bit of steam? Don't you dare say 'women do it too'. Any real woman has a far higher regard for herself than that and can be honest about it. Be honest enough about what you're looking for to go and pay for it if all you need is a steam outlet - you'll probably get far better bang for your buck than taking a lady out for dinner........... I dunno about that. I'm a real woman, and sex is an outlet sometimes for me too; no "using" of anyone involved. No, I'm not into doing it with random strangers, but that doesn't mean I need a wedding or engagement ring on my finger first, either. (And even within a marriage, it's still sometimes a matter of capturing that moment of euphoria in the middle of a difficult day or week, etc.) If he and I both wind up happier, how is that "using" anyone? Real women often DO enjoy sex, you know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
wtf
|
|
WTF, it's after 2am??? I should totally go to bed... in a minute...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ViaMusica
on
Mon 07/01/13 11:03 PM
|
|
I have to admit, the art of "just friends" does seem to be problematic for some people though fortunately it's alive and well for me and a number of other people. Thank goodness, because I have friends ranging over a 20-year span (or more) in either direction from my own age.
But I was on another site and while I gave my age openly (as I've always done) and even made it clear that I wasn't interested in dating men who were in their 20s and 30s, I kept getting messages from guys in their late 20s... most of whom were NOT looking for "just a friend". In a way I suppose it was flattering, just as it can be on those occasions when I go out with friends and then get hit on by guys fifteen years my junior... but in reality I just can't see myself with someone that much younger than myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tired, a bit worried about this and that, but also happy. Someone made my day today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
*****July 4th*****
|
|
Oh, and David, just remember...
We all get older, if we're lucky!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
*****July 4th*****
|
|
I'd be happy to be working that day (woohoo, extra money!) but it looks like I'll be off. So I might spend the day with a friend, just relaxing, and then watch fireworks that night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religion discussions really belong in the Religion forum, I think...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
SEX: Isn't over-rated?
|
|
I'm female, I demand respect, and I also want a healthy sex life. Sometimes I'm even the one who gets the ball rolling in that direction, if you know what I mean. Double-standards are so last century. I'm open about what I want when I'm dating someone, and about what my boundaries are. In my experience, most men DO respect women who use that approach. Which brings us back to my original topic, What was it again? R the women who throw themselves on men contributing to the lack of respect men have for women now? Before we can address that question, I think you'll need to define what you mean by "throwing themselves on men". There are some who think a woman should never bring up or show interest in sex at all, and if they do, they're "throwing themselves" at a guy. I don't think that's what you mean but I would like to know what your definition actually is. "throwing themselves on men" As in, The women taking on the role as the sexual predator, and instead of containing herself in a ladylike fashion, She pursues him like she drank "Spanish fly". Okay, I'm still not clear on this, as I don't consider sex to necessarily be a "predatory" thing. If I meet a guy, start dating him, decide I want a sexual relationship with him and I take the lead in making that happen, I don't think that makes me a predator. Are you suggesting it does, or am I not reading you correctly here? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
