Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,819 Year: 4,076/9,624 Month: 947/974 Week: 274/286 Day: 35/46 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The bible and homosexuality
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 323 (104714)
05-02-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Rrhain
05-02-2004 4:19 AM


Re: Inversion
OK, firstly your direct question. The lesbian thing. Originally you were asking me if god should condone this and no other, and telling me how silly i was for believing this. I replied saying that i didnt believe in god, and so it didnt make a difference to me. To answer your adapted question, I dont prevent anyone from having sex, and dont see why anyone should.
Right you keep jumping between Western Europe (and countries) and worldwide, and so your figures can jump around too. Now your western europe numbers do indeed point out that it spreads more through heterosexual contact. I havent disagreed with this. What i have disagreed with is that this means that it is more likely to spread through heterosexual contact. If the numbers are 2:1, i dont think there is a 2:1 ratio between heterosexual men and homosexual men, suggesting that in proportion to numbers it spreads fast in homosexual encounters. (your previous stats were saying 44% hetero and 26% homo werent they?)
Now we jump to the world picture. Once again i agree fully that it spreads most because of heterosexuals. And the reason i suspect it is higher than this as i have said is because i know the west isnt the world, ive seen the effects in the third world, ive seen the big billboards with familys on asking the men to be loyal, so that aids doesnt spread anymore, or if there not loyal then at least wear a condom. Can you please stop insisting that you know the way i think of the world.
As far as i am aware, vaginal sex is not more damaging that anal sex. Now if a heterosexual couple engage in anal sex, then their at just as much risk.
Anal sex is where increased risk occurs. I am assuming (possibly incorrectly) that proportionatly (so trying to even things out here) male homosexual couples engage more often in anal sex than heterosexual couples.
Male semen contains a lot more particles of the virus than female vaginal fluid, this could also just as easily explain the trends.
Can i just say once more Anal sex is more risky (as far as i am aware), and so that is where the health risk can lie. And i believe that i have already answered your direct question.

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2004 4:19 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 2:43 PM Unseul has replied
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2004 11:22 PM Unseul has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 77 of 323 (104729)
05-02-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Unseul
05-02-2004 7:50 AM


Re: Inversion
Unseul, I'm sorry to have to break up this fist fight, but your arguments, the both of yous, have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality and the bible or the morality or immorality of homosexuality.
To argue that something is wrong (or right) just because of the risks that are involved is like trying to argue that driving a car is immoral. I can make the same argument for it too! The United States has more car accidents each year than any other country ( all the other countries put together for that matter). Therefore, it is morally wrong to drive a car!
Why don't we might as well talk about crime rates in the summer and ice cream sales.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Unseul, posted 05-02-2004 7:50 AM Unseul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Unseul, posted 05-02-2004 3:57 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 323 (104742)
05-02-2004 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by coffee_addict
05-02-2004 2:43 PM


Re: Inversion
LOL, good timing, i'd decided to say that this wasnt going anywhere so i was gonna stop posting on it, for pretty much those reasons. So as i said, this will probably be my last post on this thread.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 2:43 PM coffee_addict has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 79 of 323 (104761)
05-02-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rrhain
05-01-2004 6:12 AM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
It really is that simple. If someone wants to know about your opinion, he'll ask you for it.
You take offense, but Loudmouth didn't. He didn't complain.
God doesn't need you to preach. In fact, that Bible of yours you claim to follow specifically instructs you not to preach.
Can you provide the quote from the bible in it's entirety please. And even if you do, talking about God is not preaching, I am only posting to you to explain my position and why I made the suggestion to Loudmouth.
Since you are not god and are absolutely incapable of speaking for him, where do you get off trying to tell others about what god wants?
I haven't mentioned what God wants. I just said to Loudmouth "Why not become christian".
Um, how did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible? Seems that your god isn't actually god but rather a book.
If you want to talk about a book, that's fine. To pretend that the book is god
We shifted from the supernatural which is spoke of in the bible and you have now shifted into saying I am pretending God is a book. Hmmmm...
And as you well know, that means nothing since it is illogical to use a circular argument. The Bible is true because it says it is.
Even if there is a possible logical possibility (not error) that the bible argument is circular - what would that mean if it really is the truth?
Fine. I'm god. I'm god because I say I am and I say I am because I am.
Now, why is it you seem to believe your book and not me?
I thought a book was God - and now you say you are, how then can I trust you when you are confusing yourself.
Hah!
Why do you still preach to me? You know I don't want to hear it.
I am not preaching, I am debating. Your problem is that you are a preachophobic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 05-01-2004 6:12 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 9:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 81 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 9:15 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 89 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2004 12:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 80 of 323 (104778)
05-02-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by mike the wiz
05-02-2004 7:22 PM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
[edited by Lam-double post]
[This message has been edited Lam, 05-02-2004]

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 05-02-2004 7:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 81 of 323 (104779)
05-02-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by mike the wiz
05-02-2004 7:22 PM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
Mike writes:
I am not preaching, I am debating. Your problem is that you are a preachophobic.
For once, we agree on something.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 05-02-2004 7:22 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 05-02-2004 9:18 PM coffee_addict has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 82 of 323 (104782)
05-02-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by coffee_addict
05-02-2004 9:15 PM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 9:15 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 83 of 323 (104817)
05-02-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Unseul
05-02-2004 7:50 AM


Re: Inversion
Unseul responds to me:
quote:
Originally you were asking me if god should condone this and no other, and telling me how silly i was for believing this. I replied saying that i didnt believe in god, and so it didnt make a difference to me.
But the argument that you're defending is that homosexual sex is somehow "unhealthy." And yet, sex between women is the least likely to transmit disease. Forget about god, the argument are defending is disproven by lesbians.
Remember the original argument: Sex between people of the same sex is "unhealthy."
For you to backpedal and say that you're only talking about how anal sex is more likely to result in HIV transmission than vaginal sex is disingenuous at best. As I said, shooting yourself in the head with twelve bullets is, indeed, more dangerous than shooting yourself in the head with only three bullets...but you're still shooting yourself in the head.
You are making anal sex out to be something tremendously damaging compared to vaginal sex and it simply isn't. Yes, the rectal lining is a bit more delicate than the vaginal lining, but not by that much. Unprotected vaginal sex is still a wonderful vector for transmitting HIV as can be seen by the breakdown of the epidemic: Most people who have HIV got it from heterosexual sex and most people who have HIV are women.
quote:
Right you keep jumping between Western Europe (and countries) and worldwide, and so your figures can jump around too.
Incorrect. The numbers remain the same. HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex, worldwide. In the West such as Western Europe and the US, it used to be primarily transmitted via men who have sex with men, but that is changing. For the past five years, Europe has seen HIV transmitted primarily via heterosexual sex. In fact, the total number of people who have HIV in Europe is almost split even between those who got it from heterosexual sex and those who got it from homosexual sex. The US is going the same way.
You are stuck on this vision of HIV being connected to gay men when that is a localized phenomenon that is rapidly disappearing. It was never a global trend.
quote:
your previous stats were saying 44% hetero and 26% homo werent they?
For the UK for the one specific year of 2002. Do you bother to read posts before responding?
quote:
What i have disagreed with is that this means that it is more likely to spread through heterosexual contact.
Logical error: Equivocation.
You are switching from "heterosexual contact" meaning the rates of those with HIV who acquired it via heterosexual sex to "heterosexual contact" meaning the concept of a single act of unprotected sex through vaginal sex compared to anal sex (not to mention the error that heterosexuals don't commonly engage in anal sex compared to men who have sex with men).
And on top of that, you're confusing relative risk for absolute risk. While anal sex may be a better vector of HIV transmission compared to vaginal sex, vaginal sex is still a pretty good vector. And we can see that simply by looking at the breakdown of the epidemic. Most people with HIV got it from heterosexual sex. Most people with HIV are women.
Shooting yourself in the head with twelve bullets is more dangerous than using only three...but you're still shooting yourself in the head.
quote:
Can you please stop insisting that you know the way i think of the world.
I only go off of what you say. You keep insisting that somehow HIV has some big connection to men who have sex with men and that simply isn't true. The only place that ever happened was in the West...where you happen to live. If you truly did understand the epidemiology of the epidemic, you wouldn't make such comments. So if it isn't because you're stuck on this vision that your local experience generalizes to the world at large, what is it?
Less than 5% of cases worldwide from men who have sex with men and you claim that there is some big connection between HIV transmission and men who have sex with men?
quote:
And i believe that i have already answered your direct question.
No, you haven't. You're stuck on HIV and sex between men.
The question is: If homosexual sex is to be prevented because it is "unhealthy" (with that being nothing more than a euphemism for HIV), then how to explain the fact that sex between women is the least likely to transmit STDs?
That is the original argument. Just in case you forgot, Message 28 by PecosGeorge:
But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts. Does God want New Testament people to be healthy? Well, yes! Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them.
This isn't just about men putting their wee-wees where you poo-poo. This is about all gay people.
Well, that includes lesbians. And they're the least likely to get STDs from sex.
So if the condemnation is against "unhealthy" sex practices, why are lesbians condemned?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Unseul, posted 05-02-2004 7:50 AM Unseul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 11:24 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 91 by berberry, posted 05-03-2004 12:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 84 of 323 (104819)
05-02-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rrhain
05-02-2004 11:22 PM


Re: Inversion
Rrhain writes:
This isn't just about men putting their wee-wees where you poo-poo. This is about all gay people.
Well, that includes lesbians. And they're the least likely to get STDs from sex.
So if the condemnation is against "unhealthy" sex practices, why are lesbians condemned?
And just exactly how many straight men you know that doesn't like to see 2 girls going at it?

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2004 11:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2004 12:31 AM coffee_addict has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 323 (104822)
05-02-2004 11:30 PM


Trying to head back towards the topic
so far no one has shown any realy Biblical discussion or prohibition against homosexuality except for a few clips from a few OT sections that also approve of Slavery, killing people for minor offences and a few silly dietary restrictions that might have made sense before refrigeration and Tums, but certainly not since.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 11:36 PM jar has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 86 of 323 (104825)
05-02-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
05-02-2004 11:30 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic
And guess what, I'm the only one so far that have shown some references to the bible.
I really really thought that many people would have had much stronger arguments than zippo.
So, if people are against homosexuality (and I know for a fact that many people on this board are against homosexuality) because of what the bible tells them, how come they can't back up their claims?
Speaking of which, I still don't understand how some people could go along with Bush about pushing for that amendment that forbids gay marriage.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 05-02-2004 11:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 05-02-2004 11:49 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 88 by kofh2u, posted 05-03-2004 12:10 AM coffee_addict has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 421 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 323 (104829)
05-02-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by coffee_addict
05-02-2004 11:36 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic
Me too. I find the Defense of Marriage Act, and both of the proposed Amendments to the Constitution embarassing as a Christian. I am ashamed that there are any alleged Christians out there who could even contemplate anything so absurd.
For all Christians, I apologize.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 11:36 PM coffee_addict has not replied

kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3847 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 88 of 323 (104830)
05-03-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by coffee_addict
05-02-2004 11:36 PM


Re: Trying to head back towards the topic
I don't believe, in the bible, that homosexuality is frowned upon anymore that masterbation, and way less than hetetosexual practice.
Check the number of Old Testament complaint against the "worshi;
of Baal, whose idols we have found in comparable abundance in the Middle East. That idol was a phallus. The Baal worship was patriarchial sex excess and pre-occupation.
Then, the "witchy" sexual licensre in nations neighboring Israel, and soon imitated, was a whoredom of sexually exploiting the cultural and economic institution.
I think the big picture is that the scriptures are on the one side of an ancient argument, paganism on the other.
Does unregulated, independent personal, and individual sexual freedom have an negative effect on the society as a whole, ultimately tied to if not creditrd with the fall of empire?
Rev. 17:1 And there came (to my mind) one of the seven angels (angel-like thoughts) which had the seven vials (of insight), and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon (the sexual mores) of many waters (of Western Culture):

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 11:36 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by apple, posted 05-03-2004 1:54 PM kofh2u has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 89 of 323 (104833)
05-03-2004 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mike the wiz
05-02-2004 7:22 PM


Re: Look at this -- he who is for me is not against me
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
You take offense, but Loudmouth didn't. He didn't complain.
I don't pretend to speak for Loudmouth.
By the way, Loudmouth didn't even respond. We have no idea what he thinks. You asked what someone else would do in your position.
You got an answer.
Now you're whining that it wasn't the answer you were expecting.
The recent case before the Supreme Court regarding the Pledge of Allegiance had a very good exchange regarding just this point:
Souter comments that the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar."
Newdow's response is that it is "getting slapped in the face every time" he hears it.
That is the part you don't seem to understand: Etiquette is not to smooth the feelings of people who aren't offended by your behaviour. It's to smooth the feelings of those who are. Think about it: Do you really think someone who shares your religious opinion is going to find anything wrong with your actions?
So why do you assume that someone who doesn't share that opinion should behave in the same way?
quote:
quote:
God doesn't need you to preach. In fact, that Bible of yours you claim to follow specifically instructs you not to preach.
Can you provide the quote from the bible in it's entirety please.
(*sigh*)
You mean you don't know? I thought you were supposed to be such a wonderful follower of the Bible. You don't know what it says?
Matthew 6:1: Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
6:2: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:3: But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
6:4: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
6:7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
6:8: Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Matthew is filled with admonitions that it is one's actions, not one's words, that will determine if one achieves salvation...and that those actions are to be for the glory of god, not for the benefit of other humans:
Matthew 7:15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16: Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17: Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
7:24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
In short, if you make a spectacle of yourself, making sure that everybody knows what a good and pious person you are, then you are not doing the will of god. God does not need your assistance. "Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."
quote:
And even if you do, talking about God is not preaching
It is when you're trying to convince someone to believe in your god. And that's precisely what it became when you asked, "Why not become Christian." You said so, yourself (Message 63):
if there is a chance you may believe I have to take that chance to preach.
No, you don't. God doesn't need you to. God doesn't want you to. You're only doing it for the glory of other humans, not for god.
quote:
quote:
Um, how did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible? Seems that your god isn't actually god but rather a book.
If you want to talk about a book, that's fine. To pretend that the book is god
We shifted from the supernatural which is spoke of in the bible and you have now shifted into saying I am pretending God is a book. Hmmmm...
Hmmmm, indeed. I notice you didn't answer the question:
When did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible?
You asked about what you should do regarding your belief in god (Message 41):
So - the point is, I believe fully, and therefore am convinced that Christ is the truth - what would you do in my position?
And then you shift to the Bible (Message 63):
Well, I am in a position to tell people about the bible and what it says
Well, you may be in a position to talk about the Bible and what it says, but we weren't talking about the Bible. We were talking about god.
You are confusing the Bible and god.
quote:
quote:
And as you well know, that means nothing since it is illogical to use a circular argument. The Bible is true because it says it is.
Even if there is a possible logical possibility (not error) that the bible argument is circular - what would that mean if it really is the truth?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
You really don't know? What it would mean is that we have no reason to believe it. You really don't get it, do you? The Bible may be absolutely correct in every instance (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is). How do you distinguish between it and another, identically justified text that contradicts it at every turn?
Do you remember the old game show, To Tell the Truth? You'd have three people, each claiming to be the same person simply by assertion. "I am Frank Abagnale."
Who are you going to believe? The only justification you have is their own say so and yet they can't all be the one. Indeed, one of them is the right one, but how the hell do you know?
quote:
quote:
Fine. I'm god. I'm god because I say I am and I say I am because I am.
Now, why is it you seem to believe your book and not me?
I thought a book was God
Ah, that's how you know. You believe god is a book and since I am not a book, I cannot be god.
But, of course, that avoids the entire question (not surprising given your confusion over what is a book and what is god). Suppose I were to send you another book that claims it is the word of god (say, the Koran).
How are you going to distinguish between the two?
quote:
quote:
Why do you still preach to me? You know I don't want to hear it.
I am not preaching, I am debating.
Hah!
Message 63:
if there is a chance you may believe I have to take that chance to preach.
And you think you're not preaching?
quote:
Your problem is that you are a preachophobic.
(*chuckle*)
Hey, some of my best friends are preachers....
Seriously, the problem is not that I'm afraid of preaching. It's that I understand that there is a time and a place for preaching. That time and place is one that must be mutually agreed upon by all participants. Otherwise, it's nothing but an obnoxious interruption of what was previously a lovely day.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mike the wiz, posted 05-02-2004 7:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 90 of 323 (104835)
05-03-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by coffee_addict
05-02-2004 11:24 PM


Re: Inversion
Lam responds to me:
quote:
And just exactly how many straight men you know that doesn't like to see 2 girls going at it?
Actually, quite a few.
But the problem really stems from the assumption that those two women going at it will somehow welcome the presence of the man watching them. That is, even though the women are having sex, they're having it for him and not for each other.
As soon as that straight man comes across real lesbians who will kick him out of that little fantasy before it even starts, you'd be surprised how quickly that "hot" scene becomes "disgusting."
Amazingly, Friends made note of that. In a fantasy episode, Ross wonders what it would have been like if he had proposed a three-way with his first wife before they got divorced when she realized she was a lesbian. The result? Ross feeling very, very left out as the two women paid absolutely no attention to him.
Which isn't surprising: They're lesbians. What on earth are they going to do with an icky, disgusting man?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by coffee_addict, posted 05-02-2004 11:24 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024