Thoughts on (expanding) Marriage
my preferred end state would be something put together that could reasonably be executed...
if legal polygamy was possible, would you really want it?
i wish that it was possible ten years ago
but i do not think that it would benefit me now
========================
If Marriage was expanded from Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage to Include Homosexual Monogamous Marriage then there would not be much of a change, Joint Taxes, Joint Property, Same Next of Kin Privileges. Etc...
If Marriage was extended to Polygamous Marriage (PolyGynous AKA Lucky Man , PolyAndrous AKA Lucky Woman and PolyFidelitous AKA Everybody wins) it would have to be done in such a way that a dissolved marriage lets people get out of it what they put in (possibly shared out in fractions, say a third of the family assets, a fifth of the family assets, a sixth, an eighth, a ninth, a tenth, a twelfth, a thirteenth, but a share system would be more equitable... if you contribute 98% of the family assets coming in, you would be able to cash out 98% of the assets, your families home that you brought in might stay with the group, but you would be compensated for not making the family move) perhaps this would then be the standard for all marriages)
This then dovetails into the multiple household marriage. The way that sister wives did it in the one episode I saw was that each of the wives had just designed and built her own house on a culdesac their children lived in with them and he would allocate his time somehow.
for tax purposes, were this an actual legal marriage, the income-tax could be calculated in a few different ways.
In the traditional form of PolyGyny, the man is the breadwinner, and he has enough income to support all the wives and the children, so the only thing that would change is he adds exemptions for all of the wives and not just all of the children and one of the wives, and claims all the houses as his property - property distribution should one of the women take her children and leave, or even just sever relations in place would not be equitable without the man wanting to be so... and if the legal wife wanted to screw all the others, ...
in the Below, * indicated DIFFERENT from Current 2 spouses + children + dependent relatives arrangement
One way to make this more equitqable would be to
1: have all the Breadwinners in the family list Their income by Social
2: Aggregate the income together and determine the tax liability
3: Determine the number of exemptions based on the number of persons in the household
4: Determine amount of deductions based on various factors already included in the tax code
5*: Each Breadwinner is credited with a number of shares proportionate to his or her contribution to the tax burden of the family, the family members that take care of the children are credited with shares proportionate to an assumed salary as if they worked in a similar commercial child care establishment, or any other services that they provide to the families good as if they were performed outside the family. (doctors, Landscaping, computer technical support, accountant, lawyer, housekeeping, etc)
6*: Amount of the remmaining Tax Refund or Tax Burden goes into the family balances or is paid from them with the individual family members shares being credited/debited against each persons share in the family on the basis of saved burden or actual contribution to he family finances
Food, rent, other services that the family receives are paid for from joint account
all of the members of the family have the same healthplan, with the employee costs for each breadwinner being predicated on number of breadwinners, and family size (health plan companies are NOT charities, they will not let a 50 person family get away with the same per family cost as a family of 4)
it gets more complicated with a variation of the scenario of the traveling sales man or sailor who has multiple houses along his route (mainly that all the wives know about each other (which, traditionally, the bigamous bastards didn't do))
Multiple Heads of household, the main breadwinners at each location being the head of their house.
the income being allocated by the breadwinners by the amount of time they spend at each household (refund check being alloted to each head of households accounts, or the breadwinner if none apply, or assessed against the breadwinner if he didnt set his exemptions properly
i'll leave it here for now, any thing i missed?
------------------------------------------
Marriage is a Civil Contract that only becomes Religious because it is Some Times Officiated by a Priest and Sworn in front of God as a Witness
"By the power vested in me by God and the Great State of Ohio, I now pronounce you husband and wife." http://www.greatohioweddings.com/Pronouncements.html greatohioweddings
Notice the part where the priest refers to his state?
You do know why that is, right?
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html All of the Things that Poly Will be fighting for and Gay are Fighting for BELONG TO CAESAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ).
http://biblehub.com/matthew/22-21.htm (Matthew 22:21)
------------------------------------------
Even in theocracies (WAY more than 100 years, how does 1460 before christian era grab you) Marriage was a civil contract between the Grooms and Brides families
Theocracies had Civil Courts, Criminal Courts and Ecclesiastical(Religious) Courts
Hebrew, Arabian, Christian, all the others, Marriage is a civil matter in regards to taxation and property inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price Bride Price (groom buys the bride from the Family (no religious connotations there) http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-29.htm(Deuteronomy 2:29) is covering something criminal in matter with a civil penalty- the compensation of the Brides Family for the loss of the bride price,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry Dowery (Here is a gift to thank you for taking this burden off our hands)
Marriage COSTS the Government. (depending on the tax bracket)
Do you think that Inheritance Tax Free Transfer of property from dead spouse to living spouse MAKES the government money?
Aggregating the Family income for the year together, and doing exemptions and deductions from the money that would be taxable if it were for a single person
Have you compared the income tax for Married Filing Separately (same tax rate as 2 Single persons) vice Married Filing Jointly? there is a significant difference
the ONLY way that marriage affects the church(s) is whither or not someone gets married in another venue or not
--------------------
With Marriage being a Civil Matter adjudicated by the Government, and sometimes Witnessed and Officiated by the Church
Then Which Marriages are Recognized by the Government are the Responsibility of the Government (and, Further, IMO, should be at the federal level because fuck the states)
With that being said, why shouldn't Marriage encompass as many partners as consent to be married, and can legally consent to the marriage, with regard to consanguinity law, without imposition of gender restrictions.
Churches and other Venues should be able to decide not to Host Marriages and other events that they have an organizational or religious (Church only - not even for closely held companies Incorporation is GOVERNMENT, not religious) objection to.
if legal polygamy was possible, would you really want it?
i wish that it was possible ten years ago
but i do not think that it would benefit me now
========================
If Marriage was expanded from Heterosexual Monogamous Marriage to Include Homosexual Monogamous Marriage then there would not be much of a change, Joint Taxes, Joint Property, Same Next of Kin Privileges. Etc...
If Marriage was extended to Polygamous Marriage (PolyGynous AKA Lucky Man , PolyAndrous AKA Lucky Woman and PolyFidelitous AKA Everybody wins) it would have to be done in such a way that a dissolved marriage lets people get out of it what they put in (possibly shared out in fractions, say a third of the family assets, a fifth of the family assets, a sixth, an eighth, a ninth, a tenth, a twelfth, a thirteenth, but a share system would be more equitable... if you contribute 98% of the family assets coming in, you would be able to cash out 98% of the assets, your families home that you brought in might stay with the group, but you would be compensated for not making the family move) perhaps this would then be the standard for all marriages)
This then dovetails into the multiple household marriage. The way that sister wives did it in the one episode I saw was that each of the wives had just designed and built her own house on a culdesac their children lived in with them and he would allocate his time somehow.
for tax purposes, were this an actual legal marriage, the income-tax could be calculated in a few different ways.
In the traditional form of PolyGyny, the man is the breadwinner, and he has enough income to support all the wives and the children, so the only thing that would change is he adds exemptions for all of the wives and not just all of the children and one of the wives, and claims all the houses as his property - property distribution should one of the women take her children and leave, or even just sever relations in place would not be equitable without the man wanting to be so... and if the legal wife wanted to screw all the others, ...
in the Below, * indicated DIFFERENT from Current 2 spouses + children + dependent relatives arrangement
One way to make this more equitqable would be to
1: have all the Breadwinners in the family list Their income by Social
2: Aggregate the income together and determine the tax liability
3: Determine the number of exemptions based on the number of persons in the household
4: Determine amount of deductions based on various factors already included in the tax code
5*: Each Breadwinner is credited with a number of shares proportionate to his or her contribution to the tax burden of the family, the family members that take care of the children are credited with shares proportionate to an assumed salary as if they worked in a similar commercial child care establishment, or any other services that they provide to the families good as if they were performed outside the family. (doctors, Landscaping, computer technical support, accountant, lawyer, housekeeping, etc)
6*: Amount of the remmaining Tax Refund or Tax Burden goes into the family balances or is paid from them with the individual family members shares being credited/debited against each persons share in the family on the basis of saved burden or actual contribution to he family finances
Food, rent, other services that the family receives are paid for from joint account
all of the members of the family have the same healthplan, with the employee costs for each breadwinner being predicated on number of breadwinners, and family size (health plan companies are NOT charities, they will not let a 50 person family get away with the same per family cost as a family of 4)
it gets more complicated with a variation of the scenario of the traveling sales man or sailor who has multiple houses along his route (mainly that all the wives know about each other (which, traditionally, the bigamous bastards didn't do))
Multiple Heads of household, the main breadwinners at each location being the head of their house.
the income being allocated by the breadwinners by the amount of time they spend at each household (refund check being alloted to each head of households accounts, or the breadwinner if none apply, or assessed against the breadwinner if he didnt set his exemptions properly
i'll leave it here for now, any thing i missed?
------------------------------------------
Marriage is a Civil Contract that only becomes Religious because it is Some Times Officiated by a Priest and Sworn in front of God as a Witness
"By the power vested in me by God and the Great State of Ohio, I now pronounce you husband and wife." http://www.greatohioweddings.com/Pronouncements.html greatohioweddings
Notice the part where the priest refers to his state?
You do know why that is, right?
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html All of the Things that Poly Will be fighting for and Gay are Fighting for BELONG TO CAESAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ).
http://biblehub.com/matthew/22-21.htm (Matthew 22:21)
------------------------------------------
Even in theocracies (WAY more than 100 years, how does 1460 before christian era grab you) Marriage was a civil contract between the Grooms and Brides families
Theocracies had Civil Courts, Criminal Courts and Ecclesiastical(Religious) Courts
Hebrew, Arabian, Christian, all the others, Marriage is a civil matter in regards to taxation and property inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price Bride Price (groom buys the bride from the Family (no religious connotations there) http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-29.htm(Deuteronomy 2:29) is covering something criminal in matter with a civil penalty- the compensation of the Brides Family for the loss of the bride price,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry Dowery (Here is a gift to thank you for taking this burden off our hands)
Marriage COSTS the Government. (depending on the tax bracket)
Do you think that Inheritance Tax Free Transfer of property from dead spouse to living spouse MAKES the government money?
Aggregating the Family income for the year together, and doing exemptions and deductions from the money that would be taxable if it were for a single person
Have you compared the income tax for Married Filing Separately (same tax rate as 2 Single persons) vice Married Filing Jointly? there is a significant difference
the ONLY way that marriage affects the church(s) is whither or not someone gets married in another venue or not
--------------------
With Marriage being a Civil Matter adjudicated by the Government, and sometimes Witnessed and Officiated by the Church
Then Which Marriages are Recognized by the Government are the Responsibility of the Government (and, Further, IMO, should be at the federal level because fuck the states)
With that being said, why shouldn't Marriage encompass as many partners as consent to be married, and can legally consent to the marriage, with regard to consanguinity law, without imposition of gender restrictions.
Churches and other Venues should be able to decide not to Host Marriages and other events that they have an organizational or religious (Church only - not even for closely held companies Incorporation is GOVERNMENT, not religious) objection to.
1: Should Legal Marriage be Expanded to include A: Same Sex Monogamous Marriage B: Polygamous Marriage in its Many Flavors (three of which explained)
2: if legal marriage be expanded, A needs no change to tax code. What changes would B need?
3: Using the bible to thwap Religious conservatives with the fact that Marriage was a civil contract in biblical times when it was a theocracy. This fact then should tell them it is a civil contract now. No matter what they want to call it, all marriages are civil unions (unless the participants deliberately chose an officiant that would not do the paperwork)
4: Religion can decide which ceremonies to perform.
Religion has no right to dictate to government which marriages to honor.
2: if legal marriage be expanded, A needs no change to tax code. What changes would B need?
3: Using the bible to thwap Religious conservatives with the fact that Marriage was a civil contract in biblical times when it was a theocracy. This fact then should tell them it is a civil contract now. No matter what they want to call it, all marriages are civil unions (unless the participants deliberately chose an officiant that would not do the paperwork)
4: Religion can decide which ceremonies to perform.
Religion has no right to dictate to government which marriages to honor.
Anonymous
Church and State should be separated.
In an economy where taxes must be paid, I'd think the fairest way would be for each household to declare their own situation. Income per person. I don't think that religious views should concern themselves with matters of taxes and therefore, don't believe that the "legal marital status" assigned each person should be considered. It should be based on residency, income, and responsibility status of each individual. I suppose the nearest we have now is civil partnership, considered "valid" of so many years of co-habitation.
It is not that defining marriage to "one woman and one man" is only infringing on the human rights of non straight people, but that it also dismisses all cultures who believe in anything other than monogamy.
Which, in turn, actually uses the religious beliefs of one culture against those of others.
I think the Mormons have ways of handling these matters that'd be worth looking into.
In an economy where taxes must be paid, I'd think the fairest way would be for each household to declare their own situation. Income per person. I don't think that religious views should concern themselves with matters of taxes and therefore, don't believe that the "legal marital status" assigned each person should be considered. It should be based on residency, income, and responsibility status of each individual. I suppose the nearest we have now is civil partnership, considered "valid" of so many years of co-habitation.
It is not that defining marriage to "one woman and one man" is only infringing on the human rights of non straight people, but that it also dismisses all cultures who believe in anything other than monogamy.
Which, in turn, actually uses the religious beliefs of one culture against those of others.
I think the Mormons have ways of handling these matters that'd be worth looking into.
Anonymous
we hippies usually just turn communist and go build places to live in a field somewhere....
lol :)
lol :)
mikimoondancer said:we hippies usually just turn communist and go build places to live in a field somewhere....
lol :)
that works too... was quite impressed with the way that one of their members represented the three families/polyfidelitous groups of the Kerista Commune.
but given that there is income coming in, and taxes going out, there should be a way to mitigate taxes going out..
lol :)
that works too... was quite impressed with the way that one of their members represented the three families/polyfidelitous groups of the Kerista Commune.
but given that there is income coming in, and taxes going out, there should be a way to mitigate taxes going out..
lightbaron said:jeez, fairly complicated stuff man...sure keeps the idea of romance forefront in mawwaige huh...i get the social and civic contract stuff, I personally just couldnt care less
Anarcho.polyamory for all!
[The topic of] Mawwaige. Mawwaige is waht bwings us together today.
A tad bit heavy on the introduction there HMMCameron. You may have got a bit lost in your own thought and ended up presenting a rambling post there. And I should know, its kinda the trap I always fall into.
But anyway, one problem is that you seem to be presenting two viable topics at once: Same-Sex Marriages, and that of Polygamous Marriages, and then interesting legal and tax information connected to the two.
If Churches do stonewall (ha! many churches are made of stone!) events they see as not be applicable such as same-sex marriages, then it can alos extend to 'normal' marriages where the bride and groom abide by all the rules yet are agnostic or not true-christians and therefore not the church's people.
Call me a romantic, but although death and taxes are certain, love and life are chaotic and wondrous for it.
Anarcho.polyamory for all!
[The topic of] Mawwaige. Mawwaige is waht bwings us together today.
A tad bit heavy on the introduction there HMMCameron. You may have got a bit lost in your own thought and ended up presenting a rambling post there. And I should know, its kinda the trap I always fall into.
But anyway, one problem is that you seem to be presenting two viable topics at once: Same-Sex Marriages, and that of Polygamous Marriages, and then interesting legal and tax information connected to the two.
If Churches do stonewall (ha! many churches are made of stone!) events they see as not be applicable such as same-sex marriages, then it can alos extend to 'normal' marriages where the bride and groom abide by all the rules yet are agnostic or not true-christians and therefore not the church's people.
Call me a romantic, but although death and taxes are certain, love and life are chaotic and wondrous for it.
mikimoondancer said:Church and State should be separated.
most definitely agree with that, but so many of the Religious Right try to claim that marriage is religous, my referencing deuteronomy is my way of telling them that even in Theocracies, who could marry whom was a Civil matter, and not a Religious matter.
So far, none of them have responded to that, any where...
i guess i committed a sin by actually rubbing their noses in the book that they claim to follow... LOL
mikimoondancer said:In an economy where taxes must be paid, I'd think the fairest way would be for each household to declare their own situation. Income per person.
that works... aggregating income can actually cost in taxes... being low on the income scale i had actually though that marriage filing joint always saved in comparison with single... but towards the upper end of the scale this is not the case, single income with a family yes, but two or more incomes not so much.
mikimoondancer said: I don't think that religious views should concern themselves with matters of taxes and therefore, don't believe that the "legal marital status" assigned each person should be considered.
Legal Marital Status matters for the taxes, next of kin, employer paid health plan. etc
mikimoondancer said: It should be based on residency, income, and responsibility status of each individual. I suppose the nearest we have now is civil partnership, considered "valid" of so many years of co-habitation.
not an option on this side of the pond, the closest we have over here is common law marriage, and even that is only for pair bonding
it really sticks in my craw to ceed the religious conservatives control of marriage when they were perfectly happy having marriage be civil with a religious ceremony until they started to loose control of who could be married...
mikimoondancer said:It is not that defining marriage to "one woman and one man" is only infringing on the human rights of non straight people, but that it also dismisses all cultures who believe in anything other than monogamy.
truth, religious conservatives are not the most tolerant of people
mikimoondancer said:Which, in turn, actually uses the religious beliefs of one culture against those of others.
I think the Mormons have ways of handling these matters that'd be worth looking into.
I've looked into it extensively (i am a bit of a jack morman... - i like coffee and tea too much, plus i chose the wrong branch...)
If someone says they are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, they follow the laws of the land they are in in regards to marriage
if someone is called a Fundamentalist LDS, then they practice mostly PolyGyny, the Show Sister Wives had an interesting living arrangement that was just going into place on the one episode i watched... 3-5 houses on a culdesac, one for each wife.
most definitely agree with that, but so many of the Religious Right try to claim that marriage is religous, my referencing deuteronomy is my way of telling them that even in Theocracies, who could marry whom was a Civil matter, and not a Religious matter.
So far, none of them have responded to that, any where...
i guess i committed a sin by actually rubbing their noses in the book that they claim to follow... LOL
mikimoondancer said:In an economy where taxes must be paid, I'd think the fairest way would be for each household to declare their own situation. Income per person.
that works... aggregating income can actually cost in taxes... being low on the income scale i had actually though that marriage filing joint always saved in comparison with single... but towards the upper end of the scale this is not the case, single income with a family yes, but two or more incomes not so much.
mikimoondancer said: I don't think that religious views should concern themselves with matters of taxes and therefore, don't believe that the "legal marital status" assigned each person should be considered.
Legal Marital Status matters for the taxes, next of kin, employer paid health plan. etc
mikimoondancer said: It should be based on residency, income, and responsibility status of each individual. I suppose the nearest we have now is civil partnership, considered "valid" of so many years of co-habitation.
not an option on this side of the pond, the closest we have over here is common law marriage, and even that is only for pair bonding
it really sticks in my craw to ceed the religious conservatives control of marriage when they were perfectly happy having marriage be civil with a religious ceremony until they started to loose control of who could be married...
mikimoondancer said:It is not that defining marriage to "one woman and one man" is only infringing on the human rights of non straight people, but that it also dismisses all cultures who believe in anything other than monogamy.
truth, religious conservatives are not the most tolerant of people
mikimoondancer said:Which, in turn, actually uses the religious beliefs of one culture against those of others.
I think the Mormons have ways of handling these matters that'd be worth looking into.
I've looked into it extensively (i am a bit of a jack morman... - i like coffee and tea too much, plus i chose the wrong branch...)
If someone says they are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, they follow the laws of the land they are in in regards to marriage
if someone is called a Fundamentalist LDS, then they practice mostly PolyGyny, the Show Sister Wives had an interesting living arrangement that was just going into place on the one episode i watched... 3-5 houses on a culdesac, one for each wife.
Viddax said:But anyway, one problem is that you seem to be presenting two viable topics at once: Same-Sex Marriages, and that of Polygamous Marriages, and then interesting legal and tax information connected to the two.
Actually, being somewhat polyandrous/polyfidelitous in inclination i was touching on how same sex marriage is basicly the law of the land in what is it, 38 states now, it is about time that serious consideration be given to how to handle legalizing polygamy in all its forms.
Viddax said:If Churches do stonewall (ha! many churches are made of stone!) events they see as not be applicable such as same-sex marriages, then it can alos extend to 'normal' marriages where the bride and groom abide by all the rules yet are agnostic or not true-christians and therefore not the church's people.
right, they claim that they own marriage, not considering that marriage applies to all religions and none and they had sense enough to quibble about this until same sex marriage gained a large amount of popular support.
Viddax said:
Call me a romantic, but although death and taxes are certain, love and life are chaotic and wondrous for it.
i am all for romance... but if legal polygamy is on the table, you are less likely to be shattered when two women humor you, pretend to treat each other as sisters, and are actually fighting over you... (given a choice between duty and love... i should have chosen love... but choosing between love and children... i don't know if i could have made that choice)
well...
when i reach 2003-2004 in my poems, they might be interesting...
Actually, being somewhat polyandrous/polyfidelitous in inclination i was touching on how same sex marriage is basicly the law of the land in what is it, 38 states now, it is about time that serious consideration be given to how to handle legalizing polygamy in all its forms.
Viddax said:If Churches do stonewall (ha! many churches are made of stone!) events they see as not be applicable such as same-sex marriages, then it can alos extend to 'normal' marriages where the bride and groom abide by all the rules yet are agnostic or not true-christians and therefore not the church's people.
right, they claim that they own marriage, not considering that marriage applies to all religions and none and they had sense enough to quibble about this until same sex marriage gained a large amount of popular support.
Viddax said:
Call me a romantic, but although death and taxes are certain, love and life are chaotic and wondrous for it.
i am all for romance... but if legal polygamy is on the table, you are less likely to be shattered when two women humor you, pretend to treat each other as sisters, and are actually fighting over you... (given a choice between duty and love... i should have chosen love... but choosing between love and children... i don't know if i could have made that choice)
well...
when i reach 2003-2004 in my poems, they might be interesting...
HHMCameron said:[quote-279568-Viddax]Call me a romantic, but although death and taxes are certain, love and life are chaotic and wondrous for it.
i am all for romance... but if legal polygamy is on the table, you are less likely to be shattered when two women humor you, pretend to treat each other as sisters, and are actually fighting over you... (given a choice between duty and love... i should have chosen love... but choosing between love and children... i don't know if i could have made that choice)
well...
when i reach 2003-2004 in my poems, they might be interesting...
[/quote]
Ah, well I am a romantic then and seek only to share my soul. Though the attention of more than one is always an ego boost. Yet with polygamy some part of me would still feel threatened by the platonics love between the other two; I mean if they get on so well in close proximity what need is there for me?
I may have something actually intelligent to say sometime. For now Old Man Waterfall (from Futurama http://theinfosphere.org/Old_Man_Waterfall) keeps sounding in my head every time the word polygamy appears.
i am all for romance... but if legal polygamy is on the table, you are less likely to be shattered when two women humor you, pretend to treat each other as sisters, and are actually fighting over you... (given a choice between duty and love... i should have chosen love... but choosing between love and children... i don't know if i could have made that choice)
well...
when i reach 2003-2004 in my poems, they might be interesting...
[/quote]
Ah, well I am a romantic then and seek only to share my soul. Though the attention of more than one is always an ego boost. Yet with polygamy some part of me would still feel threatened by the platonics love between the other two; I mean if they get on so well in close proximity what need is there for me?
I may have something actually intelligent to say sometime. For now Old Man Waterfall (from Futurama http://theinfosphere.org/Old_Man_Waterfall) keeps sounding in my head every time the word polygamy appears.
Viddax said:Ah, well I am a romantic then and seek only to share my soul. Though the attention of more than one is always an ego boost. Yet with polygamy some part of me would still feel threatened by the platonics love between the other two; I mean if they get on so well in close proximity what need is there for me?
I've always been more comfortable sharing someone with someone else than being the one shared...
i have only ever been jealous once in my life...
I've always been more comfortable sharing someone with someone else than being the one shared...
i have only ever been jealous once in my life...
i wish my x wife would have got along with all my girlfriends.............
this man says what i could never articulately express........
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ol+dirty+bastard+return+to+the+36+chambers+intro&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=D4681BA86F83DC94A4B8D4681BA86F83DC94A4B8
this man says what i could never articulately express........
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ol+dirty+bastard+return+to+the+36+chambers+intro&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=D4681BA86F83DC94A4B8D4681BA86F83DC94A4B8
