http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906 The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Fri, 24 May 2013 16:16:53 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906&page=2#post-161670 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:18:25 +0000 Sinnick 161670@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Also the phrase "honeymoon period" makes more sense, to be followed by "Rohypnolmoon".</p> <p>(I'd just like to state that NB doesn't endorse the use of recreational drugs for, well, recreation).</p> <p>Just love the word "Jellymoon"; hope it catches on amongst the LGBT community (I always confuse that with BLT. Strange, that). </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906&page=2#post-161665 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:06:53 +0000 beau-jolly 161665@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>TITter! hahaha. What he said!</p> <p>As an aside: Did you know that the word <em>honeymoon</em> derives from the practice of getting the bride to drink mead for one cycle of the moon after the wedding? It ensured that she was constantly pissed and available for sex during the whole of her cycle giving the groom a good chance of getting her pregnant. Romantic ain't it?</p> <p>Any suggestions for a the gay equivalent? Jellymoon? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906&page=2#post-161641 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:54:20 +0000 andhrimnir 161641@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>as any engineer will know, the definition of marriage (and wedding for that matter) is<br /> the bringing together of</p> <p>==D and O (or in my case ====D and O)</p> <p>the whole church thing is a "wedding ceremony" that is a celebration of what is about to take place (or most likely what has already taken place).</p> <p>I maintain the position that the result of allowing gay people to marry is that some gay people will marry, and a subset of them will probably divorce.</p> <p>Incidentally, whenever anyone refers to Mr Jolly as BJ I always titter. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161628 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:34:45 +0000 The All New Jeni B 161628@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Just discussed this with a friend of mine, who's come to the conclusion that I am, in fact, a gay man.</p> <p>He makes the point that I have a phenomenally accurate gaydar, a bitchy sense of humour, and fancy blokes.</p> <p>He could be right. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161627 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:04:03 +0000 Ironduke 161627@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Gerry, I watched it doing a little gentle head-bobbing, but I didn't swallow. </p> <p>PLease advise me of my ranking. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161580 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:23:44 +0000 Gerontius 161580@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Jeni<br /> The Ottowa test is just a guy thing.<br /> I'm not sure what a gay lady might be drawn to musically.<br /> We had best consult Ms Tits and her hot firm breasted lover Akiko over that one.<br /> Guess it depends on whether they're changing a Stella McCartney ball gown or an oil filter. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161556 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:22:42 +0000 Tess Goes 161556@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Surely "Hands up" was a reference to fisting which is mostly a gay thing apparently, although Rampant Rabbits need less lube and you don't need bucket loads of Swarfega to clean up either. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161545 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:48:10 +0000 Sinnick 161545@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Jeni, I think it means all women are gay. Explains a lot, frankly. Or does that reflect on me ?</p> <p>G, what has a caged rabbit to do with sex ? Oh, maybe I'd rather not know. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161538 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:17:46 +0000 The All New Jeni B 161538@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Gerry, how do those rulings apply to women?<br /> Is a well documented love of cheesy disco incriminating or merely to be expected of those of us of a certain age? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161529 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:49:39 +0000 Gerontius 161529@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Knees up....did someone mention a Knees up?<br /> OK ....let's put you to the test<br /> If you can sit still throughout this video then you are not gay.<br /> A bit of toe-tapping would suggest you are probably bi-curious.<br /> If you are up and dancing....then all bets are off.<br /> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHlrgPKX5U" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHlrgPKX5U</a></p> <p>Confused?<br /> See...it's not easy.<br /> Oh, and the guy with the hairy armpits is definitely NOT gay.<br /> Can you imagine !!</p> <p>Gay sex is much the same as any other sex.<br /> You look forward to it all day like a caged rabbit but once its over you wonder why you bothered. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161525 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:43:40 +0000 beau-jolly 161525@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Can we throw some trans-gender marriages into the pot to make the whole thing even more sticky?<br /> Can a man who was a woman marry a woman who was a man?<br /> Why not write a good will, get some legal documents regarding property and assets written up, have a good old knees up if you want to and just get on with it?<br /> I am told by my wise daughter that the whole thing revolves around being treated the same not "the same but different". Hmmmm! Doing it gay-wise <em>is</em> different though isn't it? Just like having no legs is different. Not 2nd class, just different to the vast majority of bipeds. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161520 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:56:51 +0000 Titus 161520@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Man demands new law to allow him to become pregnant - claims that doctors are "bigotted" and that the medical profession is denying him his human rights. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161511 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:19:42 +0000 Sinnick 161511@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>G, if you know any jokes about homosexual love that don't involve sex, please come out and tell us.</p> <p>In the meantime, I'm still giggling (in a schoolboy way) about a senior government meeting to discuss what legally defines "penetration".</p> <p>Oh, that reminds me. At a recent School Governors' meeting, the rather prim (female) Headteacher accidentally used the word "strap-on" instead of "add-on" when discussing financial planning. I didn't dare look anyone in the face. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161508 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:57:23 +0000 Dick Everyman 161508@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Can nun's annul?</p> <p>i.e. being 'married' to Jesus? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161500 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:17:24 +0000 beau-jolly 161500@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>What do you mean "were". Some of us still are ...er not crap...oh bollocks.</p> <p>I agree with Sinnick someone must get this together as a sub. I'm still not funny enough but maybe a collaborative effort? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161484 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:54:49 +0000 Gerontius 161484@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>It would appear you lot base your entire relationship/partnership/marriage on the availability of sex.<br /> For you, sex seems to be the only angle worth exploring.<br /> Some people just fall in love.<br /> There is no sex involved.<br /> Just love.<br /> You should try it.<br /> Sounds like the fire went out a long time ago and all you've got left is to poke over some grubby ashes.<br /> I'll bet most of you were crap at it anyway. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161480 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:16:40 +0000 Sinnick 161480@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Somebody, SOMEBODY must write up this stuff into a proper submission. Make it look like it's from the Govt, and it could even be WoM. The story's got sex, currency, politics and lifestyle. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161448 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:19:53 +0000 Ironduke 161448@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Aural sex? Now that would be a headfuck. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161447 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:00:02 +0000 dvo4fun 161447@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>@Jeni "The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act" </p> <p>From memory I think the E&amp;W rape legislation does involve a penis but may involve penetrating any orifice. Though now I come to think of it I've never heard of a nasal or aural case. Don't know if a nose job would count. Maybe that's why I wasn't a lawyer </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161446 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:53:31 +0000 Scroat 161446@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Well there's always Rebecca to fall back on. And she's close by, apparently... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161442 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 23:16:02 +0000 Ironduke 161442@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I believe 'failure of consumation' will be removed from grounds for divorce, as they were unable to agree strict definitions of what qualified as sex for gay and lesbian couples </p> <p>That's a meeting I would have paid to sit in on...besuited, stilted public-schoolboy MPs sat round a table harrumphing about how many knuckles' depth constituted a fingering, and pretending to be wholly innocent about whether a vigorous botting was a universally enjoyable experience. Agreement as to whether video evidence may be presented, with thanks to the Honroable member for the wheelbarrow of evidence he brought. Finally, after persistent wrangling, the chair calls the meeting to order and they have to agree that the whole debate founders on the strap-on dildo question, and that as a jury they are...er...well,- ...hung. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161436 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 22:06:42 +0000 sigmund 161436@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p><blockquote>Plus two guys can leave the toilet seat up and no one complains, now that's a recipe for a very happy marriage...<br /> </blockquote><br /> If they can get the toilet seat up, they're made of sterner stuff than me. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161434 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:53:22 +0000 Dick Everyman 161434@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Plus two guys can leave the toilet seat up and no one complains, now that's a recipe for a very happy marriage... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161432 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:26:20 +0000 The All New Jeni B 161432@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>It's because unisex toilets cause cancer.</p> <p>And, think about it: houses have unisex toilets, and house prices are dropping... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161430 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:41:51 +0000 Carter 161430@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>My favourite question about all this comes from the Daily Mail comments section in which someone wrote:</p> <p>Now gay marriage is legal will all public toilets become unisex?</p> <p>I've got nothing, I just can't work out what the thought process that led to that question must have been. Nor do I know how the people who answered yes and cited unisex toilets as an example of why the UK is ruined could have arrived at such an answer. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161420 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:07:52 +0000 The All New Jeni B 161420@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act states that penetration need not be vaginal, or involve a penis, so going by the same logic, consummation could be defined as anal,vaginal, oral penetration with either a penis, or other item.</p> <p>There are some differences in the E&amp;W legislation in how penetration is defined, but I suspect that any Act created for the purposes of gay marriage will define it. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161417 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:59:52 +0000 Dick Everyman 161417@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>If a man has anal sex with a woman is this still a form of 'consumation' then under the definition of penetrative sex? </p> <p>Also a friend of mine said that some gay men don't enjoy anal sex so it wouldn't be recreational for them but a form of torture. So consumation for them has to be ejaculation either into the wind, a kleenex or a mutually acceptable part of the human body, preferably not on my face...er 'his' face. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161413 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:43:25 +0000 Midfield Diamond 161413@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p><blockquote>I do think the whole thing is a bugger's muddle.</blockquote></p> <p>I'm ashamed to say I laughed at that line, b-j.</p> <p>Interesting stuff Jeni. Do you think I should mention to Mrs Diamond that, having had a Registry Office wedding, we legally don't have a marriage but the heterosexual equivalent of a civil partnership? Perhaps not. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161410 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:30:38 +0000 Brenda SugarTits69 161410@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Double ended dildos, strap-ons and DP fisting should all count.</p> <p>Me and my super hot firm-breasted Japanese girlfriend, Akiko, plan to mention them explicitly in our vows.</p> <p>I'll keep you all posted about dates, venues etc. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=55906#post-161409 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:23:45 +0000 beau-jolly 161409@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Thanks Jeni. I assumed that originally a marriage contract was designed so that a man signed up to create a stable environement in which to raise kids. i.e. forgo the natural urge to spead his seed as wide as possible but support one wife instead.<br /> Presumably in a straight marriage penetration would have been defined as at least an attempt at, or practice for, procreation rather than recreational pleasure. As they would be expected to have been innocent, the option of anullment was avialble if either party was found to be unable to perform after they were wed.</p> <p>In a same sex marriage the ability to have penetrative sex would be purely recreational and not wholly neccesary (or, you could argue, natural) especially in a girl on girl scenario where you would have to decide what was legally allowable for penetration.<br /> I do think the whole thing is a bugger's muddle.</p> <p>wrt co-habitees. When Maddy died her next of kin (wealthy bastard brothers) renounced their executorships so I had to try and sort her affairs out with no authority at all. I registered the death by virtue of having witnessed it. Even that was a struggle and they took some persuading! </p>