NATION

PASSWORD

Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Anachronous Rex
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6312
Founded: Mar 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Anachronous Rex » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:07 pm

Uelvan wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Which you still have no statistics on...


You think that incest causes hemophilia? :roll:


You are an expert at missing the point. Your prohibition does nothing to help. At. All.

It's not illegal to have sex with a sibling, or produce children with them. You can do that, currently, under the law.

What you can't do is marry them, even if you have no intention of of having children with each other.

This achieves exactly nothing, and makes a lot of people unhappy for no reason.


You're the one who brought up third cousins being the ideal spouse, you provide that statistic, I am going on the mutual fallacy principal, since I really can't be assed to look through it.

You want me to provide a statistic proving a point you think is irrelevant?

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm Read that little tid-bit about the inbred royalties having Haemophiliac children. While inbreeding doesn't always cause it, it greatly can increase the chance.

It didn't cause it at all. Genes periodically break, and hemophilia is caused by one such mutation. This can happen to anyone, incest has no effect upon it. The reason it pertains to inbreeding, is that, because the royal houses of Europe have children mostly with each other, one such mutation linked to Queen Victoria ended up being common amongst all of them. If they had ceased reproducing exclusively with each other, and started picking up commoners, it would not have stopped the spread of the hemophiliac gene, but it would have stopped it from spreading to the other royal houses.

Which is to say, you example demonstrates nothing about the danger of incest.

I'm not missing the point. My ban is a good way to enforce the act's illegality. I know laws are broken all the time, but taking away a law isn't going to fix it at all, now is it? Meanwhile, it gives society an reason to punish those who partake in the vile act.

It is not illegal. You can have sex with your sister currently, under the law. No one will stop you (unless you live in Iran or something.) You can even have children with her. You just can't marry her.

What is it exactly you fail to comprehend?
My humor is like church wine: dry and tasteless.
If you are not sure if I am being serious, assume that I am not.

Summer is coming...

User avatar
Uelvan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1668
Founded: Nov 10, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Uelvan » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:07 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Uelvan wrote:
Well those 3rd cousins would make a winning argument through my logic, since I am only concerned with the genetic disorders that are likely to come from incestuous sex. If you're all of the sudden going to ignore the main argument, then that's fine but it's not very constructive.

They should learn better in the same way as robbers should be taught not to steal, murders not to murder, rapists not to rape, etc. Yes, I am comparing it to this, because when your ego and nativity decides that it's OK to bone your sister and you produce a child who bleed profusely when he falls over and scrapes his knee, it's your fault he has that disorder and you should be held accountable.


My parents haven't inbred and I have a genetic disability. Should they be punished? Your argument reeks of eugenics.


No, because your parents did not do an act that's known to greatly improve the chances of genetic disabilities. That's what we call being unlucky, and I'm sorry that you had to be born with a disability but that's outside man's control.

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:08 pm

Lost heros wrote:
Solmakia wrote:I feel like It's going to come up sooner or later.

As far as I can tell, Liberals are pushing for more and more civil liberties (which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing) and eventually, this is going to come up. Years ago, inter racial marriages were unacceptable, and I'm sure gay marriage was just...unthinkable at the point. Now, we have inter racial marriage, and gay marriage is starting to rise in most of the world except for a few nations that are refusing to let go.

But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married? Or what about a man and his son? Or a brother and sister? When is it too much? How far are people going to be allowed? What should be allowed? I'm personally undecided on the issue of what a marriage really means, but what do you guys think about sibling, inter special or other kinds of bizarre civil unions?

I think you are asking some pretty obvious questions.
Man and dog: No.
Man and son: no.
Brother and sister: possibility
Interspecial: No.
Siblings and incestual relationships: could happen (and has already happened in the past).

I agree. Parent and child could be unusual because the child is producing children with the person who produced him or her, but even if it was legal, very few people would ever think of doing that.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:10 pm

Uelvan wrote:
Geilinor wrote:My parents haven't inbred and I have a genetic disability. Should they be punished? Your argument reeks of eugenics.


No, because your parents did not do an act that's known to greatly improve the chances of genetic disabilities.

OK,now what about people with genetic disabilities who have children, knowing full well that their children could likely have the same disability?
Last edited by Geilinor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Lost heros
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9622
Founded: Jan 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lost heros » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:10 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Lost heros wrote:I think you are asking some pretty obvious questions.
Man and dog: No.
Man and son: no.
Brother and sister: possibility
Interspecial: No.
Siblings and incestual relationships: could happen (and has already happened in the past).

I agree. Parent and child could be unusual because the child is producing children with the person who produced him or her, but even if it was legal, very few people would ever think of doing that.

Also, why I think parent child would be unlikely, is because I have never heard of instances like this in history.
Last edited by Lost heros on Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Lost Heros on Sun Mar 6, 2016 12:00, edited 173 times in total.


You can send me a TG. I won't mind.

"The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot." - Salvador Dali

User avatar
Anachronous Rex
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6312
Founded: Mar 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Anachronous Rex » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:10 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Lost heros wrote:I think you are asking some pretty obvious questions.
Man and dog: No.
Man and son: no.
Brother and sister: possibility
Interspecial: No.
Siblings and incestual relationships: could happen (and has already happened in the past).

I agree. Parent and child could be unusual because the child is producing children with the person who produced him or her, but even if it was legal, very few people would ever think of doing that.

It doesn't seem especially likely, I agree.

I think there is a concern that the power dynamic could never be equal in such a relationship. But, I'm not sure how to regulate that. There are, after all, plenty of asymmetrical relationships in existence currently, and not all of those should clearly be annulled.
My humor is like church wine: dry and tasteless.
If you are not sure if I am being serious, assume that I am not.

Summer is coming...

User avatar
Uelvan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1668
Founded: Nov 10, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Uelvan » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:12 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Uelvan wrote:
No, because your parents did not do an act that's known to greatly improve the chances of genetic disabilities.

OK,now what about people with genetic disabilities who have children, knowing full well that their children could likely have the same disability?


I've covered that earlier in my argument, stating it would be unethical and immoral to deny anyone the right to breed based off of genes they have no control over.

User avatar
Uelvan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1668
Founded: Nov 10, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Uelvan » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:13 pm

Anachronous Rex wrote:
Uelvan wrote:
You're the one who brought up third cousins being the ideal spouse, you provide that statistic, I am going on the mutual fallacy principal, since I really can't be assed to look through it.

You want me to provide a statistic proving a point you think is irrelevant?

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm Read that little tid-bit about the inbred royalties having Haemophiliac children. While inbreeding doesn't always cause it, it greatly can increase the chance.

It didn't cause it at all. Genes periodically break, and hemophilia is caused by one such mutation. This can happen to anyone, incest has no effect upon it. The reason it pertains to inbreeding, is that, because the royal houses of Europe have children mostly with each other, one such mutation linked to Queen Victoria ended up being common amongst all of them. If they had ceased reproducing exclusively with each other, and started picking up commoners, it would not have stopped the spread of the hemophiliac gene, but it would have stopped it from spreading to the other royal houses.

Which is to say, you example demonstrates nothing about the danger of incest.

I'm not missing the point. My ban is a good way to enforce the act's illegality. I know laws are broken all the time, but taking away a law isn't going to fix it at all, now is it? Meanwhile, it gives society an reason to punish those who partake in the vile act.

It is not illegal. You can have sex with your sister currently, under the law. No one will stop you (unless you live in Iran or something.) You can even have children with her. You just can't marry her.

What is it exactly you fail to comprehend?


Do it.

Prove it.

In most places it is illegal to marry them, and I have already stated it should be illegal. How are you not retaining these things?

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:15 pm

Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm
The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD. At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters. The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family.
Last edited by Geilinor on Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17381
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Australian rePublic » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:17 pm

Solmakia wrote:But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married?

Well I've heard that in Japan that dogs may marry eachother and that are sent on honeymoons
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions. This nation does not reflect my views, as I am trying to unlock banners
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian.
Why stylised as "rePublic"
16 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
Yankee Empire
Senator
 
Posts: 4186
Founded: Aug 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Yankee Empire » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:18 pm

Geilinor wrote:Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm
The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD. At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters. The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family.


I thought we were supposed to be progressive?

Also im sure this like many supposed cases of ancient sexual deviancy is grossly overstated.
Last edited by Yankee Empire on Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05


Pro: U.S.,Diplomatic Militarism, Imperialism, Patriotism/Civic Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, Stoicism, Authoritarianism, Classical Liberalism, Unionism, Centralization (usually), Federalism, Corporatism.
Anti:Tribalism, Seccessionism(usually),Decentralization,Pure Capitalism/State controlled economics, Misanthropy,Cruelty, Cowardice, Pacifism,Hedonism, Corporitocracy.
Vice-Chairman of the National-Imperialist-FreedomParty
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."-Carl Schurz

User avatar
Mkuki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10584
Founded: Sep 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Mkuki » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:21 pm

Australian Republic wrote:
Solmakia wrote:But what next? What about a man and his dog? Should they get married?

Well I've heard that in Japan that dogs may marry eachother and that are sent on honeymoons

That happens in the US. It was on an episode of "Taboo" on National Geographic. Waste of money if you ask me.
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Political Test (Results)
Who Do I Side With?
Vision of the Justice Party - Justice Party Platform
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.
HAVE FUN BURNING IN HELL!

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 101278
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Farnhamia » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:22 pm

Geilinor wrote:Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm
The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD. At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters. The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family.

That seems like a research proposal, not a conclusive study. It says, right before the part you quoted, "By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare." I'd love to see the data and the actual paper.
Freedom ... or cake. ~ Ashmoria (RIP)
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo

User avatar
Yankee Empire
Senator
 
Posts: 4186
Founded: Aug 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Yankee Empire » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:23 pm

Mkuki wrote:
Australian Republic wrote:Well I've heard that in Japan that dogs may marry eachother and that are sent on honeymoons

That happens in the US. It was on an episode of "Taboo" on National Geographic. Waste of money if you ask me.

The lunacy of Consumerist economics.
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05


Pro: U.S.,Diplomatic Militarism, Imperialism, Patriotism/Civic Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, Stoicism, Authoritarianism, Classical Liberalism, Unionism, Centralization (usually), Federalism, Corporatism.
Anti:Tribalism, Seccessionism(usually),Decentralization,Pure Capitalism/State controlled economics, Misanthropy,Cruelty, Cowardice, Pacifism,Hedonism, Corporitocracy.
Vice-Chairman of the National-Imperialist-FreedomParty
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."-Carl Schurz

User avatar
Yankee Empire
Senator
 
Posts: 4186
Founded: Aug 01, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Yankee Empire » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:24 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Geilinor wrote:Incest was remarkably common throughout history. It's only in the past one or two centuries that it's become virtually unspeakable. http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/incest.htm

That seems like a research proposal, not a conclusive study. It says, right before the part you quoted, "By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare." I'd love to see the data and the actual paper.

As would I
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05


Pro: U.S.,Diplomatic Militarism, Imperialism, Patriotism/Civic Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, Stoicism, Authoritarianism, Classical Liberalism, Unionism, Centralization (usually), Federalism, Corporatism.
Anti:Tribalism, Seccessionism(usually),Decentralization,Pure Capitalism/State controlled economics, Misanthropy,Cruelty, Cowardice, Pacifism,Hedonism, Corporitocracy.
Vice-Chairman of the National-Imperialist-FreedomParty
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."-Carl Schurz

User avatar
Czechanada
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14851
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Czechanada » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:24 pm

I would love to replace homophobes with animals.

Think of how the world would be a happier place.
"You know what I was. You see what I am. Change me, change me!" - Randall Jarrell.

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 101278
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Farnhamia » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:24 pm

Yankee Empire wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:That seems like a research proposal, not a conclusive study. It says, right before the part you quoted, "By contrast, habitual nuclear-family incest outside ruling families was exceedingly rare." I'd love to see the data and the actual paper.

As would I

Me first!
Freedom ... or cake. ~ Ashmoria (RIP)
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo

User avatar
Salandriagado
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18957
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Salandriagado » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:46 pm

Uelvan wrote:
Threlizdun wrote:No, it is a discussion on whether or not people should ever be prohibited from reproducing. I happen to agree with the UN on this issue.

I do not believe people should be prohibited from reproducing simply because their children may be born with disorders.


Where does that provide them the rights to marry their family members?


What percentage of incestuous relationships produce any children at all?
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
Anachronous Rex
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6312
Founded: Mar 14, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Anachronous Rex » Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:38 pm

Uelvan wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:You want me to provide a statistic proving a point you think is irrelevant?


It didn't cause it at all. Genes periodically break, and hemophilia is caused by one such mutation. This can happen to anyone, incest has no effect upon it. The reason it pertains to inbreeding, is that, because the royal houses of Europe have children mostly with each other, one such mutation linked to Queen Victoria ended up being common amongst all of them. If they had ceased reproducing exclusively with each other, and started picking up commoners, it would not have stopped the spread of the hemophiliac gene, but it would have stopped it from spreading to the other royal houses.

Which is to say, you example demonstrates nothing about the danger of incest.


It is not illegal. You can have sex with your sister currently, under the law. No one will stop you (unless you live in Iran or something.) You can even have children with her. You just can't marry her.

What is it exactly you fail to comprehend?


Do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_j ... 68C90DDC3D

Prove it.

Yes. The burden of proof is totally on the guy who doubts a causal relationship... :roll:

I explained exactly how this works. Unless you have some credible source that tells you otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on. Even your own source does not say that incest caused hemophilia.

In most places it is illegal to marry them, and I have already stated it should be illegal. How are you not retaining these things?

You don't have to be married to have sex. You don't have to be married to have babies. And you don't have to do either of these things because you are married. How are you not getting that your stance is absurd?
My humor is like church wine: dry and tasteless.
If you are not sure if I am being serious, assume that I am not.

Summer is coming...

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:09 pm

Foraiteo wrote:(Image)

hooray for incest.


"Virginia is for Lovers, Brothers, Sisters or All of the Above."
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
The Broken Imperial Sector
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1012
Founded: Mar 24, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Broken Imperial Sector » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:11 pm

I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.
We can not allow this nation or this world to be destroyed from the inside out!

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 101278
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Farnhamia » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:16 pm

The Broken Imperial Sector wrote:I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

27 pages in and you post this? :roll:
Freedom ... or cake. ~ Ashmoria (RIP)
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo

User avatar
Benomia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14615
Founded: Oct 23, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Benomia » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:17 pm

If we reach the point where animals can give informed consent, I will have no problem with a man marrying his dog.

The same goes for rocks, or corpses.
Remembering games, and daisy chains, and laughs...Got to keep the loonies on the path.
The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:You've obviously never seen the Benomian M16A3s.
Carathon wrote:*Logs in with the name of Troll Alliance and writes a short app with poor grammar and logic.*Somehow genuinely surprised when denied*
Ragnarum wrote:Ragnarum transforms into a giant godzilla like creature, then walks into the sunset while emotional music plays and Morgan Freeman narrates.
Kouralia wrote:Everyone hates us: we're MMW. We're like the poster children of Realismfggtry.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
(-9.8, -10.0)
Map of Benomia
NS's Resident Floydian
Left 4 Dead RP
Want me to explain life to you?

User avatar
The Broken Imperial Sector
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1012
Founded: Mar 24, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Broken Imperial Sector » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:17 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
The Broken Imperial Sector wrote:I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

27 pages in and you post this? :roll:

Sry, if I didn't read thru the twenty seven pages but i'm pretty sure this has already been posted?
We can not allow this nation or this world to be destroyed from the inside out!

User avatar
Boer Republics
Envoy
 
Posts: 258
Founded: Apr 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Boer Republics » Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:18 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
The Broken Imperial Sector wrote:I wouldn't doubt, it when the real sickos ask to be allowed to marry their dogs and cats or brothers and sisters.

27 pages in and you post this? :roll:

7 years of NSG and you are surprised by this?
VoorTrekker K9 Companion, Working, and Combat Dogs.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Dinosaur Federation Society, Dooom35796821595, Fartsniffage, Galloism, Ghost Land, Gormwood, Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba, Izandai, Kernen, Lost Memories, MSN [Bot], Napkizemlja, Necroghastia, Proctopeo, Samadhi, SD_Film Artists, Senkaku, Telconi, The Andromeda Archipelago, The Huskar Social Union, The New California Republic, Thepeopl, Vassenor, Xuloqoia

Advertisement

Remove ads