Blogs Oct 26, 2009 at 11:10 am

Comments

1
You do have to admit, though, that's all pretty enlightened for Whitworth.
2
"Major social-engineering", huh?

Like creating an ideal that is essentially, white folks from the 50s?

We can pull a further subtext from this: Ozzie and Harriet were from a time when marriage was simply two white people and their emotionally stunted children. None of this miscegenation or no-fault divorce business.
3
I "accidentally" kicked over a bunch of these signs in my neighborhood.Whoops.

4
"No nation in history that has ever openly embraced homosexuality to this degree has ever survived."

I actually took this to mean "to the degree of legalizing same-sex marriage." Which, to my knowledge, pretty much none have done so in history until now. And the Netherlands, Canada, and the rest seem OK so far.

Even if that's not how that was supposed to be taken, I still can't think of any "nations" that allowed same-sex couples to openly up together, even unmarried.
5
For what it's worth...my dad had an affair for years, and then my mom started dating a deadbeat crackhead felon, then they finally divorced. I might see and/or speak to my dad once a year, and my mother is virtually dead to me (after she allowed her crackhead charity case to assault and steal from my two sisters and I...for years). I would of rather had two gay dads or two lesbian moms.

Oh, and my dad, who doesn't vote, and lives in Denver, wants to vote so he can Reject 71. Thanks, dad! I love you too.
6
Homosexual unions ARE normal. They happen all the time!
7
This election is all about voter turn out. If you rarely vote, or are procrastinating away the last few days -- VOTE DAMMIT. Vote to approve 71 and make sure your friends do it too.
8
Ozzy & Harriett, a 1950's era traditionally styled "nuclear family" comprised of one parent of each sex and an indeterminate number of offspring, is the standard by which the Right and Far Right gauge societal norms vis-a-vis the "ideal" family unit.

Never mind that even 50 years ago, many children were not reared in such a family structure or that those who were were frequently reared in far-less-than-ideal situations; this is what they imagine EVERY family should look like.

So far as they're concerned, unless the family unit is comprised of ONE male wage-earner, One female house-keeper/child-bearer/child-rearer, and at least one - and preferably two or more - progeny, then it's not a "normal" "real" family.

Even more traditional extended families, where three or more generations may be living together aren't considered "normal" by these people, because of course such situations only occur in foreign countries or in impoverished parts of this country, where people are too poor to afford the sort of generational autonomy provided by a generally white middle-class suburban lifestyle.
9
Ozzie and Harriet were far from the ideal. As Ozzie's fame began to slide and diminish, he became envious of Rick's rising career, and tried to vicariously micromanage every aspect of it. He was far from the loving, supportive father. He was a task master.

In comparison, Dave was abandoned.

Harriet was cold and distant. And she drank a bit.

So what this pamphlet says to me is, "Let's return to the 1950s where everything seems wonderful, but is, in fact, far from it." Yeah, let's live our lives like they do on fucking TV.
10
It's about supremacy.

Hetero supremacy!

And the people pushing these amendments and DOMAs and repeals are all supremacists. You can fart around with the whole love v hate stupidity forever and still get nowhere. Law has nothing to do with love or hate (necessarily).

Establishing supremacy is what it's all about. Majority bashing under represented minority.

11
fruits? What is it 1983?
12
i wish my dad was gay..
13
"Traditional marriage" is code for all women barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, with their mouths shut. It's about maintaining someone (a group) to point at, so they can feel better about themselves, "Well, we don't do that.", and generate money. Straight people screw up marriage all the time, it's a spectacular thing considering how abysmal the track record for het. couples is, that marriage equality is even being sought and aspired to. I personally find it encouraging.
14
No nation in history that has ever openly embraced homosexuality to this degree has ever survived.

So I guess they're talking about Ancient Greece and Rome? I wonder what the counter-example is: A civilization that rejected homosexuality and lasted forever. I'm at a loss here, Christian historians. What civilization currently in existence that dates to ancient times is based on the Ozzie and Harriet nuclear family model?
15
@13
Your husband should treat you better.
Not all women share your view.
16
Homosexuals in no other civilization have ever sought or felt the need for marriage.
Gay Marriage is a bauble that has caught the eye of the modern American Gay movement.
17
If your marriage is threatened by gay marriage, it's time for you to work on your marriage. Denying others equal rights won't fix it.
18
9: "Let's return to the 1950s where everything seems wonderful, but is, in fact, far from it."

That is exactly what they want. And they're willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it. But they won't look like they're lying, cheating or stealing, they'll be all church-going and well scrubbed.
19
Being the resident former Whitworth student let me just say that particular college or university or whatever the hell it is these days always qualified the condemnations towards me when I came out in 1994 as an act of love. I never could find out if the life threat done by one of the baseball players when I was living in Arend Hall was also an act of love or my car being vandalied but I am sure it is all about love.

Whitworth was very very clear with me that their hatred was out of love. Love sin hate the sinner or love the sinner and hate the sin. Who really knows how it goes.

Whitworth IS love....
21
I still don't get it.

There are two good things in that picture, a mom and a dad. Are the kids not good? And does it follow from the two-good-things that a picture of a different family (with say, two dads) wouldn't have two good things in it?

And how would that marriage with the two good things in it (a mom and a dad) be jeopardized if marriages without a mom and a dad were legal? And were considered normal?

And if "gay marriage" becomes legal (not that R-71 concerns marriage), and all these "gay married" people start turning up, will it STILL be wrong to tell children that such marriages exist?

I don't get it.
22
"It's about... not codifying into law what a majority believe to be immoral behavior."

Umm, dumbasses: codifying "morality" in law is THEOCRACY. The majority in Saudi Arabia believe women who wear pants are immoral. The majority in Sudan believe that women who aren't genitally mutilated are immoral. Fuck your beliefs.
23
Whenever i hear or read about those who oppose traditional marriage labeling others as "bigots", "douchebags" or worst, such as Dom and Savage like to do, i am saddened but realize that they really have a disconnect whit the importance of the basics that allow a society to exist and flourish. The basic family in all cultures has its foundation in one man and one women unions. They allow for the existence of all of us including people like Dom and Savage. As he put it:



"my traditional family—mother, father, grandparents"



He and others can deny it and disparage that truth all they want, they can call "bigots" people who don't want to see that basic pillar of humanity done away with all they want. But in the end the truth still remains. And stating it and defending it doesn't mean that we "hate" homosexuals, what it means is that we love all of humanity and we don't want see what has been instituted by nature messed with as has been done by us humans on many other aspects of our Earth like in climate, destruction of plants and animal species and such. The time comes when we need to start to realize that we are not God but a creation of his and if nature has deemed that families are created thru men and women unions, then why should we see to reverse that? Doesn't mean we want homosexuals to pair up as they wish, what it means is that an institution that is needed to preserve and nurture the intrinsic genesis of all of humanity cannot be allowed to be diluted or diminished and needs to be kept as it has since it's beginning.
24
They love their children so much, they're going to teach them how to hate.
25
Oh yes, Loveschild. Now there's a virtual petri dish of putrid ideas. By all means you vile woman keep spewing your random bits of idiocy for all the world to hear.

Good God, apparently you become Loveschild if you only have the love of a good plastic dildo to keep you company at night.
26
23, Loveschild, you do hate gay people, and nobody is going to do away with traditional marriage. Again, if you think gay marriage is going to harm your marriage, it's because you have a weak marriage. I guess it's easier for you to blame gay people for your problems.
27
@23

Loveschild.

Please. Honestly. Define for me EXACTLY how allowing a gay couple to marry and share the same rights as a hetero couple DOES ANYTHING to damage your marriage?

Allowing a gay couple to do so DOES NOTHING against nature. Here is a clue for you, a gay person DOES NOT WANT TO BE with a straight person. They arent even available to your precious "nature" pool.
28
I take it Loveschild is your pet zombie here on the Slog.

Loveschild, these bigots want people to vote to take existing rights away from gay and lesbian families, rights only granted a few months ago. Rights like being able to take unpaid leave to care for a sick partner without being fired. The right to cover a partner under family health insurance.

They want to deprive gay people of those rights so badly, they are willing to lie about what R-71 is. Yes, they are willing to deliberately and with harmful intent LIE and claim it has something to do with "legalizing" "same-sex marriage," when in fact R-71 does no such thing.

They know it has nothing to do with marriage, and they know that what they want to do is take rights away from gay families, and they are too cowardly to face their own bigotry.

Based on your thoughtless blathering I assume you are one of them. I wish you ill.
29
"basic family in all cultures has its foundation in one man and one women unions."

The ignorance of the extremist bigots is astounding. This statement, in and of iteself, should convince people just how far away from reality the anti-71 folks are.
31
Let's say that the crazies are right: let's say that one man-one woman unions are the foundation for society's whatever.

Fine.

So what? How does allowing people who AREN'T GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN HETEROSEXUAL UNIONS to marry affect that time-honored institution?

Straight people will still get married, for all of the good and bad reasons they get married today.
32
31, That's the thing. They can never seem to explain why traditional marriage would end. They must not be too secure in their own unions if they think that keeping marriage rights from others is going to damage their marriages.
33
Okay that should say that giving marriage rights to others.
34
31 What do you think is being done when some lobby groups push for doing away with the basic requirement of being opposite sex in order to obtain a marriage license?
35
One might think that making sense should be a prerequisite for public discourse. The crazies have managed to fuck that up real good.
36
....and straight people get divorced all time. Without restriction or penalty and are allowed to re-marry or have as many children outside of marital relations as they want - or don't want.

Supremacy means the majority party can flout all tradition they want. They have no moral obligations to uphold - they only enforce them as a means to exhibit their supremacy.

#20 - Sargon - is absolutely right. Same-sex marriage advocates continue to tie themselves to the railroad tracks waiting for a few hetero Dudley Do-right douchebags to help out when they have absolutely NO horse in the race. Some are nicer than others and actually understand why it's not acceptable to allow supremacists to win. But the rest of the lazy, entitled, selfish ne'er do well heteros look the other way while they are knee deep in entitlement.

It's way past time to take loooooove out of this equation and start making some vivid points to the appeasers.
37
@34.
Why exactly should a marriage license require the sex be opposite?
Why can't two loving consenting adults who want to enter into a beneficial arrangement do so?

Your calls of "history" are ignorant.
Your calls of "biology" are ignorant.
You are just plain ignorant.

Unless you want to actually provide an answer as to why gay marriage would end hetero marriage.
38
"What do you think is being done when some lobby groups push for doing away with the basic requirement of being opposite sex in order to obtain a marriage license?"

I, for one, think of the facts. The facts are that it is the bigots who are looking to change existing law. Whatsmore, no homosexuals in Washington state will be allowed to obtain marriage licenses. The Defense of Marriage Act, as the Secretary of State has said, prevents that. Referendum 71 is about Domestic Partnerships.

Willfull ignorance and obfuscation!
39
@34: but 71 isn't about gay marriage.

sure, that's coming, and not a moment too soon, so i can finally stop hearing everyone bitching about gays embracing an utterly useless and archaic formality called "marriage".

but this one is about basic equality and human rights.
40
@34 - I'm confused. Are you saying that by "doing away with the basic requirement of being opposite sex in order to obtain a marriage license?" will mean that you HAVE to be same sex to get a marriage license? Is THAT what you're afraid of? If so, no worries.

First, R71 isn't about marriage. Period. No matter what anyone tells you. It's about being able to visit my partner in the hospital if she ends up there (which she has, three times in the last month). It means protecting our children. It means the right to inheritance. It says nothing in there about hurting straight people. In fact, it even benefits older straight folks!

Second, if we were to, someday, get the right to marry that doesn't mean you couldn't. It just means we could. It wouldn't say you can only be married if you're the same sex. It wouldn't change your marriage. In. The. Least.
42
I personally think we should go back to traditional familial relationships where I can marry several women and hold others as concubines, sleep with the female household staff and they all would be considered property. I could also arrange the marriages of my children (as they too are my property) and sell off my daughters. Traditional marriage!
43
@41: I think it's funny how you label defenders of the anti-sanitation position as "hetero-centric." I, for one, love sanitation, but I hate the sanitizing. God hates sanitizing, too. That's why my position is based on love.
44
34,

Sorry fail, Loveschild, you haven't answered the question.

Marriage contract has nothing to do with the contents of either parties knickers. You did read yours before you signed it?

Why don't try being honest for once. Same sex unions squick you out. Your uncomfortable and you want to use your prejudices to deny equality. Your love argument is hollow, it's not about love, it's about keeping you comfortable. And, to do that you'll climb into bed with liars and thieves, and prostitute your supposed morals and values.
46
@37

Can two men procreate thru their union? Two men can pair up so that means they can form a union, i don't oppose that, tho there are many health concerns that arise (even Savage has acknowledge it). However, they are not able to form a family, not in the sense that allows for a society and culture to renew itself and not die out, unless they count on being provided with an infant either thru adoption or from a previous heterosexual relation, that's the only way that's possible. So that means that they're being given or provided with a human being to nurture, they by themselves are not capable of it. If nature has deemed that same sex pairings are not able to bring a new life into this Earth, then they really shouldn't be raising kids, because if nature has deemed that opposite couples, one man and one woman are the ones capable of bringing life into fruition then that means that kids need to be brought up within the interactions and examples of a heterosexual couple so that they are provided with the basic examples of human behavior that hopefully will enable them to grow up to have a family of their own. That's were an institution like marriage comes into the picture, it serves the purpose of stability and continuity in any society that thinks itself as such. If such a foundation is allowed to be redefined to mean anyone or any persons (because if we're to allow same sex marriage then there's no real basis for not allowing plural marriages) who profess an interest, lust, yearning or whatever they want to call it between themselves, then we just end up diluting it's fundamental purpose. SB 5688 reaches too far, is basically marriage, and as has been stated by activist like Savage the ultimate goal is to do away with whatever little difference between the two there is, in such a case the only choice for those who want to see new families coming into existence is very clear.
47
Heterosexual spouses in nuclear families have been outlawed in several European countries with devastating consequences. Mandating homosexuality by law has resulted in near zero birth rates, with the exception of toilet seat pregnancies and immaculate conception. This all started when a few countries decided to offer benefits to same sex couples and realized that the only way to do this was to outlaw heteros and replace the children's school curriculum with gay porn. Seriously, I read this on the internet.
48
@46.. which one of y'all is responsible for being loveschild today.?.happened to the one ..the one that can occasionally write a coherent sentence ?
49
@46 Loveschild

First let me say thank you for actually responding to me instead of accusing me of being a racist Muslim hater.

However, let me stop you right here "Can two men procreate thru their union?"

WHO THE HELL EVER SAID THAT MARRIAGE MUST BE ABOUT PROCREATION?

I am married to a wonderful woman. We don't want kids. Both of us have been surgically "fixed" to not procreate. So therefore is our marriage invalid? How the hell can you claim that? Or are we just the exception to your ignorant rule just because we happen to be hetero?

50
@48 dr dj riz

I am in agreement with you here and am quickly beginning to believe the theory that loveschild is an amalgamation of users.

Either that or a woman (and I use that term loosely) who someday takes her meds, and other days is not and clearly batshit insane. Today looks like a med day.
51
Locveschild's problem is that her husband is 'ex-gay' [okay, she claims it's her SISTER's husband, but we can see through that]. If gays had equal rights, it might convince the hubby that it is okay to be gay and he could leave his loveless sham of a marriage for a chance at real happiness. Loveschild must fight this to the very end - her marriage depends on it.
52
I can't figure out why some of you choose to engage this Loveschild troll thing. She's an obvious fake. I can tell from the pixels and from having perpetrated quite a few trolls in my time.
53
I think Loveschild is the janitor for The Stranger's office, the one who talks a little too loudly, a little too enthusiastically, and who loves sports for the conversational opportunities they are supposed to provide. "Hey, do you think Jones' knee is going to heal up?" she asks on the elevator. After an awkward silence she starts to fidget and pick her nose. When you exit she calls after you, "go Hawks!" or some such.
54
Ozzie and Harriet are fictional characters!!

They are basing their opposition on something not real. How on earth could they miss that blatant fallacy?
Oh, wait. Never mind.
55
@54 ..no.. ozzie and harriet were a real couple who had real children and the tv show was kind of a fantasy on what their family was supposed to be like..as such the show wasn't real.. buth they and their offspring were.
56
It is obvious to me that Loveschild takes it up the butt. She keeps trying to get the seed to take...wasted seed...no rules on which holes heteros are allowed to use. They can have any kind of sex they want to....and Loveschild is languishing in anal afterglow....you can tell by the lack of paragraph breaks.

57
Sigh. Okay, I'll point it out for the millionth time: We'll start with when Livy records that the Roman Republic was founded and go with 509 BCE. The last remnants of the Roman Empire, Byzantium, finally in 1453 CE. That's 1,962 years of a continuous civilization that was ended by another empire in which sodomy was incredibly common.
58
Rick Nelson is one of the great underappreciated figures of early rock 'n roll. So there.
59
loveschild, are you suggesting that gay men should marry women? and father children?

and you take this position out of a sense of "love for the children"? this model (a gay ozzie w/hariett) has not, in fact, proven itself to be very good for children (or anyone else involved).
60
The question that comes out of this to me is where does it end, gay people have families now and are fully capable of having children, there is always this subtext of "Kids should be raised in a home with a mom and a dad". To what ends are you willing to go to make that happen? Ban gay adoption? Take kids away from their gay biological parents? Take kids away from single parents? Sterilize gays?

If you think gays shouldn't be allowed the same rights because kids should grow up in a home with a mom and a dad, attacking domestic partnerships seems like a really bad way of going about it since it has nothing to do with gays ability to have children. At best it is just spiteful, at worse its the first step in taking away the reproductive rights of gays and single people.
61
@Loveschild: WE KNOW YOUR HUSBAND IS GAY. WE KNOW YOU ARE SCARED THAT ONCE IT BECOMES "OK" TO HAVE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, HE MAY LEAVE YOUR SORRY ASS,

WE GET IT. HE IS FUCKING DUDES IN THE ASS, AND YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

But seriously, loveschild, you need to leave him. Trying to prevent same-sex couples from having rights, or bitching about "teh gays" on the internet won't stop the fact that your husband is super, super gay. He is on the down low, and you are suffering. Yeah, that sucks. But stopping gay rights won't change your marriage. It may end your marriage, but YOU SHOULD END YOUR MARRIAGE NOW. HE IS CHEATING ON YOU, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WITH WHAT SEX PERSON. HE WILL ALWAYS CHEAT ON YOU BECAUSE HE IS NOT IN LOVE WITH YOU.

HE IS GAY. YOUR HUSBAND IS GAY. GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY. NOTHING WILL CHANGE THIS, AND YOU KNOW IT.

*whew*

Glad to get that off my chest. Go ahead with your denials now, loveschild. I feel better having just typed it out for you to read.
62
You know, Loveschild, I'm more than eager to know how my straight, married, poster-child-for-your-ad-campaign-lookin' self supposedly wants to do away with "that basic pillar of humanity" because I support same-sex marriage...yet you state it's not about hatred. Seriously, I'm all ears.

What you spew, cloaked in phony "love," is bigotry. It's bigotry to deny people basic human rights under the law. I kind of hate the R-71 decision because I feel like I'm saying I believe that "everything but marriage" (remember, this referendum has *nothing* to do with marriage, no matter what the homophobes say) is good enough. I'm telling myself it's a good start.

What you don't get, haters, is that you're a dying breed. Slowly, you age out of the system, and you get us younger folks who really don't get your obsessive homophobia becoming old enough to vote.

My children will be raised with love and hope and without parents screaming on the corner in Lynnwood about certain forms of copulating some gay men are fond of. I don't know how you can expose your four-year-olds to that sort of inappropriate language and seething hatred, but I remember how hard people claw when they know their ship's sinking.

I'm straight. Always been, and I guess I'm always gonna be. It's become completely alien to me how on earth this supposedly makes me better or worse than anyone else. It's a fact of life. I'm straight, my sister's gay, and that's just how God made us. The Reject 71 haters state that "What God has made..." Yeah, well, a)this is a civil matter...my adopted church has been marrying same-sex couples since before it was fashionable, anyways; b)God obviously didn't intend 10-15% of the population to be lesser because of their sexual orientation and you reason that God has made everything; and, c)when you speak of fertility as a qualifier for marriage, you're disqualifying a lot of people. Not everyone's fecund, including a lot of people who attend those corporate hate machine mega-churches and thus use all sorts of reproductive techniques to get pregnant, often similar ones to those used by lesbian couples. Hmm.

Your fear is unbecoming, but you are mightily close to your last stand. Or at least that's what I pray for every night. Oh and given all these societies that have allegedly fallen apart, I was visiting a friend in Greenfield, Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago and it did not seem to be falling apart. In fact, heterosexual couples such as the one I'm in were allowed out in public! Amazing. Keep lying, it's hilarious.
63
In the 50s, there were queers, but they arranged flowers and designed clothing. They were "unlucky in love" or "committed bachelors." If they gathered in a bar, they were properly arrested by the police. Similarly, blacks were to provide either farm labor or domestic help. They were not to mix with whites. Orientals were gardeners. Whites owned everything and were on TV and the movies (except for farm laborers, domestic help, and gardeners, and, of course, criminals). Men worked, women washed dishes, got pregnant, had babies, and wore dresses and high heels. NOW QUIT CHANGING ALL THE RULES OR ELSE CIVILIZATION WILL COME TO AN END, LIKE IT DID IN EUROPE.
64
I can make a hell of a case that the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was Christianity, not tolerance of homosexuality. The empire lasted over a thousand years. But just a few years after its mandatory conversion to Christianity - *poof!* barbarians at the gates.
65
@46 - My longtime boyfriend, myself, and our cat are a family. We can't physically have a baby, and we don't want one. It really doesn't matter if people like you don't approve. But you shouldn't have the right to vote on whether we have the rights that my straight married brother (who also has pets instead of kids) gets to have.
66
I'm trying to figure out how Protect Marriage Washington can really say their message is about love, unless they're speaking of this kind of love.

Who does ProMarWa love? According to them it's the children. The big gay crime against them is exposure to the story King and King when they are in second grade primary school, and the portrayal of same sex relationships and families that include them as within the realm of normality.

Now as a sex-positive, bleeding-heart liberal, my perspective is skewed by a deviant and depraved outlook on things. That said, doesn't their effort to protect children seem less like love and more like the desire to mold one's progeny by denying them access to what are otherwise age-appropriate social lessons? (e.g. that people in a plurality can have different and varying orientations, lifestyles, family structures, traditions etc. than your own. This is normal; one shouldn't be shocked or offended when you encounter alien people or customs.)

One develops social tolerance by being exposed to diversity. It seems these parents wish to shield their kids from such exposure in order to prevent them from being tolerant, so it's not about love, but shaping kids to hate. Do I have that right? As I said, I'm no child psychologist and sometimes have odd ideas about what's healthy or not.

I haven't read King and King. Maybe it's more risqué than Daddy's Roommate or Heather Has Two Mommies with the marriage and the kissing (behind a heart) and all.

But then again, I've also heard folks freaking out about And Tango Makes Three which must be as scandalous as reading the Penthouse Forum, or, heck 1984.

So, according to ProMarWa, they want to deny families (with children) marital rights (and, I suspect, deny orphans adoptive families) also, as many courts have noted, by doing so condoning intrinsic inequality in our nation, in order to protect other kids (their own kids) from King and King, or the necessity of explaining to their own offspring that not all the world is white, straight, Protestant, middle-class, English speaking suburban America. And this is, according to them, in the name of love. Yes?

Loveschild, you're a conformity-advocating Jesus-toting xenophobic woman of high moral fiber. Check my work, please. Did I get it right?
67
Protect Marriage Washington omits the equally valid fact that no nation in history that has ever failed to openly embrace homosexuality to a complete degree has ever survived. Both this statement and its inverse above do not, of course, apply to any nations that continue to exist, among which the United States remains one of the youngest. I, hence, wonder what their standard would be for an adequate length of existance time to indicate survivability of a civilization.

Oh, and Loveschild, is Original Monique's all-capitalized story @61 true, that your husband is ex-gay (or at least bisexual?). I've already put my suspicions elsewhere that your own distaste for gays seems quite beyond common homophobia and deep in the realm of psychosis, to the point you would sacrifice consistency of your mores and values in order to consistently perpetuate your own myth that gays are evil. While I know better than to suspect single-issue psychology in the real world, this would certainly be a smoking gun.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing, Loveschild.
68
Loveschild claims that opposite sex marriage "serves the purpose of stability and continuity in any society," yet the model Christie Brinkley is on her 4th divorce.

Yeah. There's "stability and continuity" for you.
69
@68

Christie Brinkley is back on the market!!? And I thought that reading this column would be a waste of time.

P.S.-Lovechild sucks.

P.P.S.-"Confirmed bachelor/unlucky in love" does not equal homosexual. For some of us, it equals the fact that there are very few women in America who are OK with the idea of their husbands getting a little bit of strange every now and then. Bizarrely enough, their numbers drop even lower when you give them the opportunity to do the same.

P.P.P.S-I'm not a man-whore.

P.P.P.P.S.-The above statement was a lie.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.