[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [b] -- Cuntholics
- Subject: Re: [b] -- Cuntholics
- From: David <davidv@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:15:03 -0700
- Cc: brass@xxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <3F29914A.5040006@cream.org>
- References: <1059656917.886.5.camel@gypsumfantastic.positive-internet.com> <3F293660.3090208@cream.org> <3F296BAD.3050201@cream.org> <3F297B12.5070401@cream.org> <3F29914A.5040006@cream.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Victoria Hiley wrote:
David wrote:
So in order to ensure the health of property inheritance we have
marriage. Still. Sick.
Sorry to disappoint you, but ever and always was it thus. If
paternity was as certain as maternity, perhaps we would have something
different. I believe the roots of marriage are in ensuring one's
progeny is actually yours (if you're a man), and since humans don't
mark their property by pooing on it like foxes, we have marriage.
Property. Humans. hehe. Ok but we have the unique ability to attempt to
define our lives. Defining it through validation by arcane
other-human-written nonsense is clinical.
As for the love, it's where you find it, Dave.
Oh yes, yes. I know. I am happily wallowing in it but I find no diety(or
representatives thereof) worthy of my validating my love. I am certain
my love is above all.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; love is the law, love
under will."
D
---
"I'm a bit ignorant on this stuff." -- Gargles
* Last Subject: Re: [b] -- Your mam --*
* Last Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:01:26 +0100 --*
* 08:1-1 --*