Good As You

Notice he doesn't ask how two WOMEN would.
Because even HE knows that straight men don't go "yuck" at the thought of that.

Good point, Bill.

The obsession that the far right has with sex acts is truly weird. Where else do you hear people talk do freely about incest, bestiality, polygamy, necrophilia? The only time I read about these things is when the right when is homosexuality to these things.

LaBarbera has earned another heartfelt tribute:

Porno Pete flogs the gays with Godly hate,
To assure he’ll pass through heaven’s gate.
But there’s all that gay porn,
And I’m sure God will scorn,
If he’s using it just to masturbate.

Broccoli makes me say "yuck!", but I don't call for it to be outlawed.

I fuck other men.
But who's the obsessed one here?
Peter Labarbera.

But then we have Antonin Scalia... who states the rights of the Fourteenth Amendment apply only to 'freed slaves.' ....

and his evaluation of the Ninth which states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

S: T]he Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them...

Really?

.S:..and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be

and Pam add's her favorite Scalism
(My favorite quote from Scalia: "Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy?" Gee, Tony, was there a provision for heterosexual sodomy? Want a cookie for that? - promoted by Pam Spaulding)

Great point, Bill! Didn't even think of that.

I don't understand though, does Petey honestly, truly believe that I'd say 99.9 percent of all heteros don't engage in "sinful" acts like anal and oral?

Give, me, a, break.

Jeremy, your wedding video, and your tears because of the fullness of your heart is how you consummated your marriage.
That's all anyone has to know.

But since you and Andrew are two healthy, red blooded, fine young thangs...

You. Better. Work.

:0 P

I second what Regan DuCasse posted.

As for Petey-poo, I'm certain he is having the time of his life. ANALyzing the ins and outs of gay sex, brushing up on the terminology and slang, getting the best angle for photos of gay, sexual events... ...he can't get enough of it. He says homosexual acts are unhealthy. They don't even compare to the unhealthiness of his obsession.

Porny Pete's past includes being beaten out of a job as a gay porn videographer by someone who actually has a talent for it. That could explain a lot!

"Porny Pete's past PROBABLY includes.."

Is what I was trying to say. Unlike the lying liars, I don't want to insinuate that I "know" something to be "true", when I only "hope/want" it to be...

And, one more thing... I know that I've said it before, but it may be good to repeat it: the concept of "consummation" of a marriage is only applicable to annulment of the marriage. In other words, the only legal rational for even having the concept of "consummation" is as a justification for annulment.

For an annulment, one can allege that the marriage was not "consummated" and is therefore null (meaning that it "technically" never happened). But for an annulment to be valid, there must be an "innocent" (and therefore also a "guilty") party responsible for that lack of consummation. And, only the "innocent" party can petition for the annulment. Because a "procreative consummation" cannot occur in a same-sex relationship, there can never be either "innocent" or "guilty" parties with regard to consummation. So, legally, "consummation" cannot be used as grounds for annulling a same-sex marriage. There are a lot of other grounds that could be used for annulling a same-sex marriage, just not consummation.

So, a very good response to the lying liar, porno videographer wannabes who throw out this red herring is to say, "Since neither party to our marriages could petition for annulment based on lack of consummation, should we ever desire to dissolve the marriage, we can always do like Matt Barber did, and just divorce the bitch!"

Additionally, there are millions of marriages today that were entered into even though procreation was never an option... so technically, even though they may be fucking like rabbits, technically, they are not procreative, and therefore are not "consummated". If consummation of the marriage were a "legal" requirement, as the uninformed lying liar seems to be suggesting, that would mean none of those "sterile unions" are valid marriages! So, not only is PP ignorant of the law, but he also completely obliterates whatever point he was attempting to make, by simply attempting to make it. Inherent in his "theory" is the complete and utter refutation of the "theory".

Peter LaBarbera is 47 and he is waisting his life in the calcher war

and Jeremy no worries 30 that is like 20 in gay years