To: sweetliberty
Apparently it's that "keeping only unto her" part that he has some trouble with.
Well, we wouldn't want him to "suffer" by going without sex, now would we? I mean, who could blame the poor guy. < /sarcasm >
And no, of course I don't mind your editing. I was kind of worried about the space all those threads were going to take up. You did a great job putting this thread together, especially since you were so rushed. :-)
284 posted on
10/29/2003 7:07:05 PM PST by
iowamomforfreedom
(Why is it illegal to starve an animal but not a human being?)
To: iowamomforfreedom
Well, we wouldn't want him to "suffer" by going without sex, now would we?Why not, he was paid $300,000 for loss of consortium. He was paid for having to go without!!
366 posted on
10/29/2003 9:36:32 PM PST by
trussell
(PRAYER WORKS!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson