llcoolguy972

Most of my friends are girls. I tend to have more in common with them and I think they're just easier to talk to. The few male friends I do have, though, I'm pretty close to; can't say that for all the girls. :P And James, there have been times where I've wished I was straight because girls are easier to talk to. The grass is always greener, huh? I lol'd.

And if it were two girls would you find it sick? yes, any way its not intended its wrong, I dotn care if gays do it in private, i just hate when they do it in public :? Gays do it in public, where the hell do you live? [/hide] I mean like hold hands, talk in there gay high pitch tone, dress gay, hug gayly,etc. im not talking about full blown :? Then heterosexual couples can't hold hands, talk about sports, dress straight, hug straightly, etc. See how idiotic that is?

link Your Google-fu is weak.

Yea, you could probably go to them and ask why you were charged the extra $600 and they should tell you. Maybe then you could work out some payment plan or something. IMO, it was pretty idiotic to let it get to this point, though. When you first knew you couldn't pay you should've told them and tried to work something out. Damn expensive lesson. He must have signed something, because I doubt any school would let their students attend with a verbal promise to pay.

I would say yes, just make sure you remember what you pissed in and keep your stuff guarded. :

In the 2 mins that they actually do stuff. Otherwise they just stand around. I think the 'official' #1 sport in the world is football (soccer). It basically dominates in every country except the US.

Oh god I remember his room. That was incredible. I'd take a picture of my room, but I don't want to violate anyone's eyes with my [cabbage]ty cell phone camera. Just imagine a normal college dorm, though, with [cabbage]ty furniture and stuff everywhere. :P

It doesn't need to go. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while, the sig is a shot at people who consistently type sentences like this. 0mG li3k t0t4iiy!!111!11.one!1!1 I haven't seen anyone on OT who talks like that. Sure there are a few misspellings or lost commas, but it's still easy enough to know what they're talking about. I agree with justin, the sig is obnoxious imo.

Oh, of course; I probably should've mentioned that it does really depend on the person. That study made things seem a bit more black and white than they actually are.

I know, but it was fairly obvious he was mocking what I said. Actually, no I wasn't. I was mocking the [developmentally delayed] forms of justification some Christians on this thread use for their views. The fact that Sly hasn't come up with one valid reason why homosexuals can't be married yet is evidential. All he's doing is persisting they don't have that right (in spite of contradictory Supreme Court rulings, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights), while failing to put forward even a single strong argument against homosexual marriage. In fact, implicitly what he's arguing is that because marriage is a social institution, and homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, homosexuals are detrimental to society. You, on the other hand, have plenty of justification for saying they can be married. See the point? Yes, thank you. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. Also, warren211 -- despite my disagreeing with you on the morality of homosexuality -- I agree with you on the persecution issue. However, many a Christian would argue that with with gay marriage being legalized, a lot more people would see being homosexual as not a bad thing anymore. According to a Christian, they would "choose" to be gay more often. (I am totally against the belief that someone "chooses" to like girls or boys). [/hide] Fact: 50% of the girls in my school are homosexual. Another fact: 99% of them aren't actually [bleep]. It's really sad While I can't speak for the girls at your school, whether they're doing that for attention or whatever, but determining one's sexuality is a lot more difficult for girls. It's simple for guys; they're either turned on by girls or guys, but girls become aroused by gay or straight sex, regardless of their orientation. Couple that with being a teen and it can lead to a very confusing time. Lol, really? I didn't know that. I don't believe it tbh. You're turned on by all sex? I'm a guy, so I'm only going on articles that I've read. I think this is where I read it, at least it has the same information.

I know, but it was fairly obvious he was mocking what I said. Actually, no I wasn't. I was mocking the [developmentally delayed] forms of justification some Christians on this thread use for their views. The fact that Sly hasn't come up with one valid reason why homosexuals can't be married yet is evidential. All he's doing is persisting they don't have that right (in spite of contradictory Supreme Court rulings, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights), while failing to put forward even a single strong argument against homosexual marriage. In fact, implicitly what he's arguing is that because marriage is a social institution, and homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, homosexuals are detrimental to society. You, on the other hand, have plenty of justification for saying they can be married. See the point? Yes, thank you. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. Also, warren211 -- despite my disagreeing with you on the morality of homosexuality -- I agree with you on the persecution issue. However, many a Christian would argue that with with gay marriage being legalized, a lot more people would see being homosexual as not a bad thing anymore. According to a Christian, they would "choose" to be gay more often. (I am totally against the belief that someone "chooses" to like girls or boys). [/hide] Fact: 50% of the girls in my school are homosexual. Another fact: 99% of them aren't actually [bleep]. It's really sad While I can't speak for the girls at your school, whether they're doing that for attention or whatever, but determining one's sexuality is a lot more difficult for girls. It's simple for guys; they're either turned on by girls or guys, but girls become aroused by gay or straight sex, regardless of their orientation. Couple that with being a teen and it can lead to a very confusing time.

Oh those Catholics and their shenanigans...

Firstly... your resume should be typed and not hand written. Yea, I'm surprised it took someone so long say this. I write in "print." Most of the letters are kind of connected, but it's too sloppy and unreadable to be called cursive. It's pretty much chicken scratch. :

You asked a question, I answered, and then you ask me to address the issue? Mmmkay lol. Personally, I'm not into appeals to novelty. Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage. I don't want to hear anything about it being discriminatory because not only is it not, but playing around with the "It's discriminatory line!", it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity. You defined 'traditional marriage' and I refuted that. I said that the 'tradition' was outdated and needed to be changed, and you said you had no idea what I was talking about. I provided examples of outdated traditions, and you blatantly ignored them. You ignore logic and fill your arguments with pseudo lawyer-speak and lead everyone in circles. Post when you actually want to have an intelligent debate.

No, I didn't debunk my own argument. Go back and read, more specifically the driver's license analogy (And whatever it was I said about SCOTUS and vested interests). That's apples and oranges. Marriage is a union between two people in love while being able to drive is equitable to being put in charge of a two ton death machine. Children driving would kill people, gays marrying wouldn't. Yes, that's precisely what I believe. :lol: How about you actually address the issue? Just because something's traditional doesn't mean that it should remain the same. For a long time it was tradition for kings to deflower the bride before her wedding. Foot binding took place in China for ten centuries. Dueling took place in western societies for five centuries. Times change.

*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink*The 14th Amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law.*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink* Thanks for helping me realize that, although I could have done without the patronizing tone. If no state shall "abridge the privileges of citizens" then the state's amendment is entirely unconstitutional. Congratulations, you just debunked your own argument. *Doesn't know what this has to do with anything he's typed out thus far but, meh, whatever* I'll bite. Even though I really don't care, lemme' hear why it needs changing. So you believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen and their sole reason is for breeding and chores? By that logic, any infertile man/woman shouldn't be allowed to marry. There's more to life than procreation and, if anything, I think the overpopulated Earth could stand to have a couple families that don't have children.

If they killed them, wouldn't that prove that something needed to be covered up? Not if they killed him and his family before he released the video. And I'm sure if there was a cover-up, they'd plant drugs or something and link him to terrorists. I reiterate, if the gov't killed almost 3k innocent people, they would have absolutely no inhibitions or obstacles chalking up one more.

That'll fail. There's nothing in the U.S. constitution which guarantees the right to marriage. If you think there is, then find it. If you're gonna' quote the 14th Amendment I'm gonna' laugh at you, because under that marriage would be classified in the vein as states issuing driver's licenses to a select group of people. But go ahead and show me how you figure :P The 14 Amendment is about citizenship and I don't know what you're talking about. But, although that power isn't specifically granted to Congress, it isn't denied either, and a good enough lawyer could perhaps stretch the elastic clause. Edit: I got a little sidetracked; those cases probably will be shot down pretty fast and I have a lot of faith in the US Constitution, so I do believe that states should resolve issues pertaining to marriage. But what the groups are most likely doing is trying to propose another state amendment that would allow gay marriages. You're not being serious, are you? If you live in the U.S., then you should know what's meant by the term "traditional marriage" since it's almost always accompanied by the phrase "One man and one woman". I would read Ginger's post again. Just because something's traditional, doesn't mean it's not outdated and doesn't need changing.

You must have missed the fact that opponents of Amendment 8 are trying to challenge it IN COURT even though it's already passed and the courts can't override a constitutional amendment nor can they write a new one, as that's not what courts do. I haven't started following the challenges, but they may be challenging the amendment with the US Constitution. I'm just gonna' copy and paste the most pertinent part of my response in what you quoted: "Following the definition of a traditional marriage given on the last page, yes." The 'definition' on the previous page is yours. I can define a traditional marriage as one between a cow and a chicken, but that doesn't mean it's true.

If the gov't was responsible for almost 3k deaths on 9/11, what makes you think they would let someone who 'discovered' the conspiracy live and release a video about it? Some conspiracy theories are fun, but 9/11 ones are just full of [cabbage].

I'd like to see how they're going to do that, unless California's Supreme Court wants to set a prcendent and rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Edit: I don't think it would be a precedent, but it would cause a major uproar. The court doesn't have to overrule it. There can be another amendment. Ever hear of the 18 and 21 Amendment to the US Constitution? Prohibition and the repeal of it. And homosexual marriage does? Following the definition of a traditional marriage given on the last page, yes. So a drunken marriage between a man and a woman in Vegas that doesn't last 3 days is more sacred than one between two men/women who have been together for a few years, are truly in love, and can't imagine spending their lives with anyone else? I would say the latter is the definition of a 'sacred' marriage.

Holy [cabbage]. I've never wanted to punch someone so much in my life. And Reb, Blaze is a pretty awesome name, not gonna lie. 8-)

Isn't that name from Family Guy or something? It sounds familiar. Pretty sweet name, though. I've only thought about changing my name to Ryan or something. :| Edit: Yea, it is. It's the one where Peter buys the boat and becomes a fisherman. That's what he names the boat.

Obama is the projected president elect according to CNN. :

Few forces are stronger than a man trying to find porn. About proxies, I know there's a site that creates a new one every couple days/week, I can't think of the name though. And if time is the only factor limiting your home computer use, you could try accessing it remotely. That's what my friends and I did all last year with logmein.com. Our school didn't figure it out 'til the end of the year. : Sadly, logmein.com is blocked =\ http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 139AAwYTTU[/hide] Read the answer. You can also use Google as a proxy.