njokusboy:
It's amazing how somme people think a man's hard earned money automatically become theirs becos they signed a piece of paper proclaiming them man and wife...
What sort of mentality is dat

Fcking shockingly amazing!

It just shows you the mentality of the average human: If you tell them something over and over and over again, and you also have some level of superiority over them, they would soon start believing what you say is just a fact of life (an axiom). Logic becomes irrelevant.

So Dangote would meet a air hostess in one of his private jets today and then marry her, then all the money he makes after that is 50% hers?

Where the fck is the sense in that?

babygirlfl:


I can understand where you are coming from. At least that is what marriage has been reduced to and I know you to be someone that says something just as it is. Which is one thing I respect about you. However I believe there is more to marriage that certificate and announcement.

Sweetheart, there is nothing more to marriage than those.

What marriage has been throughout history, in every part of the world, is a mere announcement. Of recent, we have added certification and registration for a structured government taxation and governance reasons.

I am breaking it down as it is logically.

babygirlfl:

It's not as simple as what she works for belongs to her, what he works for belongs to him because sometimes a spouse can sacrifice things they would not normally sacrifice. For example, one might have a reduced earning for a while because of the children. One might have to leave a job to relocate to where the other partner resides and so many other things. It is sad that some people have taken advantage of an otherwise good law. What I think should be done is to look for a way to stop these greedy people.

It is actually quite simple.

When a spouse sacrifices, they should be compensated based on the VALUE OF THE SACRIFICE, not on the value of the spouse.

Does that not make more sense?

In the example I gave above, if the air hostess stops working after marrying Dangote, which makes more sense from these 2 options:

a) Compensate her after divorce based on the value of her lost earnings?

b) Compensate her after divorce with 50% of what Dangote made during that period?

When answering, ignore the fact that during the period of her so-called "loss", she most likely would have got financially from Dangote more than she would have got if she had continued working as a air hostess.

babygirlfl:

I can understand where you are coming from. At least that is what marriage has been reduced to and I know you to be someone that says something just as it is. Which is one thing I respect about you. However I believe there is more to marriage that certificate and announcement.
It's not as simple as what she works for belongs to her, what he works for belongs to him because sometimes a spouse can sacrifice things they would not normally sacrifice. For example, one might have a reduced earning for a while because of the children. One might have to leave a job to relocate to where the other partner resides and so many other things. It is sad that some people have taken advantage of an otherwise good law. What I think should be done is to look for a way to stop these greedy people.

You are very intelligent.

Being married is way beyond one certificate or a ceremony. There are people who never did the ceremony and are living together as a couple for ages. The life you live and share beyond the ceremony and certificate is the most important part

Why I think earnings in marriage should be separate in case of a divorce is that money you earn today or say in the next 10yrs was as a result of the sacrifices and decisions you made before today

E.g you are in Pharmacy school now studying day and night. you graduate get a good job and marry Someone now argues that the money you made as a pharmacist from today onward was jointly made in the union because you were married to Andrew? Logic would demand that what made you to make the money, what did Andrew contribute to it? Was it with the Pharmacology, the PCAT or the SAT?

There are exeptions e.g when both create an item together and sell it, start a business together and sell it

The guy in the OP works for those companies because of knowledge he gained in school before meeting the Spouse. If he had wasted him time as a teenager and tween. Would he make that money in his 40's?

If anyone deserves anything, It should even be the girlfriend on campus sef

This looks like an interesting thread.

Let me stop here

raumdeuter:


You are very intelligent.

Being married is way beyond one certificate or a ceremony. There are people who never did the ceremony and are living together as a couple for ages

Why I think earnings in marriage should be separate in case of a divorce is that money you earn today or say in the next 10yrs was as a result of the sacrifices and decisions you made before today

E.g you are in Pharmacy school now studying day and night. you graduate get a good job and marry Someone now argues that the money you made as a pharmacist from today onward was jointly made in the union because you were married to Andrew? Logic would demand that what made you to make the money, what did Andrew contribute to it? Was it with the Pharmacology, the PCAT or the SAT?

There are exeptions e.g when both create an item together and sell it, start a business together and sell it

The guy in the OP works for those companies because of knowledge he gained in school before meeting the Spouse. If he had wasted him time as a teenager and tween. Would he make that money in his 40's?

If anyone deserves anything, It should even be the girlfriend on campus sef

Well said, nigga.

Sagamite:


Fcking shockingly amazing!

It just shows you the mentality of the average human: If you tell them something over and over and over again, and you also have some level of superiority over them, they would soon start believing what you say is just a fact of life (an axiom). Logic becomes irrelevant.

So Dangote would meet a air hostess in one of his private jets today and then marry her, then all the money he makes after that is 50% hers?

Where the fck is the sense in that?

Very terrible I tell you..
A man would work his life out to earn this money and all a woman got to do to own half of it is to marry him?
Women who contributed zilch to a man's wealth go around saying this sh1t... marriage has become their occupation...

raumdeuter:


You are very intelligent.

Being married is way beyond one certificate or a ceremony. There are people who never did the ceremony and are living together as a couple for ages

Why I think earnings in marriage should be separate in case of a divorce is that money you earn today or say in the next 10yrs was as a result of the sacrifices and decisions you made before today

E.g you are in Pharmacy school now studying day and night. you graduate get a good job and marry Someone now argues that the money you made as a pharmacist from today onward was jointly made in the union because you were married to Andrew? Logic would demand that what made you to make the money, what did Andrew contribute to it? Was it with the Pharmacology, the PCAT or the SAT?

There are exeptions e.g when both create an item together and sell it, start a business together and sell it

The guy in the OP works for those companies because of knowledge he gained in school before meeting the Spouse. If he had wasted him time as a teenager and tween. Would he make that money in his 40's?

If anyone deserves anything, It should even be the girlfriend on campus sef

Point...

njokusboy:


Very terrible I tell you..
A man would work his life out to earn this money and all a woman got to do to own half of it is to marry him?
Women who contributed zilch to a man's wealth go around saying this sh1t... marriage has become their occupation...

Fcking ridiculous!

Sagamite:


Sweetheart, there is nothing more to marriage than those.

What marriage has been throughout history, in every part of the world, is a mere announcement. Of recent, we have added certification and registration for a structured government taxation and governance reasons.

I am breaking it down as it is logically.



It is actually quite simple.

When a spouse sacrifices, they should be compensated based on the VALUE OF THE SACRIFICE, not on the value of the spouse.

Does that not make more sense?

In the example I gave above, if the air hostess stops working after marrying Dangote, which makes more sense from these 2 options:

a) Compensate her after divorce based on the value of her lost earnings?

b) Compensate her after divorce with 50% of what Dangote made during that period?

When answering, ignore the fact that during the period of her so-called "loss", she most likely would have got financially from Dangote more than she would have got if she had continued working as a air hostess.

It definitely makes more sense to compensate her with the value of her sacrifice. Now this is a brilliant way to stop greedy people. Also using Dangote which is the richest man in Africa might not entirely be the most appropriate. What is more appropriate is using the common man on the streets. Lets say when a couple who are both doctors gets married and one decides to stay home to look after the kids while the other one works. Do you not think the value of the sacrifice of the spouse at home is about 50%?

In all these, what I represent is a fair deal for the couple. Not chasing one spouse out with nothing like we have in Nigeria or rewarding greedy people.

babygirlfl:


It definitely makes more sense to compensate her with the value of her sacrifice. Now this is a brilliant way to stop greedy people. Also using Dangote which is the richest man in Africa might not entirely be the most appropriate. What is more appropriate is using the common man on the streets. Lets say when a couple who are both doctors gets married and one decides to stay home to look after the kids while the other one works. Do you not think the value of the sacrifice of the spouse at home is about 50%?

In all these, what I represent is a fair deal for the couple. Not chasing one spouse out with nothing like we have in Nigeria or rewarding greedy people.

Definitely!

Marriage of equals should lead to equal split.

That said, the reality is that that is not the common man on the streets. Most women prefer and would usually marry up. That is one of the tools men use to attract women.

I purposely used the Dangote example because it easily highlights the weakness in the 50/50 split argument in practicality.

Compensating by value of sacrifice would not only be fair but would also end any attempt at greediness or even save more marriages.

When I have an insurance policy and something goes wrong, I am compensated based on the value of my loss, not the value of my insurance company.

Sagamite:


Definitely!

Marriage of equals should lead to equal split.

Am glad we agree on this.

That said, the reality is that that is not the common man on the streets. Most women prefer and would usually marry up. That is one of the tools men use to attract women.

I purposely used the Dangote example because it easily highlights the weakness in the 50/50 split argument.

While it did definitely highlight the weakness in the 50/50 spilt argument, using an extreme case is not always appropriate because for a lot of couple today, compensating a spouse based on the value of their sacrifice will almost always end in a 50/50 split. In most families today, spouses earn almost equal amount.

Compensating by value of sacrifice would not only be fair but would also end any attempt at greediness or even save more marriages.

When I have an insurance policy and something goes wrong, I am compensated based on the value of my loss, not the value of my insurance company

I agree

babygirlfl:


It definitely makes more sense to compensate her with the value of her sacrifice. Now this is a brilliant way to stop greedy people. Also using Dangote which is the richest man in Africa might not entirely be the most appropriate. What is more appropriate is using the common man on the streets. Lets say when a couple who are both doctors gets married and one decides to stay home to look after the kids while the other one works. Do you not think the value of the sacrifice of the spouse at home is about 50%?

In all these, what I represent is a fair deal for the couple. Not chasing one spouse out with nothing like we have in Nigeria or rewarding greedy people.

If two couples who are both doctors get married and Its agreed that one stays at home to nurture the kids then it make sense to split equally because

1. They both had equal potentials before marriage and potentially could have earned equally

2. It was decided that one of them should stay home to take care of a part of the marriage i.e kids

So post marriage since they would both benefit from the kids equally which the wife spent her time on, then it makes sense to benefit equally from the finances which the husband spent his time on

babygirlfl:


Am glad we agree on this.



While it did definitely highlight the weakness in the 50/50 spilt argument, using an extreme case is not always appropriate because for a lot of couple today, compensating a spouse based on the value of their sacrifice will almost always end in a 50/50 split. In most family today, spouses earn almost equal amount.



I agree

An extreme case is the grand test and most useful test in any solution provision.

The solution that provides the best outcomes in all cases and most extreme cases normally makes more sense as the best choice.

This is even the case in IT testing.

If people are compensated by what they earned plus the value of their sacrifice, then we will hardly have no injustice and the senselessness we have today.

Sagamite:


An extreme case is the grand test and most useful test in any solution provision.

The solution that provides the best outcomes in all cases and most extreme cases normally makes more sense as the best choice.

This is even the case in IT testing..

If you want to perform a collision test on a car which one would be preffered, regular case(best case scenario) or extreme case(worst case scenario)?

raumdeuter:


You are very intelligent.

Being married is way beyond one certificate or a ceremony. There are people who never did the ceremony and are living together as a couple for ages. The life you live and share beyond the ceremony and certificate is the most important part

Why I think earnings in marriage should be separate in case of a divorce is that money you earn today or say in the next 10yrs was as a result of the sacrifices and decisions you made before today

E.g you are in Pharmacy school now studying day and night. you graduate get a good job and marry Someone now argues that the money you made as a pharmacist from today onward was jointly made in the union because you were married to Andrew? Logic would demand that what made you to make the money, what did Andrew contribute to it? Was it with the Pharmacology, the PCAT or the SAT?

There are exeptions e.g when both create an item together and sell it, start a business together and sell it

The guy in the OP works for those companies because of knowledge he gained in school before meeting the Spouse. If he had wasted him time as a teenager and tween. Would he make that money in his 40's?

If anyone deserves anything, It should even be the girlfriend on campus sef

I understand what you are saying. However the problem I have with some of you (maybe not you ) is that you shift from logic to culture to tradition to religion as it please. It is so easy for me to discuss with sagamite because his stand is always from a logical point of view. I personally do not believe marriage is just paper or announcement. However logically that is what it is and as such we held our discussion based on that. For others, when it comes to money and divorce, logic comes into play and when it comes to other things logic flies through the window and culture, religion and everything else is used to justify it.

raumdeuter:


If two couples who are both doctors get married and Its agreed that one stays at home to nurture the kids then it make sense to split equally because

1. They both had equal potentials before marriage and potentially could have earned equally

2. It was decided that one of them should stay home to take care of a part of the marriage i.e kids

So post marriage since they would both benefit from the kids equally which the wife spent her time on, then it makes sense to benefit equally from the finances which the husband spent his time on

We are on the same page then.

raumdeuter:


If you want to perform a collision test on a car which one would be preffered, regular case(best case scenario) or extreme case(worst case scenario)?

Yes o!

On point.

babygirlfl:

I understand what you are saying. However the problem I have with some of you (maybe not you ) is that you shift from logic to culture to tradition to religion as it please. It is so easy for me to discuss with sagamite because his stand is always from a logical point of view. I personally do not believe marriage is just paper or announcement. However logically that is what it is and as such we held our discussion based on that. For others, when it comes to money and divorce, logic comes into play and when it comes to other things logic flies through the window and culture, religion and everything else is used to justify it.

On point, girl!

As I have always said: "Culture, tradition and religion can kiss my big, fine, black arsse".

I don't live my life by the principles and teachings of medieval illiterate fuuktards. God gave me a brain before coming to this Earth, and I think he expected me to use it. It was not just a mere decoration.

Saga O!
You love these cases

. . .and I knew that Dayo will be right behind you

Shame cooger is no longer here

Anyway as you know I always look at the larger picture and not emotion stirring headlines

Reading between the lines the lady gave up everything to follow her boyfriend to London.
Thats not easy
She would have left familiar surroundings, her career and her family to support her banker bf
She got to London and no job
If she had refused to go with him, he may or may not have had to give up the opportunity of a life time
No one knows

They divorced in 2006 but he hasn't worked since 2004
so the bulk of the money was made when he was in London . . .the same London she left everything and upped and left for

People underestimate the sacrifices that some people make for their partners well being & what they do to help advance their partners career.
If my husband is an airline pilot but I make his life hell, then eventually this will negatively affect his career
. . in the same vein if I have all areas covered and he comes home to a sane environment then he can focus more on his job.
Imagine if Mrs Obama was a crackhead . . .Mr Obama will be making flawed decisions cos his mind is not settled.

I dont know how the judge arrived at 65% . . .sounds wayyyyyyyy too much to me, but she should be given a decent payment

usually cases like this happen because the man refuses to pay a fair and reasonable sum in the first instance and that's when the lawyers get involved and stuppid amounts start getting asked for.

I will be very surprised if the wife requested for 65% to start with.

and if true why did he squander 2 million . . .if not to cheat his ex wife.
They are both birds of the same feather jare.

tearoses:
Saga O!
You love these cases

. . .and I knew that Dayo will be right behind you

Shame cooger is no longer here

Anyway as you know I always look at the larger picture and not emotion stirring headlines

Reading between the lines the lady gave up everything to follow her boyfriend to London.
Thats not easy
She would have left familiar surroundings, her career and her family to support her banker bf
She got to London and no job
If she had refused to go with him, he may or may not have had to give up the opportunity of a life time
No one knows

They divorced in 2006 but he hasn't worked since 2004
so the bulk of the money was made when he was in London . . .the same London she left everything and upped and left for

People underestimate the sacrifices that some people make for their partners well being & what they do to help advance their partners career.
If my husband is an airline pilot but I make his life hell, then eventually this will negatively affect his career
. . in the same vein if I have all areas covered and he comes home to a sane environment then he can focus more on his job.
Imagine if Mrs Obama was a crackhead.

I dont know how the judge arrived at 65% . . .sounds wayyyyyyyy too much to me, but she should be given a decent payment

usually cases like this happen because the man refuses to pay a fair and reasonable sum in the first instance and that's when the lawyers get involved and stuppid amounts start getting asked for.

I will be very surprised if the wife requested for 65% to start with.

and if true why did he squander 2 million . . .if not to cheat his ex wife.
They are both birds of the same feather jare.

I am afraid you are not looking at the whole picture o.

If you are looking at any picture, then it must be one by Jamiliu Apena, not Michael Angelo.

The right picture would tell you that there is no basis and no excuse she should be getting 65% of the money he made.

No matter how distorted the picture has been after existing for centuries in museums, it is a completely senseless outcome. NO EXCUSES can justify it! And definitely none of the excuses you have tried to give here.

Secondly, your argument that he may have missed out on the opportunity is completely irrelevant. That is not an excuse to give her the money he made. It is more of an excuse to compensate him on the money he would not have been able to make because of marriage.

As for her sacrifices, don't forget she is an adult with a right to her opinions and actions. Her decisions are not based on physical threats to her being (like a gun to her head), so she made it out of her free will.

What ever compensation should come as he result of "an agreement", should be based on the value of her sacrifice.

Except you can tell me she had a career she sacrificed that would have made her the money she was awarded, then I would half accept it.

babygirlfl:
I understand what you are saying. However the problem I have with some of you (maybe not you ) is that you shift from logic to culture to tradition to religion as it please. It is so easy for me to discuss with sagamite because his stands is always from a logical point of view. I personally do not believe marriage is just paper or announcement. However logically that is what it is and as such we held our discussion based on that. For others, when it comes to money and divorce, logic comes into play and when it comes to other things logic flies through the window and culture, religion and everything else is used to justify it.

Logic is a test that never fails

Even religion, culture are mostly should be put to the logic test. If a religion leader tells you to kill yourself to enter heaven wont you ask if if he doesnt want to enter heaven himself? or show you evidence of people who have done what he preached and gone to heaven

Saga you know that the newspaper would not report the full story naw
Were they even in court?

Meanwhile the judge would have heard the full story
and I want to believe that she wouldn't just give 65% just for the sake of it
I am interested to know what job/career that this lady gave up to travel halfway across the world.
I will also be interesting to know how much she initially asked for.
For lawyers to get involved like this, there must have been a disagreement on the initial divorce settlement request.

one thing we do agree on, is that 65% is too much

tearoses:
Saga you know that the newspaper would not report the full story naw
Were they even in court?

Meanwhile the judge would have heard the full story
and I want to believe that she wouldn't just give 65% just for the sake of it
I am interested to know what job/career that this lady gave up to travel halfway across the world.
I will also be interesting to know how much she initially asked for.
For lawyers to get involved like this, there must have been a disagreement on the initial divorce settlement request.

Whatever the papers omitted, except there is any evidence (and there is none) that shows she was capable and in line to make such sums but sacrificed it to support the "union", then it is still a plain senseless outcome.

By the way, his wife works and she is a Director of a Art Gallery. Pata pata, she would have been making £80K a year.

Sagamite:


Whatever the papers omitted, except there is any evidence (and there is none) that shows she was capable and in line to make such sums but sacrificed it to support the "union", then it is still plain senseless outcome.

By the way, his wife works and she is a Director of a Art Gallery. Pata pata, she would have been making £80K.

Maybe that's the only job she could find after giving up a lucrative career in the US

tearoses:


Maybe that's the only job she could find after giving up a lucrative career in the US

No report on such and I doubt that would be the case.

If she is capable of making £1.5m a year like him, no matter what country she goes to (especially a Western one), she would be headhunted like a murrafcker. Except they relocate to Somalia.

She is not half worth it. He was robbed by the state and profoundly stuuuupid law.

Sagamite:


No report on such and I doubt that would be the case.

If she is capable of making £1.5m a year like him, no matter what country she goes to (especially a Western one), she would be headhunted like a murrafcker. Except they relocate to Somalia.

She is not half worth it. He was robbed by the state and profoundly stuuuupid law.

If you were Mr banker, under the circumstances how much would you have willingly given your Ex-wife?

If the marriage is childless, then everyone should go away with what they came in with. Things accumulated during the marriage including debt should be shared. If she is disabled in the course of the marriage, then she should get half his money for life.
If there are children, ofc most if not everything goes to the woman

tearoses:


If you were Mr banker, under the circumstances how much would you have willingly given your Ex-wife?

Me?

She would get what she put in plus compensation for any loss as a result of sacrifice that mutually benefits us. This is minimum and a guarantee.

Then I would add extra's based on how good a wife she was, the goodwill I still have towards her and she has not tried any mess of getting more than she is entitled to. I doubt number of kids would be a factor as long as she has at least one for me.

If all is good, I WOULD be extremely generous giving her my money. It should just be my choice, not the fcking choice of some moronic Family Court Judge.

armyofone:
If the marriage is childless, then everyone should go away with what they came in with. Things accumulated during the marriage including debt should be shared. If she is disabled in the course of the marriage, then she should get half his money for life.
If there are children, ofc most if not everything goes to the woman

Ole oshi.

go check surrogate price and come back.
Fair enough now The money goes into raising and caring for our kids not for doing my nails or hair.

Sagamite:


Ole oshi.

Sagamite:

C-Ronaldo is a homosexual.
That was why he did what he did, not because of divorce settlement.

I thought it was just rumors....no credible source.

armyofone:
go check surrogate price and come back.
Fair enough now The money goes into raising and caring for our kids not for doing my nails or hair.

Pata pata, surrogate price is about $5K in india.

That is what the woman should get for each child bearing.

Fkforyou:


I thought it was just rumors....no credible source.

Come on, mate.

A footballer that is one of the most talented in history, stupidly rich, seen as good looking and only one girlfriend in his history?

That was arranged as a smokescreen to cover up his homosexuality.

Have you ever heard of any other girl with him?

He is that rich, famous and attractive and he is not pullling hot chics?

He had a mysterious child most likely through surrogacy when he was in his mid-20s. Who the fck does that?

Let me tell you who the fck does that: "A man who is 100% sure he would never marry but who wants kids. That is normally a homosexual man."

Or you think there are many women who would give up their child to a man just because it was a one-night stand?

He knows he would never marry and have the traditional family. So he was like "fck it, I would just have my kids now, thank you".

Mate, he used a surrogate.

He couldn't even have it with his so-called girlfriend then. She must have been handsomely paid and been a good friend to keep her mouth shut so far.

Let me tell you the other signs that tells you straight away that he is gay.

- He overgrooms himself (waxes his leg, shapes/plucked eyebrows, perma-tanned)
- Wears the tightest of trunks at every opportunity
- Is fond of wearing pink clothing
- Is pictured picked up by a man
- He does not talk about his sexuality
- He is hardly ever seen with with girls
- Goes on holidays on boats where all you see is strictly guys
- Actively speaks out in support of homosexuality in Portugal
- Some of his adverts he does are homoerotic
- Give ambiguous answers about his sexuality when directly asked
- Has that ‘funny’ homosexual look

Let me tell you more from the celebrity world.

1) He went to a Rihanna concert, as he was a big fan, and then took pictures with her back stage after the concert.

When she was asked about him and if they were dating, she said "I have a lot of gay friends and support sexual diversity".

She let it slip.

2) An Italian man, Alessandro Proto, was sponsoring a film and they were to rent Ronaldo's flat in NY for shooting. Because they were renting his falt, someone decided to offer Ronaldo a part in the film.

When Alessandro heard, he kicked against this. But as the contract was already signed, if breached, they would have to pay him 20m Euros.

Alessandro said "fck it, no, I will pay him 20m euros not to be in my movie".

The rumour is that Alessandro did not want him in the movie because he was a homosexual.

3) On French TV, a journalist, Daniel Riolo, says:

"Take the example of Cristiano Ronaldo - I'm sure flying off to Morocco three to four times a week to see a friend and cuddle with him might have an impact on his performances eventually."

This is someone who is giving us a full hint as he is in the circle of those that know.

4) Ronaldo recent did an interview with Jonathan Ross in the UK. During the interview, Jonathan asked him if "there is someone special in his life" and Ronaldo laughed and said "A few. I need to figure out who is better.".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/cristiano-ronaldo-lifts-lid-love-6818404

Now that might mean nothing to you. But for someone with a keen eye/ear and a good understanding of Western media people, the person would notice Jonathan Ross never asked him about a "Special woman", he asked about a "Special person", and Ronaldo replied with the same ambiguity.

I can guarantee you people in the press know and they will not want to out him. That was why Jonathan choose his words carefully.

Ronaldo on the other hand answered ambigiously because when he finally comes out, he wants to have a plausible deniability to claim he never lied he was not a homosexual when asked.

If you note in the link, even the Mirror newspaper put a quotation mark on that shyt "someone special".

Nigga, they all know. People in the celebrity circles and journalists know. They are just nice enough and pro-homosexuals not to out him.

Come on, nigga! Open ya eyes.

You are telling me this man is not a homosexual?

[img]http://elitosphere.files./2014/05/cristiano-ronaldo-vogue-31.jpg[/img]

[img]http://1.bp..com/-wuZBlZBUDt8/U3srrpKrlLI/AAAAAAAAFlg/S4F4NgdyDtw/s1600/ronaldo.jpg[/img]

[img]http://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbN0Da5tRQOHbix8vLn5IieFgO8c8TuzIC9vNP2ACko-bsRAaT[/img]



[img]http://img.s-msn.com/tenant/amp/entityid/BBkDttY.img?h=768&w=1366&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f[/img]

[img]http://tecnogaceta.files./2014/03/wpid-cristiano-ronaldo-gay.jpg[/img]

[img]http://th.queerblog.it/Rw4Wda1yWnrqjLDXCDZNLASmZIA=/fit-in/655xorig/http://media.queerblog.it/2/25a/Foto-Cristiano-Ronaldo-gay-620x339.jpg[/img]