What if a baby was born in one time zone and then they sent the woman a timezone back.... Who would be the older child?

And that's how people go broke quick. They think their money is limitless so soon enough bills pile up and shit starts getting repo'd

i want to know too, but too lazy to look up video, pls let me know ok?

aurious replied to my comment with the link 3 hours before you made this comment. >>#105

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yx8txEM1g

marriage is all about kids. that's why marriage was created. hell slavemasters specifically made slaves get married because it made them less likely to run away if they had a family

post menepausal woman probably already had their kids.

And if she chose to never have kids? And the 20 year old who had cancer and got a hysterectomy without ever having children?

Anyways. I was up for debating but you're not debating, just saying what you want without offering any kind of reason behind it. Marriage has little to do with children, so it makes no sense for the base reasoning of marriage to be the creation of children. Especially when we live in a time where we should encourage fewer children, not more. I'm done with this conversation now, so have a nice day.

marriage is all about kids. that's why marriage was created. hell slavemasters specifically made slaves get married because it made them less likely to run away if they had a family

actually i change my mind. i do support marriage for parents who can't have kids. because there is still chance. medically it's possible. whether it's scarring on the ovaries or sterile sperm, there's still chances for impregnantion. so i say they get a pass

But there are many cases where it's not possible. Like post-menopausal women. Or women who have had a hysterectomy.

post menepausal woman probably already had their kids.

And if she chose to never have kids? And the 20 year old who had cancer and got a hysterectomy without ever having children?

Anyways. I was up for debating but you're not debating, just saying what you want without offering any kind of reason behind it. Marriage has little to do with children, so it makes no sense for the base reasoning of marriage to be the creation of children. Especially when we live in a time where we should encourage fewer children, not more. I'm done with this conversation now, so have a nice day.

marriage is all about kids. that's why marriage was created. hell slavemasters specifically made slaves get married because it made them less likely to run away if they had a family

i do. because marriage is economic first, love 2nd. anyone stupid enough to think marriage is about love get divorced from being fools

You do what? And economics and reproduction are two entirely different things. Also you just said yourself there are multiple reasons for marriage. So you're problem isn't that people shouldn't get married it's that you want them to marry for your favourite reason only.

actually i change my mind. i do support marriage for parents who can't have kids. because there is still chance. medically it's possible. whether it's scarring on the ovaries or sterile sperm, there's still chances for impregnantion. so i say they get a pass

But there are many cases where it's not possible. Like post-menopausal women. Or women who have had a hysterectomy.

post menepausal woman probably already had their kids.

And if she chose to never have kids? And the 20 year old who had cancer and got a hysterectomy without ever having children?

Anyways. I was up for debating but you're not debating, just saying what you want without offering any kind of reason behind it. Marriage has little to do with children, so it makes no sense for the base reasoning of marriage to be the creation of children. Especially when we live in a time where we should encourage fewer children, not more. I'm done with this conversation now, so have a nice day.

marriage is all about kids. that's why marriage was created. hell slavemasters specifically made slaves get married because it made them less likely to run away if they had a family

well this is why i support abortion. if a parent doesn't want a kid we should let them die. and gay people shouldn't be the reason for having kids to give them up for adoption

Abortion is an entirely different subject. There will still be kids in the system from parents that die, parents that change their mind, and parents that are not capable. There will still be too many children in the system. Gay people aren't a reason for anything. Gay people aren't the only ones in need of adoption services (nor do gay people always adopt, they are capable of having children with donors)

You also completely avoided the other point of my previous comment. Do you disallow marriage for all people who are unable to produce children, and further do you disallow marriage for all people who do not want children. If the only purpose of marriage is for reproduction as you're trying to claim, then the only people who should be allowed to get married are people who produce children.

i do. because marriage is economic first, love 2nd. anyone stupid enough to think marriage is about love get divorced from being fools

You do what? And economics and reproduction are two entirely different things. Also you just said yourself there are multiple reasons for marriage. So you're problem isn't that people shouldn't get married it's that you want them to marry for your favourite reason only.

actually i change my mind. i do support marriage for parents who can't have kids. because there is still chance. medically it's possible. whether it's scarring on the ovaries or sterile sperm, there's still chances for impregnantion. so i say they get a pass

But there are many cases where it's not possible. Like post-menopausal women. Or women who have had a hysterectomy.

post menepausal woman probably already had their kids.

And if she chose to never have kids? And the 20 year old who had cancer and got a hysterectomy without ever having children?

Anyways. I was up for debating but you're not debating, just saying what you want without offering any kind of reason behind it. Marriage has little to do with children, so it makes no sense for the base reasoning of marriage to be the creation of children. Especially when we live in a time where we should encourage fewer children, not more. I'm done with this conversation now, so have a nice day.

marriage is all about kids. that's why marriage was created. hell slavemasters specifically made slaves get married because it made them less likely to run away if they had a family

I geuss because in times when we weren't so "politically correct" we didn't care if we passed on people... You can still see it in the older generation. They don't care what other people think they just say and do what they like. Mostly eating and drinking well

if ur not a boy what good are you then, cant even do that right,

So not actually masturbating but touching themselves, ah. That's weird :p

Yes, that's why I said if you wanted to be technical about it. It wouldn't be for the same level of sexual gratification that develops later, but it's still for a type of stimulation. And not really weird. The nerve endings in your genitals don't suddenly appear in puberty. Like I said, it's just natural.

i bet u jizz on its tounge

now look at it the same way again!!

Well I'm not a boy, so I can't shoot jizz, so pretty sure I'll just forget about your comment soon enough.

if ur not a boy what good are you then, cant even do that right,

really? :o

Yes. My little cousin (1.5 years old) grabs at his dick every time his diaper comes off. They're just exploring their bodies. It's entirely natural.

So not actually masturbating but touching themselves, ah. That's weird :p

Yes, that's why I said if you wanted to be technical about it. It wouldn't be for the same level of sexual gratification that develops later, but it's still for a type of stimulation. And not really weird. The nerve endings in your genitals don't suddenly appear in puberty. Like I said, it's just natural.