Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

I'm so glad I started this thread, it was getting so boring.

I even enjoyed loosing karma for it just now.:)


You didn't leave any comment, but don't forget you can see who is reading which thread in whose on line.

Cowardy custard.:) xxxxx

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

Its about time all unmarried relationships were given legal staus. This way bigots etc wont be able to stop 'loved ones' being there at the end and they will be financially protected.

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

Oh dear. Its going from bad to worse. There has always been a mechanism for legitimising an unmarried relationship. Its called marriage, i.e. between man & woman. The "Civil Partnership" is no more than a tax-dodging, pension-grabbing financial scam. There is no way Gordon Brown will be able to get his books to balance when this caper gets fully going.

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

Perhpas the way to do that would be to separate the Church from the state. The state can issue legal recognition of partnerships if you want to call it that, and leave marriage which is originally a religious ceremony to those who are members of a particular religious group!

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

oh my word
yet again BW something we agree on
what is the world coming to?!!?

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

Thats o.k. by me so long as society also encourages the shunning or perhaps even the stoning of single mothers that never did and never will have a lasting relationship but produce children because they know the state (us), will pick up the tab.

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

God knows but then lets face it things can not get too much worse!:D

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

what you mean gordon brown ,cant get his books to balance now !!! lol

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

So, Garinda,

What are you?

A tattoo or a dyke?

Or both, a tattooed dyke! :D

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

According to one source, he’s a Muppet…….:D

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

It may be approaching the season of miricles but most would bauk at Mr Browns book keeping antics.

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

Don't forget that for every single Mother, there is also a father needed somewhere along the line, even if it's to fill the turkey baster.

It takes two to tango.

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

I haven't forgotten that Rindy, the thing is that the 'women' are supposed to be the moral backbone of society, without consequence there is no need for them to be choosy about their partner if he's a fly by night what does it matter? I can put a claim in everyone else can pay for my lack of judgement!

However if this minority and it is a minority of women were made to think about their actions, they might just be a little more careful about who they give their favours to. Or at least take advantage of the large array of contraceptives that are available.

I am not having a go at all single mothers there are all sorts of reasons why they have arrived in this particular circumstance, I only meant the habitual baby machine that cannot or does not want the responsibility of a relationship and churns out offspring all of which have different fathers, because mummy knows the rest of us will pay for her attitude.

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

I pay both ways and its a pain especially when I see some better off than me and I work for a living.:(

Re: Tattoos and Dykes.
 

yes i feel sympathy for legitimate single female or in the rare case male parents ,but it is these profesional baby machines that are getting decent mothers or parents tarred with the same brush ...having families of 7 or 8 kids while not paying into the pot is a damn right discrace and the goverment doesnt seem interested in changing it at all just throws tax payers money at them so they can breed some more to get more ...most honest working people who ,though they would love more kids know they just simply cant afford to keep them ..its simple long term unemployed should have one child only supported and if they want anymore they should have to pay for them themselves then we would see a decrease in teenage pregnancy ..and dole layabouts really looking for jobs to support their brood ...
1 why would long term unemployed parents seek work if the goverment gives them no incentive with their generous benifits
2 this is gonna be controversial .having a cap on the number of kids they are willing to fork out for .for instance it might make people think twice about opening their legs ,if they knew that they would have to enter gainfull employment to raise their children .
3 more people would use contraception
4 it would clean up housing council estates of nightmare broods from hell ,i say broods because thats all these people are !!!