intresting quotes

[Matthew S]

This quote is out of character for this person.
I caught the story and audio of the whole thing on the radio while driving to Cleveland early this morning. IMO, the agency blew it. Because they followed some pedantic rule, they will be the instrument of their own demise. They have already received arson threats and worse as a result.
This is what happens when a bunch of old biddies get any semblance of power. It goes to their heads and they lose sight of the goal. The goal isn't to blindly follow pedantic rules, it's to provide good homes for rescued dogs. They should have put their inflated egos aside and looked at what was in the best interests of the dog. But they couldn't do that because they are a bunch of narrow-minded fools with Napoleon complexes.

I hope that their organization goes belly up as a result of the negative publicity. Maybe that'll humble the morons a little.

This is how some of us feel about marriage. Some old biddy, Marlene Ellwell or some outher religious nut case takes it upon themselves to define our families for us. They want to follow some archaic mindset that marriage is between a man and a woman. In your words people who oppose same sex marriage should put their egos aside and let us do what is best for us and in our best intrest.



Sunlight is a good way to kill a disease and exposing the dog nazis to public scrutiny is worth its weight in gold, IMO. :cheer:


btw JP this is how some of us feel about the Larry Criags of the world, the boyscouts, bigots, and general religious nutcases of the world.

[eva]

ar·cha·ic [ aar káy ik ]


adjective

Definition:

1. outmoded: no longer useful or efficient


2. no longer in ordinary language: describes a word or phrase that is no longer in general use but is still encountered in older literature and still sometimes used for special effect


3. ancient: belonging or relating to a much earlier period

I don't see how marriage being between a man and a woman is archaic in any sense of the word. Maybe someday it will be, but it certainly isn't now. There is no way you can argue for gay marriage on these grounds. Other grounds, you might have a leg to stand on, but not by calling traditional marriage archaic.

[Matthew S]

ar·cha·ic [ aar káy ik ]


adjective

Definition:

1. outmoded: no longer useful or efficient


2. no longer in ordinary language: describes a word or phrase that is no longer in general use but is still encountered in older literature and still sometimes used for special effect


3. ancient: belonging or relating to a much earlier period

I don't see how marriage being between a man and a woman is archaic in any sense of the word. Maybe someday it will be, but it certainly isn't now. There is no way you can argue for gay marriage on these grounds. Other grounds, you might have a leg to stand on, but not by calling traditional marriage archaic.


I was talking about the anti gay crowd their wanting to limit marriage just to one man one woman is archaic. The 1950's leave it to beaver type attitude one size fits all defintion is archaic.

[ArcticPhoenix]

This quote is out of character for this person.


This is how some of us feel about marriage. Some old biddy, Marlene Ellwell or some outher religious nut case takes it upon themselves to define our families for us. They want to follow some archaic mindset that marriage is between a man and a woman. In your words people who oppose same sex marriage should put their egos aside and let us do what is best for us and in our best intrest.






btw JP this is how some of us feel about the Larry Criags of the world, the boyscouts, bigots, and general religious nutcases of the world.

Oh for the love of all that is good and holy, stop with the gay marriage already. If you want to get married, go move to wherever they will let you. Nobody and nothing is keeping you in this country.

[ArcticPhoenix]

I was talking about the anti gay crowd their wanting to limit marriage just to one man one woman is archaic. The 1950's leave it to beaver type attitude one size fits all defintion is archaic.

It's not archaic at all. It's quite alive and well. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of people who get married don't get divorced. The problem with the statistics that's often quoted to prove that marriage is "falling apart" in America is that the people who get divorced... get remarried, thus skewing the statistics, whereas the two people who get married originally and don't split up, only get counted once. But the four people who get married to each other, divorce and then get married to the other four, end up being counted 4 times, as opposed to the original couple that's still together, only being counted once.

[jitobear]

Oh for the love of all that is good and holy, stop with the gay marriage already. If you want to get married, go move to wherever they will let you. Nobody and nothing is keeping you in this country.

Why the hell should he? Giving up on the battle for gay marriage just so it doesn't annoy you any more would be the most piss-poor reason I can think of.

[Diva]

Oh for the love of all that is good and holy, stop with the gay marriage already. If you want to get married, go move to wherever they will let you. Nobody and nothing is keeping you in this country.
Hang on, why the heck should he??? Why should he have to choose between being with his friends and family, in the country where he was born and raised, and being with the person he loves in a manner that affords him the same legal status and protection as any straight person? Why should you and others like you (ie straight) get the special privilege of having your loved ones near you AND being able to choose to spend your life with the consenting adult of your choosing in the security of the protection your country offers married people, while others can only have one or the other, not both? When you are unhappy with the laws of a country, it is up to you as a voter, in tandem with other voters, to fight to change those laws. Where would your country (and others) be today if every person who disagreed with its laws had opted to just move away instead of fight what they knew to be wrong? Every black person who wanted equality? Every woman who wanted the vote??

[kingclick]

Why the hell should he? Giving up on the battle for gay marriage just so it doesn't annoy you any more would be the most piss-poor reason I can think of.

I think AP was more saying give up on the battle here at TCC, Matthew couldn't be any more one dimensional at times.

One time on another board I used to frequent, we had this guy called Billybarebutt. He was a nudist, EVERY topic he participated in turned into a nudist topic by the end of it. Matt reminds me of billy bare butt.

Even though Billy Bare Butt didn't actually say he wanted to kill people because they were against his politics.

[kingclick]

Hang on, why the heck should he??? Why should he have to choose between being with his friends and family, in the country where he was born and raised, and being with the person he loves in a manner that affords him the same legal status and protection as any straight person? Why should you and others like you (ie straight) get the special privilege of having your loved ones near you AND being able to choose to spend your life with the consenting adult of your choosing in the security of the protection your country offers married people, while others can only have one or the other, not both? When you are unhappy with the laws of a country, it is up to you as a voter, in tandem with other voters, to fight to change those laws. Where would your country (and others) be today if every person who disagreed with its laws had opted to just move away instead of fight what they knew to be wrong? Every black person who wanted equality? Every woman who wanted the vote??

Being Gay is not being black.
Being Gay is not being a woman.

[Pops In]

Being Gay is not being black.
Being Gay is not being a woman.So gays shouldn't have the same rights as blacks and women? :huh:

[kingclick]

So gays shouldn't have the same rights as blacks and women? :huh:

If they are black? Sure.
If they are women? Sure.

But not based on their choice to be gay.

[Pops In]

If they are black? Sure.
If they are women? Sure.

But not based on their choice to be gay.It's a choice says who?

[kingclick]

It's a choice says who?

It's not been proven that it isn't.

[Pops In]

If they are black? Sure.
If they are women? Sure.

But not if they are men, eh?

[kingclick]

But not if they are men, eh?I didn't say that, I answered your direct questions directly. Just because I didn't answer questions you didn't ask doesn't mean you can make up answers for me to those questions you didn't ask.

[jitobear]

It's not been proven that it isn't.

Well you could always ask them if they chose to be gay.

[kingclick]

Well you could always ask them if they chose to be gay.

:howling:

[Pops In]

I didn't say that, I answered your direct questions directly. Just because I didn't answer questions you didn't ask doesn't mean you can make up answers for me to those questions you didn't ask.I didn't make up your answer. I questioned it. Your answer rather speaks for itself.

[kingclick]

I didn't make up your answer. I questioned it. Your answer rather speaks for itself.
Yes. You made up an unrelated answer.

And YES my answer speaks for itself, so you don't need to make up things that weren't asked OR answered.

It says that gays should get the same protections as blacks IF they are black. And gays should get the same protections as women IF they are women.

It says nothing more (like you are trying to do). And it says nothing less. So yes it speaks for itself and you don't NEED to try and speak for it.

[Pops In]

Yes. You made up an unrelated answer.The bollocks I did.

Q: So gays shouldn't have the same rights as blacks and women?
A: If they are black? Sure.
If they are women? Sure.

Q: But not if they are men, eh?
A: [whinge] You made up an answer to a question I never asked.

Comment: Bollocks!

[Pops In]

Yes. You made up an unrelated answer.

And YES my answer speaks for itself, so you don't need to make up things that weren't asked OR answered.

It says that gays should get the same protections as blacks IF they are black. And gays should get the same protections as women IF they are women.

It says nothing more (like you are trying to do). And it says nothing less. So yes it speaks for itself and you don't NEED to try and speak for it.:lol:
Well we don't have to guess what you are then. It says if you're not black or a woman and gay, you aren't entitled to equality.

[kingclick]

:lol:
Well we don't have to guess what you are then. It says if you're not black or a woman and gay, you aren't entitled to equality.:howling:

Nope. It doesn't say that at all.

[Pops In]

:howling:

Nope. It doesn't say that at all.I beg to differ. It says that any gay who isn't either black or a woman isn't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

[kingclick]

I beg to differ. It says that any gay who isn't either black or a woman isn't entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Beg all you want but, it doesn't. It says........

If they are black? Sure.
If they are women? Sure.

But not based on their choice to be gay.

IN RESPONSE TO....
So gays shouldn't have the same rights as blacks and women? http://72.52.162.205/~tccafe/forums/../../%7Etccafe/forums/images/smilies/huh.gif

It doesn't say what you are making up that it says. It doesn't say anything more than what it says.

[Def.I.Nition]

It's not been proven that it isn't.

There is ZERO evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation is anyway chosen.

[jitobear]

:howling:

I fail to see whats so funny.

Just because it is convenient for those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality to believe it is a choice (in that it justifies their cruelty) doesn't make my question funny. They (gays) are bound to have a better idea than, say, YOU. So go ahead - ask Matthew when he chose to be gay. (And then let us know when you chose to like women or blondes or tall chics or whatever....)

[JPSartre12]

This quote is out of character for this person.

This is how some of us feel about marriage. Some old biddy, Marlene Ellwell or some outher religious nut case takes it upon themselves to define our families for us. They want to follow some archaic mindset that marriage is between a man and a woman. In your words people who oppose same sex marriage should put their egos aside and let us do what is best for us and in our best intrest.

LOL. Some old biddy didn't determine SHIT! The majority of voters of the state of Michigan decided that they didn't want gay marriage or civil unions. This wasn't a pedantic action taken by an individual, this was the "will of the people" being expressed constitutionally. If you disagree, too fucking bad! Mopve to limp wristed NH or Canada. I'm sick and tired of your one-note song. I'm even more sick of YOU! :pissed:

btw JP this is how some of us feel about the Larry Criags of the world, the boyscouts, bigots, and general religious nutcases of the world.
Who gives a rat's ass what YOU think. You've demonstrated your inability to function as a normal human being, IMO. :bigboy:

ar·cha·ic [ aar káy ik ]

adjective

Definition:

1. outmoded: no longer useful or efficient


2. no longer in ordinary language: describes a word or phrase that is no longer in general use but is still encountered in older literature and still sometimes used for special effect


3. ancient: belonging or relating to a much earlier period

I don't see how marriage being between a man and a woman is archaic in any sense of the word. Maybe someday it will be, but it certainly isn't now. There is no way you can argue for gay marriage on these grounds. Other grounds, you might have a leg to stand on, but not by calling traditional marriage archaic.
Matthew sees every issue as a gay issue. That's so "gay". :pointandl

I was talking about the anti gay crowd their wanting to limit marriage just to one man one woman is archaic. The 1950's leave it to beaver type attitude one size fits all defintion is archaic.
Right. Let's open up marriage to: flocks of sheep and their shepherds, football teams (not American football, that gay kind....you know, soccer), pimps and their "hos", American Idol judges, etc., :rofll:
Oh for the love of all that is good and holy, stop with the gay marriage already. If you want to get married, go move to wherever they will let you. Nobody and nothing is keeping you in this country.

:trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:

[kingclick]

I fail to see whats so funny. It's funny that you suggest we establish laws based on if people "think" they were born that way or not. It's funny that you would think that gay people wouldn't have some sort of agenda to get what they want and maybe even lie about how they feel to get special status as a minority.

Just because it is convenient for those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality to believe it is a choice (in that it justifies their cruelty) doesn't make my question funny.
1. The truth MAKES it convenient.
2. Cruelty? Come on. Beheading a girl because she had sex with a boy is cruelty. Cutting out a girls clitoris is cruelty. Not buying into something that is clearly not true isn't cruelty, it's called realism, you should try it some time.

They (gays) are bound to have a better idea than, say, YOU. So go ahead - ask Matthew when he chose to be gay. (And then let us know when you chose to like women or blondes or tall chics or whatever....)I don't need to ask Matthew because I know he chooses it every day.

Hopefully soon you will be able to see the humor in such a ridiculous suggestion.

[kingclick]

There is ZERO evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation is anyway chosen.

That isn't how it works. You can't prove a negative. Find scientific proof that homesexuality isn't just a chosen behavior and provide it. It is genetic? No. Is it some sort of result of an injury or an illness? No. Then it's CHOSEN. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

[JPSartre12]

Why the hell should he? Giving up on the battle for gay marriage just so it doesn't annoy you any more would be the most piss-poor reason I can think of.

I can't. I'm sick of the whining asshole. He should move out of Michigan. He's stinking up MY state. ;)

Hang on, why the heck should he??? Why should he have to choose between being with his friends and family, in the country where he was born and raised, and being with the person he loves in a manner that affords him the same legal status and protection as any straight person? Why should you and others like you (ie straight) get the special privilege of having your loved ones near you AND being able to choose to spend your life with the consenting adult of your choosing in the security of the protection your country offers married people, while others can only have one or the other, not both? When you are unhappy with the laws of a country, it is up to you as a voter, in tandem with other voters, to fight to change those laws. Where would your country (and others) be today if every person who disagreed with its laws had opted to just move away instead of fight what they knew to be wrong? Every black person who wanted equality? Every woman who wanted the vote??

:cry: :cry: :violin: :violin: :rolleyes2

I think AP was more saying give up on the battle here at TCC, Matthew couldn't be any more one dimensional at times.

One time on another board I used to frequent, we had this guy called Billybarebutt. He was a nudist, EVERY topic he participated in turned into a nudist topic by the end of it. Matt reminds me of billy bare butt.

Even though Billy Bare Butt didn't actually say he wanted to kill people because they were against his politics.

Good point. Our limp-wristed pal wants to kill everyone that doesn't support gay marriage. What a tool!!:pointandl

So gays shouldn't have the same rights as blacks and women? :huh:

No, according to the SCOTUS, sexual orientation isn't a protected class. The other two are.

[JPSartre12]

I fail to see whats so funny.

Just because it is convenient for those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality to believe it is a choice (in that it justifies their cruelty) doesn't make my question funny. They (gays) are bound to have a better idea than, say, YOU. So go ahead - ask Matthew when he chose to be gay. (And then let us know when you chose to like women or blondes or tall chics or whatever....)


I was six. Matthew, it's your turn now. When did you first take a shining to some dude's ass?

[Matthew S]

I was six. Matthew, it's your turn now. When did you first take a shining to some dude's ass?

I was 11 his name was Rusty he had a motorcycle. I can still feel the wind on my face, the feel the tickle of his reddish brown hair, the way his chest felt with my arms around him, and smell his scent. Before 11 I didn't think about such things. I just remember how Rusty used to make me feel all butterflys in the tummy and weak in the knees.

[kingclick]

I was 11 his name was Rusty he had a motorcycle. I can still feel the wind on my face, the feel the tickle of his reddish brown hair, the way his chest felt with my arms around him, and smell his scent. Before 11 I didn't think about such things. I just remember how Rusty used to make me feel all butterflys in the tummy and weak in the knees.

Isn't JP's nickname Rusty?

:howling:

[Def.I.Nition]

That isn't how it works. You can't prove a negative. Find scientific proof that homesexuality isn't just a chosen behavior and provide it. It is genetic? No. Is it some sort of result of an injury or an illness? No. Then it's CHOSEN. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.

Your whole line of reasoning is crap. First of all, as I have pointed out in very thorough postings there are too many biological correlates with homosexuality for them to be dismissed with the "choice" answer. Further, even the so-called "ex-gay" movement can't claim that homosexuality is a choice. If it were a choice, then "ex-gays" would not have needed any sort of "therapy" to un-choose it. A choice, after all, can be chosen against as well. Further, you don't go through all the possibilities here.

1. Is it genetic? Unknown.

2. Is it environmental? Unlikely. But if you say "yes", then you are acknowledging that something other than choice is at work.

3. Is it related to pre-natal hormone levels? The evidence strongly suggests this. The well-documented "big brother effect" is a big clue here. Next we have studies that clearly show that observers can accurately predict a child's eventual sexual orientation by watching the child for only a few seconds playing on video at as early as age three. If predictive behaviors exists this early, then it can't, clearly, be a matter of simple choice. All of the evidence, anecdotal and scientific, clearly points to a non-choice explanation. None of the evidence points to choice.


Further, it is not a negative to assert, as you have done, that homosexuality is a choice. You have clearly and affirmatively asserted that "homosexuality is a choice". That's a positive affirmative assertion that you must back up.

[kingclick]

Your whole line of reasoning is crap. First of all, as I have pointed out in very thorough postings there are too many biological correlates with homosexuality for them to be dismissed with the "choice" answer. Further, even the so-called "ex-gay" movement can't claim that homosexuality is a choice. If it were a choice, then "ex-gays" would not have needed any sort of "therapy" to un-choose it. A choice, after all, can be chosen against as well. Further, you don't go through all the possibilities here.

1. Is it genetic? Unknown.

2. Is it environmental? Unlikely. But if you say "yes", then you are acknowledging that something other than choice is at work.

3. Is it related to pre-natal hormone levels? The evidence strongly suggests this. The well-documented "big brother effect" is a big clue here. Next we have studies that clearly show that observers can accurately predict a child's eventual sexual orientation by watching the child for only a few seconds playing on video at as early as age three. If predictive behaviors exists this early, then it can't, clearly, be a matter of simple choice. All of the evidence, anecdotal and scientific, clearly points to a non-choice explanation. None of the evidence points to choice.


Further, it is not a negative to assert, as you have done, that homosexuality is a choice. You have clearly and affirmatively asserted that "homosexuality is a choice". That's a positive affirmative assertion that you must back up.

No....you have to prove that they are compelled to a certain behavior. It's your logic that is crap, not mine.

I can prove that black people are black, that women are women, that handicapped people are handicapped. So PROVE that gay people are gay people with something scientific.

What defines a homosexual is behavior and "feewings". It's not plumbing, it's not skin color....it's behavior.

Thus it would be up to you to prove that the behavior is FORCED behavior by some genetic code or by some injury. However, you can't and never will be able to prove any such thing. Why? Because human sexuality isn't a toggle switch of "either or". There isn't a "gay/straight" checkbox when the babies are made. Human sexuality is much more complex and varied than that.

[Matthew S]

No....you have to prove that they are compelled to a certain behavior. It's your logic that is crap, not mine.

I can prove that black people are black, that women are women, that handicapped people are handicapped. So PROVE that gay people are gay people with something scientific.

What defines a homosexual is behavior and "feewings". It's not plumbing, it's not skin color....it's behavior.

Thus it would be up to you to prove that the behavior is FORCED behavior by some genetic code or by some injury. However, you can't and never will be able to prove any such thing. Why? Because human sexuality isn't a toggle switch of "either or". There isn't a "gay/straight" checkbox when the babies are made. Human sexuality is much more complex and varied than that.


Prove that a heterosexual is a heterosexual.

What defines a heterosexual is behavior and feelings. It's not plumbing, its not skin color......its behavior.

[jitobear]

It's funny that you suggest we establish laws based on if people "think" they were born that way or not.

Not as funny as basing them on appeasing somebody's religion or personal ick factor - in country where we are supposed to be FREE.

It's funny that you would think that gay people wouldn't have some sort of agenda to get what they want and maybe even lie about how they feel to get special status as a minority.

They actually aren't asking for anything you don't already have. The ability to create a family with the (able to consent) PERSON of their choice and to not face discrimination in things like housing and employment simply because of who they are.

The fact that you wish to deny these protection suggests you wishing retain special status.

1. The truth MAKES it convenient.

The only truth that you have proven is your personal prejudice against homosexuals.

2. Cruelty? Come on. Beheading a girl because she had sex with a boy is cruelty. Cutting out a girls clitoris is cruelty. Not buying into something that is clearly not true isn't cruelty, it's called realism, you should try it some time.

Kingclick saying its a choice doesn't "clearly" indicate a thing. Get over yourself. I have known and been close to gay people all my life and have witnessed first hand the impacts of your "benign" prejudice and its cruel.

I don't need to ask Matthew because I know he chooses it every day.

Excuse me. Talk about convenient. Maybe I should make sweeping statements about you and not get your feedback. (I think there is a word for that, whats it called again..???)

Kingclick eats dog feces.
Kingclick wears women's underwear.
Kingclick sticks ding dongs up his nose for breakfast.

I don't need to ask you these things - I just KNOW them.

Kind of like when people thought blacks didn't bathe, weren't intelligent, etc. Of course none of these people had to actually get to know someone who was black to know these things.

Hopefully soon you will be able to see the humor in such a ridiculous suggestion.

No I won't. I am neary 40 years old and I have known gay people and uber-religious bigots. You will never be right. You will never change my mind.

But you go ahead and tell yourself the "they choose to be gay and gay is icky and therefore its perfectly justifiable to be as much of an insulting asshole against them as I want" fair tale. Whatever helps you sleep at night. But know you ARE hurting people. Your idea morality hurts gay people and their families. And that, asshole, includes my son.

[Pops In]

Beg all you want but, it doesn't. It says........



IN RESPONSE TO....


It doesn't say what you are making up that it says. It doesn't say anything more than what it says.Oh I see. So it's 'if they are gay they don't get to have the same rights as everyone else', eh? - Leaving the 'choice' strawman out of it. Yes, jito, we already established what kc's type is.

[Def.I.Nition]

No....you have to prove that they are compelled to a certain behavior.

Your assertion is that sexual orientation is a choice. You have to prove that. We have evidence that sexual orientation is linked to biology. Since I have already given sources for the evidence and I know you read that thread, because you commented in it, I won't go source it here, but I will restate what that evidence is:


1. Gay males have a different reaction to male pheremones that do straight men.

2. Gay males give off a different odor than straight males.

3. Gay male brains react to some anti-depressants differently than straight males.

4. The anterior commisure in gay men is larger than in straight men.

5. Gay men perform more like straight women in certain cognitive tasks (which have been linked to biology).

6. The hypothalamus in gay males is smaller than in straight males.

7. Gay males start puberty earlier than straight males.

8. Gay male genitals are larger, on average, than straight males.

9. Gay males, on average, are shorter than straight males.

10. Gay males are more likely to be left handed than straight males.

11. The big brother effect. For each maternal older brother a male has his odds of being gay go up by 33%. This is regardless as to whether or not if he is raised in the same household as his older brother(s). Older sisters have no effect. This effect is not found in lefthanded boys. Scientist say, this effect points to pre-natal hormones as the mother's immune system reacts more strongly to the presence of the Y chromosone.

These points may not "prove" that biology causes homosexuality, but it is most certainly suggestive of it, and none of these biological correlates are chosen, so, in the very least, they discount "choice." King, by asserting that homosexuality is a "choice" you are behind the curve from both a scientific, social-scientific, and sexologic perspective. The experts have moved well-beyond "choice." Even the most anti-gay commentators are moving beyond "choice" as an explanation for sexual orientation.

Again, you've asserted, positively, that sexual orientation is chosen. I've provided strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary, are you going to provide circumstantial evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, or are you going with the "if it don't fit, you must acquit" defense?

[JPSartre12]

I was 11 his name was Rusty he had a motorcycle. I can still feel the wind on my face, the feel the tickle of his reddish brown hair, the way his chest felt with my arms around him, and smell his scent. Before 11 I didn't think about such things. I just remember how Rusty used to make me feel all butterflys in the tummy and weak in the knees.

Wow! TMI, for sure. But I did ask. :banghead3

Isn't JP's nickname Rusty?

:howling:

No, I think it was King something...... ;)

[holychicken]

Isn't JP's nickname Rusty?

:howling:
I seriously loled. :howling:

[JPSartre12]

I seriously loled. :howling:

Where I grew up in Jersey, Matthew would have been thrown off the back of the motorcycle for getting wood riding double with a dude. It wasn't what you would call a "gay friendly" place. :lol:

[holychicken]

Where I grew up in Jersey, Matthew would have been thrown off the back of the motorcycle for getting wood riding double with a dude. It wasn't what you would call a "gay friendly" place. :lol:
Yes, killing people because they are homosexuals is very funny.

[JPSartre12]

Yes, killing people because they are homosexuals is very funny.

It was a joke. Get a life! :rolleyes2
And who said anything about killing anyone. Most 11 year old ride dirt bikes. I've wiped mine out many times in the dirt and lived to tell about it.

[Matthew S]

Wow! TMI, for sure. But I did ask. :banghead3

I rode behind him on his motorcycle. Get your mind out of the gutter.

[Def.I.Nition]

It was a joke. Get a life!

So, do explain, what's funny about murder?

[JPSartre12]

So, do explain, what's funny about murder?

Show me where I said anything about killing gays. I said, jokingly, that he'd be thrown off the back of the motorcycle for getting wood. You're as bad as holychicken putting words in people's mouths.

[justGina]

Isn't JP's nickname Rusty?

:howling:

OMG I peed a little. :howling:

Sorry, JP. :paranoid:

[justGina]

Matthew, did you and Rusty have a sexual relationship? If so, I'm pretty sure you were molested. If Rusty was old enough to drive a motorcycle and you were 11, he was too old to have sex with you.

[kingclick]

Wow! TMI, for sure. But I did ask. :banghead3



No, I think it was King something...... ;)

Your nickname was "King something"? I'm flattered.

[Matthew S]

Matthew, did you and Rusty have a sexual relationship? If so, I'm pretty sure you were molested. If Rusty was old enough to drive a motorcycle and you were 11, he was too old to have sex with you.

NO we were both 11 and no we did not have a sexual relationship. He owned a motorcycle, a small one yes but still a motorcycle. It was 1977 and north carolina after all. Can't you remember your first crush or case of puppy love?

[justGina]

Yes, and there was sex play. I was 14, he was 16. We tried to go all the way but it didn't work. :paranoid:

[JPSartre12]

OMG I peed a little. :howling:

Sorry, JP. :paranoid:

Better get that bladder suspension done pretty quickly. :rofll:

Matthew, did you and Rusty have a sexual relationship? If so, I'm pretty sure you were molested. If Rusty was old enough to drive a motorcycle and you were 11, he was too old to have sex with you.

Don't kids own motorcycles at an early age where you live?

Your nickname was "King something"? I'm flattered.
Beating a dead horse joke now? How sad.
Yes, and there was sex play. I was 14, he was 16. We tried to go all the way but it didn't work. :paranoid:

He was 16 and it didn't work? I'm guessing you meant that he shot before he dribbled as they say. :lol:

[justGina]

No, uh, erm, we tried, but um, it wouldn't fit. :shame: :hide:

[Diva]

No, uh, erm, we tried, but um, it wouldn't fit. :shame: :hide:

:lol: Obviously THAT problem's been sorted!!! :lol::paranoid:

[alberthitchens]

speaking of character, and "is", "it depends what the meaning of "is" is" - Former President Clinton