Thursday, 07 August 2008

• Revedeath Part II: Pro-Christian Comment Hell

     Before, we took a look at some of the staff written posts being featured on Revelife, and while they gave us a clearer look at some of the more "offensive" and ignorant view points of the Modern Day Christian, I felt that this alone, was not enough to convince myself and you, the reader, that Revelife has poorly, and horrendously portrayed the modern Christian. I've affectionately dubbed many of the Revelife staff and the commentors "Halo Chuckers", and you will understand why I've adopted this somewhat lowbrow term.
  
  

  DISCLAIMER!!! --- The following are actual comments, posted on various topics on the blogging site "Revelife". No names have been edited, no comments have been edited, everything you see is as I saw when I copied it. They are unaltered, unfiltered, unprotected.
  
  DISCLAIMER II!!! --- The following post is extremely LONG. It was not intended to be so, but it is, so you've been warned. To get the most out of it, read all the way through.
  

  
  
  From: "Christians Are Not Brainwashed and Delusional":
  
  

  "I think those people who try to accuse us of beeing brain washed havent been given the chance to see real love. the kind of love people can only have in christ. I think they accusations come from their need to have a validation for their life views. I think that if we chose to follow christ we also chose to love those people even if they attack us. Maybe when we start showing that kind of love, they will see that we arent brainwashed, that we know that there really is something more to this whole thing called life. When they see the love god puts on our hearts, maybe they will see god and want to come to know him."
  

  
  

  -guitarguy
  
  

     Firstly, nothing is more difficult and annoying than someone who cannot spell basic words, or even use the most BASIC of grammatical methods when writing. Right off the bat, if you cannot spell, you should not write. It makes you look stupid, ignorant, unintelligent, and nullifies your argument completely. If someone has a hard time understanding what you say because you use terms or phrases they are unfamiliar with (properly; ebonics is discluded from this), that's understandable. If someone cannot understand what you say because you have atrocious writing? that's just plain wrong.
  
     Secondly, what I've read from this, what I seem to consistently get out of this particular comment is that according to the "author", only Christians have the capacity, the ability, or the "privilege" to experience "real love", "pure love", or something to that effect. That through Christ, and Christ alone, EVERY person on the planet will find happiness (despite the fact this is highly fallacious, incorrect, and arrogant). Does anyone else find something horribly offensive about this? This comment completely attempts to deter any further discussion through ineffectual dogmatic jargon and naive faithfulness in one's own religious status. It leaves no room for debate, no room for open thought, it treats life like an open and shut case. WRONG! There is not enough proof to WARRANT that kind of fervent faith as being accurate 100% for all living creatures.
  
     It's nice to see people being faithful to their beliefs, but it's inSUFFERABLE to see people downing others for their paths, and labeling their opinions as "false" or "wrong". An opinion can NEVER be wrong, but an IDEA can. This idea being given to us? Completely WRONG.
  
  

  ---

  
  From: "Can Women Be Church Leaders?":
  
  

  "Its pretty clear.  The Bible says in several places that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men.  It is not a sexist thing, nor is it a cultural thing.  The man is the head of the woman.  And the women who were not yet married were still to remain under the authority of their fathers.
  
  For those who disagree, remember what the Apostle Paul said:  "Or did the word of God come originally from you?  Or was it you only that it reached?  If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord."  - 1 Corinthians 14:36 & 37.
  
  This is not optional, people.  Further, the body of Scripture supports this as well.  It even extremely important reasons, although those reasons are largely rejected by our pro-feminist, anti-male, politically correct society.
  
  The man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church.  It also states that women are more open to angelic influence than men.  Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, it is because God creates things to be done in a certain order.  Without which, or if it is altered, chaos and problems erupt.  Which is exactly what we see today:  Strife in relationships as women fight with men for dominance.  This produces children who deep down, are insecure with their sexual identity; which results in gender confusion, perversion, anxiety, and violent tendancies as children are raised without clear and healthy examples of their gender, & the role they play in marriage and the family."
  

  
  

  ---------------------------
  

  
  

  "I agree with you that women make wonderful leaders for women and children. And I believe it is vital that they participate in Church organization"
  

  
  

  ----------------------------
  

  
  

  "You're right.  But this still doesn't justify women trying to usurp men's authority either.  And as I said, so many men really don't have good examples of how to be a healthy, let alone godly and confidently masculine man, husband and father who genuinely loves and appreciates his wife."
  
  -Koolou
  

  
     The preceding comments were all posted by one person, so I grouped them together in such a manner.  The reason I posted only the responses, is because reading the opposing person's responses is NOT needed for this particular commenter. All you see here is pretty much put into perspective on its own. Now let's look at the first comment.
  
     According to the "author" and the Bible, women are NOT allowed to have authority over men. This puts them in a subservient position to man and asserts a sort of "superiourity" in man to woman. Interpret it how you will, in this day and age, this is considered to be a sexist, demeaning, derogatory remark that should immediately be swept from our thoughts and our dogmas. It's a hindrance on progression in humanity, a hindrance on equal rights, and contradicts everything our country (America) stands for. It is oppression, delusion, bigotry, and ignorance. One would like to think that in this modern age we have become more intelligent, understanding, sympathetic, and civilised. But it is THIS kind of thinking, that causes corruption, social decay, and war.
  
     The "author" then goes on to quote a passage from the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:36 & 37) which he then states: "[I]s not optional.". So again, this is denying the ability or the right to enter debate. Another OASC (Open And Shut Case), if you will; all of it based on nothing more than antiquated doctrine that holds no meaning in this day and age. So what is the big difference between men and women? Why are women supposed to "serve" men?
  
     Because Men are supposedly "the head of the woman". What? Are you saying that we, men, are supposed to be in control of women? That's what you ARE implying. How so? Well, let's look at the typical human head (yours, the "author" of this comment, will be considered the exception): The typical human head is comprised of the skin, the skull, and encased in the skull: the brain. The human brain is the central controller of the human body. In essence, the brain runs the show, while the other body parts are merely tools of its will. This is what I'm getting out of your comment: Women are tools of men. This is degrading, not uplifting. This is demoralising, NOT loving. This. Is. WRONG!
  
     Also, according to the "author", any form of "change" in this "design of God" will cause the following:
  
  

  "Strife in relationships as women fight with men for dominance.  This produces children who deep down, are insecure with their sexual identity; which results in gender confusion, perversion, anxiety, and violent tendancies as children are raised without clear and healthy examples of their gender, & the role they play in marriage and the family."
  

  
     So, if a woman decides to join the workforce, or becomes the breadwinner of the family, their children will inevitably (one or more of the following):
  

  1. Rebel against "God"
  2. Become homosexuals
  3. Not realise their "place" in the household (Men: Dominant; makes the money; supports the family. Women: Submissive; makes the family; cleans the house; cooks the meals)
     
  4. Accept people as equals
  5. Burn in Hell
  6. Follow their own aspirations and dreams, regardless of what others believe
  7. Burn in Hell
  8. Hug a Muslim
     
  9. Beat their wives
  10. Cheat on their Husbands
  11. Kill each other
  12. Maim each other
  13. Rape each other
  14. Commit Incest
  15. Partake in Beastiality
  16. ACCEPT POLYGAMY!
      
  17. ANARCHY!
  18. SEX PISTOLS!
  19. HAIL SATAN!!!
  20. :garbled Aramaic and head spinning:
  21. TWISTED SISTER!!!
      
  22. BURN IN FUCKING HELL!
      

     Basically, that's what we have to look forward to if we allow women to be equal to men. The horror of it all. This is such a ridiculous slippery slope argument that has very little factual basis. There are PLENTY of families that are still together, still are happy, and have dominant women, or men, or both. It's nothing more than religious scare tactics to create a sense of fear, submission, and ignorance. All of it, excused by bogus passages from an archaic document. But, they aren't brainwashed. Right.
  
     The second comment... well... put that right up next to the previous comment. Honestly, women aren't supposed to lead, so they cannot be a part of organising anything. Also, how can women participate in the Church when the following passage dictates the following?:
  
  

  "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."(1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
  
  

     Of course, this is constantly considered to be open to interpretation, due to other passages in 1 Cor. mentioning women praying and professing in Church. No, this just means the Authors of The Bible were goddamned hypocrites! It states, clearly and openly that women are to BE QUIET! Women are verboten to speak in Church for it is DISGRACEFUL!  How demeaning is THIS?! Again, you cannot claim the Bible to be open to interpretation when you are also claiming it to be 100% "TRUE", which means it is not debatable, it is not open for interpretation, it is simply, unrefutably, TRUE. But it isn't, for it is riddled with holes, misconceptions, misinterpretations, and odious lies. It's a document of man to create dominance, submission, and a false sense of authority amongst the masses.
  
     Lastly, we have this final comment from this person, in which they state that women are "trying to usurp men's authority". How? By trying to be our equals? By wanting to share in our experiences, to be treated like a human being rather than a servent? By speaking out for their rights? I agree that Feminazism is wrong and detrimental to BOTH sexes, but honest Feminism is not. Feminism was about creating an equal parallel between men and women, not more, not less. Just like Christianity, this mindset has been perverted over the years and transformed into a monster of insidious proportions. I cannot tolerate Feminazism any more than I can your vehement beliefs in female submission in the face of a Maleocratic Authority System. Yes, I made up that one word. Shut up.
  
  

  ==========
  

  
  

  "yu know if you think about alot of things pertainig to women in the bible has to do with us sumitting ourselves to the man and basically the man as all resposibilty to do the hard working jobs...so part of me doesn't think that women could be be church leaders, but from the ladies that i have seen in leadership( my mother and aunts being ministers) are as powerful as the men or even more than, i also beleive that God can use anyone and anything he wants to proclaom his glory, and if women didnt lead half of the time or go to church period, then there woudl be no church because we are the monrity, which in a way is sad we need more men praising God.."
  

  
  

  -passion8e23
  

  
     Right here you see where the power of this mind control takes its shape. Firstly, this poor person has somehow lost the ability to wield a keyboard. I think the many years of "male dominance" has severely affected her neurological synapses; or she just never passed the first grade. But, looking beyond the horrendous typing and insufferable grammatical errors, there's a message, albeit an almost indiscernable one. The "author" feels that because of this religious doctrine, that women ARE to be subservient to men. I'm sure this made the many who agreed with this perverted mindset leap for joy. Disgusting. It's appalling to see the struggles of women so utterly decimated by such an unbending mindfuckery.
  
     Then, she goes on to talk about how she has SEEN that women are capable of being exceptional (and equal) leaders. So what's the point? Women aren't allowed to be leaders of the Church as is the will of (Man) "God". If "God" can "use anyone and anything he wants to proclaim his Glory" (cleaned up for the sake of your sanity) then doesn't that nullify the ENTIRE ARGUMENT?! This is the kind of loopheaded thinking that makes Christians look unintelligent and moronic. It's a massive contradiction that has no rhyme, reason, or explanation. It's insane...
  
  

  ==========
  

  
  

  "I agree.  Scripture shouldn't be maniuplated to fit "cultural" arguments.  That's just a way to shift the moral baseline.
  
  It's pretty clear in the scripture that homosexuality is a sin and should be recognized as one, but in our culture as well as in the ancient Greek culture, it was viewed or made to be viewed as normal by homosexual rhetoric and manipulations to become perceived as normal.  Should we then embrace it and call it okay and not a sin when clearly the Lord thinks it is a sin?
  
  No.  The cultural argument is just another insidious smoke screen argument.  People and peoples' sin haven't changed only technological sophistication.  God and the Word of God is immutable.  We can't pick and choose things to believe or not believe like Thomas Jefferson.  In this existence (we are not on the other side yet where it doesn't matter) women and men have equal but different duties to perform in the home and at church."
  

  
  

  -Palamides
  

  
     Basically, here you have the typical ignoramus who believes everything he reads and feels strongly that we should oust the "gays" for being "sinners". Lovely. So flat out: we should take the entire Bible literally, which is what I keep being told, so at least this moron is consistent. Doesn't make what he/she is saying any more right though. But I think we've beaten this horse to death. Just bask in the glorious ignorance of the comment and let's move on.
  
  

  ---

  
  From: "To Christians, What's More Offensive Than Gay Marriage?"
  
     First off, before I start ANY comment dissection, I would like to have it go on record that the original "author" of this article stated that Gay Marriage is NOT a major issue and should not be one with Christians. Finally, a voice of (semi) reason.
  
  

  "I have been reading what is being written here and I have to say that if your asking why Christians are making a big deal about being gay I can tell you.  Not one of the people you hear say they are Gay Christians actually say they are repenting for this sin and working to stop doing it.  Not one.  Are you asking for God's help to not be gay?  How can you chose to sin constantly and knowing profess to be a Christian yet say I don't care I am staying Gay!  I love the sin more than God.  That isn't a Christian working to get rid of a sin.  That is a person feeling guilty for sinning and saying they are a Christian.  Sure I have seen people drinking and when they drink to get drunk they are sinning.  It isn't the drink that it making them sin it is how much they are drinking that makes them sin.  Gay choice isn't the same as drinking as far as a sin.  Yes, I have heard a sin is a sin but there is somethings that hit harder than going to a bar and drinking.  Everyone else there is usually drinking and made the choice to be there.  You are displaying to the world that you love your sexual preference and flaunted in front of others.  No you aren't going in a private place like home and keeping it to yourself you are going out in public and stating that you are doing something wrong and you don't care.  I could go on and on about this but I just want to know how something.  How many people out there say they are Gay Christian and know it is a sin and love God enough to say that they have repented for that sin and are working with God to make that sin dead in there life.  In othere words if you are a Gay Christian you are telling everyone that one of these days you will not be gay but free of being gay.  Next thing you know there will be Drunk Christian groups or Porn Christian Groups.  Child Molestor Christian Groups.  Sounds stupid doesn't it.  Please look in the mirror and tell God you really love him and speak to him.  Yes, to you it may sound crazy but when you do it the right way he will speak to you and tell you that you are wrong and you can change.  That is the word CHANGE!  God so loved the world, he gave himself up in the flesh for everyone.  Why would you give up going to be with him when this is all over with.  He would love that instead of you helping to create more people making a decision that is going to cost them ever lasting life.  Stop picking out what applies to you here and there in the bible and actually read the thing.  You say you don't see anything in there about gay being wrong.  You just haven't read it yet.  I don't hate the fact that there are gay people.  Just the fact that they have chosen being gay permnently and when they chose that I am sorry but you will not make it to the gates of heaven that way.  Last breath... are you repenting into heaven?  take care all and may God bless anyone that understands what I am saying."
  

  
  

   -winterwindchill
  

  
     Yes, are you queers begging for salvation from your "diseaseful sin"!? Only "God" can take away a psychosis, a neurosis, a genetical inheritance, or a genetical mutation. Homosexuality's origins has not been confirmed as of yet, so we cannot fully understand what causes a person to be attracted to the same sex. But, even trying to understand it, like it is a disease or something out of the ordinary? Honestly I find the prospect offensive. Let the person be gay. No one is looking out to figure out HETEROSEXUALITY, so why bother the homosexual community? Because the Bible told us to? And to say that because they are Gay "God" will NOT allow them into Heaven? Do you understand how HORRIBLE that sounds? How disrespectful, bigoted, ignorant, and just plain WRONG that is? Didn't the Bible say to Love Thy Neighbour? You are all constantly bending your rules to meet some sinister goal of complete domination of the world through mind control, is what I seem to get out of these kind of comments. Then, I start imagining The Brain in a special episode in which he harnasses the power of Christianity to wipe out the Muslims, the Gays, and anyone else un-Christian.
  
     The "author" also makes a funny point when saying "Next thing you know there will be Drunk Christian groups or Porn Christian Groups.  Child Molestor Christian Groups.  Sounds stupid doesn't it." Well, yes, because there's already "Drunk Christian Groups"... ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS! Besides that, there's nothing sinful about being drunk. "Porn Christian Groups"? I'm guessing that is something that involves a singular blinking red light and some shitty nightvision effects right? Seriously, could there be any more of a weak Slippery Slope than this? "Child Molestor Christian Groups"? I think the Vatican already has those. Seriously though, this comment did nothing but enrage me due to its utter ignorance and impossibly unintelligent stance on homosexuality.
  
     The "author" is trying to force a change on people that don't HAVE to change. If people were "made in "God"'s image" doesn't that mean we must love and accept EVERYONE AS THEY ARE?! Yes, yes it does but Christians (some) do NOT want to accept that. They want to bend the rules to fit their means, their quotas, THEIR agendas. Not "God"'s. THAT is where I draw the line.
  
  

  =========
  

  
  

  "but is the argument for tolerance sake or should we really defend an institution that God ordained for ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN to apply?
  
  not that defending it changes anything... but it does let our voice stand... no matter who we offend...
  
  but i'm just again sick of the culture... the rainbow for instance... the gay community took that as their symbol... HELLO, THAT RAINBOW IS A PROMISE GOD WON'T DROWN YOUR REAR WITH WATER... not a symbol to show off a flagrant disregard for the natural order of things...
  
  what's even funnier to me is that gay marriage is being voiced by only about 10-15% of the total population... and yet they are the most vocal...
  
  so where are all the warrior and warrioresses of Righteousness??  are we cowering and trembling in the name of tolerance and relevance and acceptance?
  
  a question I ask myself every single time I see this transvestite guy walk into my restaurant... can't help but laugh at how ridiculous it looks but saddened that it's so accepted..."
  

  
  

  ------------------
  

  
  

  "i kinda wanna take [the rainbow] back and make it a bumper sticker saying... "This isn't a flagrant symbol for a sinful lifestyle, this is a promise God won't drown you anymore, give it back!!!!"
  
  talk about shock value... that'll stir up discussions on the road... or warrant a drive by to my end...
  
  but i say we start reclaiming the things taken from our Chrisitan Bible based heritage...
  
  like the Rainbow...
  or the color purple- since when is this the official color of the gay community?  Purple is the Biblical color for royalty last I checked if my exegesis is correct...
  
  i want my heritage back is all I can say... we seriously need to quit giving this tiny fragmented rather broken yet obnoxiously loud and flagrantly closeminded and sinful community our symbols!!!!!
  
  I want my rainbow back to symbolize God's promise of no floods
  I want my purple back to symbolize royalty
  
  quit taking our stuff homos!!!!
  
  harsh?  who cares..."
  

  
  

  -leadworshipper82
  

  
     I read through this and before I could become angry, like I was with the previous comment, I started to laugh, mostly at the following line:
  
  

  "so where are all the warrior and warrioresses of Righteousness??  are we cowering and trembling in the name of tolerance and relevance and acceptance?"
  

  
     Yes, are you all afraid to be tolerant? Are you afraid to make relevant statements? Are you AFRAID to be accepting (like the Bible says you should be)? I think this quote right here sums up the sheer stupidity of the "author" but for the sake of longevity and brevity, I will elaborate on the other "points" of this comment.
  
    First off, the question arose if Christians should be tolerant or condemn the institution of Gay Marriage (again, segregating). Well, considering I keep mentioning the whole "Love Thy Neighbour" commandment, I think you all know the answer to this one. Christians seem to forget this little piece of jargon they like to espouse when confronted with someone bashing them: "Only "God" has the right to judge.". So then why are YOU judging others? What gives you the right? Are you the "Mouth Of God"? Ordained by "God" Itself to speak on Its behalf? No, so shut the hell up already. Start practising what you SHOULD be preaching.
  
     Next, the "author" talks about being "sick" of the "[gay] culture" and how they wrongfully took the Rainbow as their symbol, stating it to be a Biblical symbol of "God"'s promise to not out right destroy us again. But wait, isn't symbolism considered idolatry in the Bible? So why would "God" create a symbol for others to revere if It was against it? Saying that anything is a "Biblical Symbol" is blasphemous according to Bible doctrine, so aren't you just (again) being an uncontrollable hypocrite? Really, this is just too much. Then, we have some random statistic putting those in favour of homosexual marriage in the minority, which may very well be true, but the "author" complains that they are more vocal than most Christians. This is because the ones being vocal have courage. They actually believe in what they think and they aren't afraid to speak up for it. But, you should totally condemn them for it.
  
    The next comment makes the argument even worse. Now, the "author" wants to take the Rainbow and again, make it a religious symbol (idolatry) to oppress and offend the gay community for no real reason other than ridiculous religious preference. So, what I seem to have gotten out of the last bunch of comments is that Christianity is NOT about love and acceptance of others, but "Righteous" condemnation of everything they do not like or understand, as dictated by a document that has been re-translated, and re-interpreted over thousands of years (whose "Saviour" is largely based upon the Egyptian god Horus).
  
     The following passages from the comment REALLY puts things into perspective:
  
  

  "i want my heritage back is all I can say... we seriously need to quit giving this tiny fragmented rather broken yet obnoxiously loud and flagrantly closeminded and sinful community our symbols!!!!!
  
  I want my rainbow back to symbolize God's promise of no floods
  I want my purple back to symbolize royalty"
  

  
     There's a LOT of "I"s and "My"s in this quote. I thought this was about "God"? Since when is this about YOU? Doesn't that mean you are putting yourself above "God"? Isn't that ALSO a sin? The Rainbow wasn't yours, not now, not before, not ever. You claimed it as "God"'s and yet now you claim it as YOURS. How ludicrously arrogant. Even funnier is you calling the gay community "Close-minded". Ironic, actually. Also, purple symbolised royalty well before and outside the Christian doctrines. So really, you're just being an ignorant ass. But that was obvious to begin with.
  
     In conclusion, I think this says it best:
  
  

  "quit taking our stuff homos!!!!
  
  harsh?  who cares..."
  

  
     You're right. Who cares? No one intelligent does.
  
  

  =========
  

  
     Finally we reach the last comment before I will wrap up this, my series on Revelife. Keep in mind that this does NOT constitute ALL Christians nor all Christian Bloggers, but it does reflect some of the most insipid, vacuous, and ignorant members of the Christian faith and blogosphere. Sadly, I found some of these types within the ranks of Xanga, and the Revelife staff as well. Which, in my opinion, makes for a bad blog, a bad host site, and a bad representation of a world renowned religion. As of this posting, Revelife HAS changed a lot of its focal matters to less extremeisms and that HAS to be acknowledged for the sake of fairness. This post has been to open the eyes of Christians and non-Christians alike that this kind of thinking exists and is a danger to Free people everywhere. It's harmful, destructive, and demeaning. With that being said, I give you the last comment I copied before my head exploded from the whole ordeal. I thank you for making it to the end of this and I hope you not only laughed, but nodded your head in agreement and became just a little bit wiser in the end.
  
     Thank you for your time.
  
  -Scott
  
  

  "Whenever you sin, you turn away from God. Its like slapping your creator. The reason it gets alot of attention is because non-christians are for it, and christians are against it. With murders and stuff, the majority of non-christians and christians agree its bad.
  
  I know a friend who's dad is a homosexual but still marries a woman.
  
  People should realise why there are many Christians and that they stay Christians. The things that we learn from the bible makes us better people, that if everyone was (a good) Christian, there would no war, peace, and help everywhere. But we know this is impossible, just one of the many things of Free Will that God gave us."
  

  
  

  -Andrew (address was withheld by the "author")
  

  
     As my final note, I will now quote the most infamous book of the Bible. This is for all you Halo Chuckers who hate Gays. I love you all, may Xenu guide and molest you with Hydrogen Bombs.
  
  
  Taken from Leviticus 18:

  1 And ceiling cat sed, "Oh hai Mozus,"
  

  2 U sez unto teh kittehz uv Izreeul, u sez: "I, CEILING CAT, are teh CEILING CAT of dem!
  

  4 Do whut I sez, cuz I am teh CEILING CAT, teh moar CEILING CAT.
  

  5 But u must do whut i sez cuz den u findz cheezburgers. I be teh CEILING CAT!

  6 No can has teh secks wif teh fambily. I are teh CEILING CAT.

  7 No can has teh surprise buttsecks wif ur daddy. No can has teh surprise buttsecks wif ur mommy, or dey wil b teh ghey.

  8 No can has teh secks wif ur daddy's hoez, dats like teh buttsecks wif ur daddy.

  9 No can has teh secks wif ur sister. No iz okai for teh beej. Srry.

  10 No can has teh secks wif da kitteh uf ur kitteh.

  11 No can has teh heej from teh cuzins. Srry.

  12 No can has teh secks wif teh auntie.

  13 No cans get teh beej wif auntie too. Srry.

  14 No can has teh buttsecks wif teh unkl. He are teh goatse.

  15 No can has beej from dawter in law. Well okai maibe sumtimes.

  16 No can has teh secks wif ur broes hoes. Dats ur bro d00d!

  17 No can has gangbang wif grandma and granddawter.

  18 No can has gangbang wif ur hoes sisturz.

  19 No can get ur harbl wetted when ur hoes has teh bluds in hur harbl.

  20 No can has teh secks wif ur naiborz wife.

  22 No can has mansex liek has ladysex. (hehe) Taht iz teh ghey.

  23 No can has teh dogsecks. No can has secks wif teh horse. No can do teh goats. Srsly.

  26 Sooo, uz dun can has teh buttsecks, no can has teh dogsecks, and u can killz teh gheyz, k? DO NOT WANT teh ghey.

  30 OKAI? I are ceiling cat. I are watchin u masturbate.
  

  • 2:39 PM
  • 461 Views
  • 48 eProps
  • 34 Comments