ok pa yun tomboy at bakla...my napanood ako nun sa rated K nagpaksal yun bakla at tomboy...cyempre ang nabutis yun tomboy...
ok pa yun tomboy at bakla...my napanood ako nun sa rated K nagpaksal yun bakla at tomboy...cyempre ang nabutis yun tomboy...
^ di nga ba't yan ang madalas sabihin ni OB? yung mga bading lagi raw nakatingin sa "wankata" nya, pag nasa gym siya?
ewan ko kung humahanga sila, or natatawa sila.......![]()
From my point of view, this is really a civil rights issue. I don't see a need to bring in religious views to what is essentially a legal question.
Citizens committed to a monogamous, lifelong same-*** relationship should get the same legal rights as that of hetero***ual couples.
Who decides what's natural? The Church that denies that humans and animals both have natural homoerotic tendencies... That excommunicated Gallileo for daring to suggest that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe... that denied evolution... and that claims condoms are an abomination against nature but strangely, that using the "rhythm method" isn't?
Farming is not natural. Humans are nomadic hunter-gatherers by nature.
Clothing is not natural. Avoid cold? Go live in a warmer climate. Our ancestors spent most of their time naked.
Cooking is not natural. Though it's cooking that enabled us to grow as smart as we are today.
What is "natural" to humanity is to travel around in tribes, hunt, gather berries, screw around (know why we have the "seven-year itch"? It takes seven years for a child to grow to a level where they can nearly fend for themselves... so after seven years, the father spreads his seed around somewhere else), play dominance games with one another (including ***ual relations between males) and kill humans from other tribes and other non-human sapients (Neanderthals, for example).
The argument against homo***uality based on "Nature" is as misguided as saying it is evil to show bare skin.
Ang pagbalik ng comeback...