Debate and Discussion

Why I can't stand CNN.
Atom Apple at 3:51PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Never actually said that, man.

Glad to see you're a well educated Republican. Instead of convincing your opponent, alienate him. Make everyone hate him. Nice method, unfortunately it seems to work.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 4:04PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Number 1 is true. Flat Earth was just an analogy. You see, you obviously don't understand analogies. Number 2 had nothing to do with anything. The fact that you hide behind saying I'm wrong with no counter-argument is proof you have nothing left to pull out of your arse. I mean you have nothing left in your arsenal.

You are wrong because you have no ability to comprehend what you read. Literacy is your friend. Here is an example of your style of analogy:

Person A: I don't like sugar on my cereal.

Atom Apple: That's like when they said that black people could have schools that were separate from white people and that they were just as good.


Atom Apple
Well then, how do you tell a British and an American apart? Mannerisms, correct? You can't seriously tell me you can't tell a gay person by their mannerisms.

See here is another shining example of you not having the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

1. I don't think you can determine the difference between British and American by simple mannerisms.
2. I don't think you can 100% determine a homosexual simply by mannerisms.

Atom Apple
Glad to see you're a well educated Republican.

Okay. Do you have a copy of my voter registration?

Atom Apple
Instead of convincing your opponent, alienate him. Make everyone hate him. Nice method, unfortunately it seems to work.

I am not trying to make anyone hate you. I am simply responding to your insuations to me.
This is impressive, you are quite possibly the most ignorant person, by far, that I have met on this message board.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 4:07PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
The natural order, eh Vindibudd … whew, that takes me back. Not to lay this at your feet, Vindi, but a lot of folks who trot out the old “natural order” chestnut are the same loonies who think evolution isn't real. It's that cognitive dissonance again.

I think you have a point. Our brains are able to work on a much different level than animals. Animals are instinct and other pre-programmed behaviors. They seek the strongest, the best suited for the environment based on millions of years of programmed behavior.

As humans, we've all moved past instinct. We can actually accomplish things and not stop everything to have sex or to eat every waking minute of the day. We can build great societies.

And we can choose a mate based on personal preference, not on instinctual behavior.

You like blondes? Then you'll be attracted to blondes who - if you're lucky are attracted to you. Our elevated brain functions tell us that you would not be allowed to force yourself upon this blonde without her permission.

This is, then, what separates us from the animals. We have choose a mate based solely on our preferences.*

Of course, anti-gay and anti-gay-marriage** folks don't extend that right to gay people.

Suddenly, it becomes a preference or a choice that society has deemed is wrong. And that judgement of society is based entirely on … what? That's right, preference. Since the majority don't do it, the majority doesn't like it.

If you are a man who likes blonde women, was that genetic or conditioning? What would you say to a society that told you you had to change your conditioning?

And in this way it IS exactly like two people of differing religions or races.

There is no rational justification against legal state-sanctioned marriage between same gendered people in the United States. There just isn't. State-sanctioned marriage confers on two people who love eachother the rights of inheritance, rights over healthcare decisions and right in court - among many others.

State-sanctioned marriage doesn't demand the ability to have children, it doesn't restrict the number of times you can remarry (though only one at a time!) nor does it restrict in any draconian way how each spouse must treat the other. It isn't required to be approved by every church in America. It doesn't demand that you get married only if everyone else in the country is okay with it. It is a contract you make with another person to take care of eachother.

That isn't any sort of “natural order” arrangement. That's an agreement that we created out of our big brains after many generations of working on it.

There is plenty of reasons for religious marriages not to allow gay marriage - most of them rooted in ancient writings translated to mean whatever they want it to - but not for state-sanctioned. The distinction is vital to understand.

I would be completely for the removal of state-sanctioned marriages for all Americans if that's what it would require to let these narrow minded morons stop worrying about what others are doing in their private bedrooms. Let the churches offer marriages and the states offer civil unions with the same rights as marriage does today.
__________
*Yes, yes, some cultures arrange marriages or allow for deplorable treatment of their women. But as Vindi and I are Americans - and most of the rest of our readers are not from those cultures, let's table that for now.

** Not always the same, though often they are.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Atom Apple at 4:10PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Vindibudd
Person A: I don't like sugar on my cereal.

Atom Apple: That's like when they said that black people could have schools that were separate from white people and that they were just as good.


This is impressive, you are quite possibly the most ignorant person, by far, that I have met on this message board.
Go look in a God damned mirror.

EDIT: Heh. I read it like Freddi Fish is saying it.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 4:24PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Vindibudd
Person A: I don't like sugar on my cereal.

Atom Apple: That's like when they said that black people could have schools that were separate from white people and that they were just as good.


This is impressive, you are quite possibly the most ignorant person, by far, that I have met on this message board.
Go look in a God damned mirror.

EDIT: Heh. I read it like Freddi Fish is saying it.

Well it looks like someone is about to lose their cookies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Atom Apple at 4:27PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
…Well this went to shit pretty fast. I thought we were gonna' move on to the original topic now?
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 4:35PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
The natural order, eh Vindibudd … whew, that takes me back. Not to lay this at your feet, Vindi, but a lot of folks who trot out the old “natural order” chestnut are the same loonies who think evolution isn't real. It's that cognitive dissonance again.

I am not going to subscribe to the history of the phrase. I am just using terms to define the status quo.

Ronson
Of course, anti-gay and anti-gay-marriage** folks don't extend that right to gay people.

Suddenly, it becomes a preference or a choice that society has deemed is wrong. And that judgement of society is based entirely on … what? That's right, preference. Since the majority don't do it, the majority doesn't like it.

Society classifies many things as wrong.

Ronson
If you are a man who likes blonde women, was that genetic or conditioning? What would you say to a society that told you you had to change your conditioning?

And in this way it IS exactly like two people of differing religions or races.

We need to keep this down to male and female. Procreation is not contingent on hair color or what foods anyone likes or anything but one person being male and the other being female. I know it is tempting to use the shotgun technique, but it is simply not fine enough for the topic.

Ronson
There is no rational justification against legal state-sanctioned marriage between same gendered people in the United States. There just isn't. State-sanctioned marriage confers on two people who love each other the rights of inheritance, rights over healthcare decisions and right in court - among many others.

Actually, there are some extremely lucid non-religious social arguments against homosexual marriage, but I am not arguing that right now.

Ronson
State-sanctioned marriage doesn't demand the ability to have children, it doesn't restrict the number of times you can remarry (though only one at a time!) nor does it restrict in any draconian way how each spouse must treat the other. It isn't required to be approved by every church in America. It doesn't demand that you get married only if everyone else in the country is okay with it. It is a contract you make with another person to take care of eachother.

That isn't any sort of “natural order” arrangement. That's an agreement that we created out of our big brains after many generations of working on it.

Here we are just picking nits on the definition of “natural.”

Ronson
I would be completely for the removal of state-sanctioned marriages for all Americans if that's what it would require to let these narrow minded morons stop worrying about what others are doing in their private bedrooms.

Does this mean you are for legalizing polygamy, too?

Ronson
Let the churches offer marriages and the states offer civil unions with the same rights as marriage does today.

That is close to what I am looking for.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Atom Apple at 4:43PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Someone
Does this mean you are for legalizing polygamy, too?
Sure, if the women are fine with it.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Ronson at 6:43PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Atom Apple
Someone
Does this mean you are for legalizing polygamy, too?
Sure, if the women are fine with it.

…not that we would assume it's a one male/many female restricted relationship, right Atom? I mean, one femal/many males or even a whole polygamous same sex situation … right?

No, I think there are some rational reasons to keep it two people that doesn't exist in gender preference cases. For one, it creates a situation where one person could be dominated by more than one other. We already know that there are some very unhappy monogamous marriages that suffer from this, I think it would invite trouble to create a system that doesn't include equal representation for any one individual in a relationship like that.

But that doesn't mean that people can't live as they wish, or that they can't have some sort of non-government endorsed religious relationship with multiple spouses. That's a free choice anyone should feel free to make.

I would just like to see the law of the land represent the individual as best they can if they are no longer happy with the extra-governmental relationships they are entagled in.

It could be possible to do a “marriage chain”, where the government status isn't the same as a monogomous relationship (I'm spitballin' here). In the marriage chain, Bob marries Mary, who marries Ken, who marries Tony, who marries Helga … etc until the end of the chain, who marries Bob. That way, everyone has a spouse, but not the person they're actually married to. That way, power of attorney is vested in one person per person, testifying against one's spouse is limited to just one person per person, inheritance is limited to just one person per person and so on.

That would satisfy my personal need for independence within the eyes of the government and still allow a fairly stable form of polygamy. If more people are added, the one who wants to add someone breaks their marriage and adds the new one, who then marries the next person in line. It would necessarily be less stable than a traditional marriage - or even a monogamous homosexual one - but it could work.

So, a careful legalization of polygamy is possible, I suppose. Before the issue is raised, marriage to children and animals should not be allowed because neither should have be allowed to consent to it.

____________

It occur's to me, Vindibudd…

You believe monogamous marriage is part of the “natural order”, but when confronted with naturally occurring homosexuality in other species, you explain that human beings aren't animals. Isn't that at least getting close to a contradiction? Where did your opinion of what the “natural order” come from if not nature?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Atom Apple at 6:50PM, Aug. 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Ronson
Atom Apple
Someone
Does this mean you are for legalizing polygamy, too?
Sure, if the women are fine with it.

…not that we would assume it's a one male/many female restricted relationship, right Atom? I mean, one femal/many males or even a whole polygamous same sex situation … right?
We're talking to the church here, I'm just trying to relate to it in the slightest bit. I left out all of those parts to avoid more problems.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 10:10AM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
No, I think there are some rational reasons to keep it two people that doesn't exist in gender preference cases. For one, it creates a situation where one person could be dominated by more than one other. We already know that there are some very unhappy monogamous marriages that suffer from this, I think it would invite trouble to create a system that doesn't include equal representation for any one individual in a relationship like that.

My whole point with that is the argument that “the government can't/shouldn't regulate what people do in their bedrooms” is just not true.

Ronson
It occur's to me, Vindibudd…

You believe monogamous marriage is part of the “natural order”, but when confronted with naturally occurring homosexuality in other species, you explain that human beings aren't animals. Isn't that at least getting close to a contradiction? Where did your opinion of what the “natural order” come from if not nature?

I don't see how humans being different from animals is contradictory. You seem hung up on these “natural order” terms. Their are not fascist code, I promise. They are simply the way I refer to traditional family as our society has defined it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 11:04AM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
My whole point with that is the argument that “the government can't/shouldn't regulate what people do in their bedrooms” is just not true.

Actually, the only thing anti-gay marriage people have is what people are doing in thier bedrooms. What I'm talking about is the special relationship recognized by the government in creating the marriage contract. That has nothing to do with the bedroom - though nonperformance can affect it unless discussed beforehand upon entering the contract.

That most associate sex with state-sanctioned marriage is where the problems occur. My point about polygamy is that without a careful contract construction it is possible that the special relationship on multi-member marriages could supercede individual rights.



But if you know anything about human history, you have to know that what is considered a traditional family has only been so for a few centuries. I strongly encourage you to research Ancient Greek and Roman traditions (particularly Spartan) before you presume to know what “natural” is.

So you don't actually mean natural in the sense that it is derived from nature. You mean natural in the sense of what sounds right to you…which seems like a very flimsy basis to make a decision that doesn't really involve you (presuming you are not gay).
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 12:10PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
Actually, the only thing anti-gay marriage people have is what people are doing in thier bedrooms.

That is not true, you are casting aspersions on people that you are not in agreement with. Yes, I am sure that there are Jim-Bobs in trailer parks that don't like the idea that some guy is taking it up the backside from another guy and Jim-Bob “caint handle it.”

But for most intelligent people, the argument is that the homosexual community wants to force everyone to endorse their lifestyle. A perfect way to get that “endorsement” is to allow for homosexual marriage. Marriage is a very powerful term that most people associate with faith.

For example, Christians view marriage as a sacred covenent between a man and a woman that is symbolic of the Church being the bride of Christ. Now, having someone who is homosexual claiming that he or she can be married to someone of the same gender is to say that the church condones it. Now you may think this is silly, but these people do not and arguing the point is futile. So no, they have a lot of reasons for opposing it, and I just outlined one religious reason. There are plenty of other legitimate civil reasons that the government has for reserving protections granted to heterosexual couples.

Ronson
What I'm talking about is the special relationship recognized by the government in creating the marriage contract. That has nothing to do with the bedroom - though nonperformance can affect it unless discussed beforehand upon entering the contract.

The government has plenty of incentive for granting special recognition for heterosexual couples as it promotes population growth and also leaves no doubt as to the lineage of children and allows for better care for them as well with genetic histories and how they relate to health issues. The state has a keen interest in the continued growth and health of its citizens. This is something that special recognition of heterosexual couples helps to guarantee. Men are naturally polygamous and marriage helps to guarantee that they stay with one woman and support her and the children that come from that union. Thousands of years of experience has supported that the nuclear family is the most stable influence in society. These financial incentives that the state gives to couples to raise children cannot be extended to homosexuals because they do not, by definition, produce children.

Ronson
That most associate sex with state-sanctioned marriage is where the problems occur. My point about polygamy is that without a careful contract construction it is possible that the special relationship on multi-member marriages could supercede individual rights.

This really has nothing to do with same-sex marriage and why it is opposed.

Ronson
But if you know anything about human history, you have to know that what is considered a traditional family has only been so for a few centuries.

No, it hasn't. It has been so for at least the last 2000 years.

Ronson
I strongly encourage you to research Ancient Greek and Roman traditions (particularly Spartan) before you presume to know what “natural” is.

I didn't know that Ancient Roman and Greek traditions had the market cornered on natural. Could you point out any Spartans for me? There is a reason they are not around anymore.

Ronson
So you don't actually mean natural in the sense that it is derived from nature. You mean natural in the sense of what sounds right to you…which seems like a very flimsy basis to make a decision that doesn't really involve you (presuming you are not gay).

I mean natural in the sense that thousands of years and stabilized society means. If you do not agree with thousands of years of stabilized society, well that's your call, my man.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Atom Apple at 12:53PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
I agree that your religious ceremony should get your rules. However, you've made it to popular, to mainstream, even for non-Christians. Fix that and I believe we can get it to work out. As for promoting their lifestyle, might as well argue against Red Lobster for that whole “shrimp is an abomination” thing, or the food network. That promotes gluttony.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Ronson at 1:07PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Yeah, I have to admit that it really comes down to the fear of “endorsing” the gay lifestyle. We either think that personal preference for a loving lifestyle is more important that filling roles thought to be traditional, or we think that the tradition is more important than the individual.

I don't think you've made a case for what you seem to hazily call natural or traditional family, Vindi. If you can define it for me, we can pick it apart for a while…though I see little or no attempt on your part to look at this as a “pursuit of happiness” and freedom issue.

One last bit…

Man is “naturally” polygamous? Really? Anything backing you up on that?

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 1:24PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
Yeah, I have to admit that it really comes down to the fear of “endorsing” the gay lifestyle. We either think that personal preference for a loving lifestyle is more important that filling roles thought to be traditional, or we think that the tradition is more important than the individual.

I don't think you've made a case for what you seem to hazily call natural or traditional family, Vindi. If you can define it for me, we can pick it apart for a while…though I see little or no attempt on your part to look at this as a “pursuit of happiness” and freedom issue.


I never said it was a pursuit of happiness. It's really about the survival of civilization. My case for the nuclear family as being natural is that for thousands of years, the nuclear family has been the basis of civilization, I can't really make it any more plain that that.

Ronson
One last bit…

Man is “naturally” polygamous? Really? Anything backing you up on that?

Men don't get pregnant. Consequently, there is nothing keeping them from sleeping around. Women don't have to worry about a man's children, because the man never has to have any to care for. The woman on the other hand is saddled with the child and the care of it because it comes from her body.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Atom Apple at 1:40PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Birth control.

Oh, wait. You oppose that.

I got nothin'.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 1:48PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Atom Apple
Birth control.

Oh, wait. You oppose that.

I got nothin'.

No, , I don't.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Atom Apple at 1:53PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Okay. Well then birth control.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
StaceyMontgomery at 2:03PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I do not agree that the nuclear family has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years.

Actually, for most of human history, and for most of civilization, the basic family structure of human society has been the extended family. The idea of the nuclear family - that is, that two parents and their children are an independent unit (discrete from the extended family) - appears to be a fairly recent invention - perhaps a creation of industrialization.


Either way, it is a very weak argument against Gay marriage. We do lots of things differently than we did thousands of years ago. We can all pick and choose the ones we like, and say they are “vital.” For instance, in western society, women have only recently gained the kinds of rights and freedoms we tend to take for granted nowadays. People argued the same “basis of civilization” nonsense to prevent women from being allowed to vote, for instance. It wasn't convincing then, it isn't convincing now.

Actually, I can think of a better example - democracy. The crowned potentates and pharisees of the world cried out when America set itself up as a republic where free people ruled themselves. “But monarchy has been the basis of human civilization for thousands of years!” they said. Actually, they were right. It had been.

But that didn't make it good. Democracy turned out to be a good thing, just as ending slavery was, and liberating women. Gay marriage seems to me another wonderful step in this great tradition. And sure, Kings and Pharisees still frown at us and cry “but for thousands of years…”

Our answer to them is the same as it always has been, and I hope, ever will be.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Atom Apple at 2:08PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
StaceyMontgomery
Either way, it is a very weak argument against Gay marriage. We do lots of things differently than we did thousands of years ago. We can all pick and choose the ones we like, and say they are “vital.” For instance, in western society, women have only recently gained the kinds of rights and freedoms we tend to take for granted nowadays. People argued the same “basis of civilization” nonsense to prevent women from being allowed to vote, for instance. It wasn't convincing then, it isn't convincing now.
He's not going to accept any analogies.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Vindibudd at 3:47PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
StaceyMontgomery
I do not agree that the nuclear family has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years.

Actually, for most of human history, and for most of civilization, the basic family structure of human society has been the extended family. The idea of the nuclear family - that is, that two parents and their children are an independent unit (discrete from the extended family) - appears to be a fairly recent invention - perhaps a creation of industrialization.

Well what do you think is the basis for an extended family? I always thought you needed a nuclear family for that.

StaceyMontgomery
Either way, it is a very weak argument against Gay marriage.

Not according to the state.

StaceyMontgomery
We do lots of things differently than we did thousands of years ago. We can all pick and choose the ones we like, and say they are “vital.” For instance, in western society, women have only recently gained the kinds of rights and freedoms we tend to take for granted nowadays. People argued the same “basis of civilization” nonsense to prevent women from being allowed to vote, for instance. It wasn't convincing then, it isn't convincing now.

Please please please show me some op-ed, letter, editorial, or anything that said that the basis for civilization is that women should not vote. I would dearly love to see that. honestly.

StaceyMontgomery
Actually, I can think of a better example - democracy. The crowned potentates and pharisees of the world cried out when America set itself up as a republic where free people ruled themselves. “But monarchy has been the basis of human civilization for thousands of years!” they said. Actually, they were right. It had been.

Arguments between forms of government are not the same as nuclear family versus a homosexual family as it relates to the basis for civilization.

StaceyMontgomery
But that didn't make it good. Democracy turned out to be a good thing, just as ending slavery was, and liberating women. Gay marriage seems to me another wonderful step in this great tradition. And sure, Kings and Pharisees still frown at us and cry “but for thousands of years…”

It is really a huge step to go from liberating slaves to granting the institution of marriage to people who like to have sex with their own gender.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Atom Apple at 4:13PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
And back then it was a huge step to liberate “jungle savages,” which I believe was the entire basis of them being looked down upon. Of course, that reason is stupid, just like your reason of “they're people who like to have sex with their own gender.”
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
mapaghimagsik at 8:41PM, Aug. 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Atom Apple
And back then it was a huge step to liberate “jungle savages,” which I believe was the entire basis of them being looked down upon. Of course, that reason is stupid, just like your reason of “they're people who like to have sex with their own gender.”

Ha! well, I guess we see the depth of the relationship right there. Its not “who you feel drawn to, and who you feel a deep physical and emotional connection.”

Its who you want to f*ck. Its funny how it always comes down to that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Atom Apple at 4:46AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
…Actually, yeah, that's basically what it is. For a time my lesbian friend was in love with me emotionally but couldn't get past the fact that I was a guy.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Aurora Moon at 4:51AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Atom Apple
…Actually, yeah, that's basically what it is. For a time my lesbian friend was in love with me emotionally but couldn't get past the fact that I was a guy.

uh, did she actually tell you that she was IN love with you? people can still feel emotional connections to other people without actually WANTING to take it beyond the “Platonic love” stage.

If she never actually said that she was in love with you that way, then I can't help but think that you may have misinterpreted her actions towards you or something.

If I had a dollar for every time a guy thought that a chick was totally into him but was competely wrong, then I'd be a millionare.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mapaghimagsik at 10:45AM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Aurora Moon
If I had a dollar for every time a guy thought that a chick was totally into him but was competely wrong, then I'd be a millionare.

Do you think we could set up a tax? It would *completely* eliminate the national debt!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Atom Apple at 2:36PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
No, she told me “If only you were a girl.” But that was back when we were 13, so not love in an adult sense.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Aurora Moon at 7:12PM, Aug. 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
mapaghimagsik
Aurora Moon
If I had a dollar for every time a guy thought that a chick was totally into him but was completely wrong, then I'd be a millionaire.

Do you think we could set up a tax? It would *completely* eliminate the national debt!

ooh, now that's a idea. =D


@Atom Apple: yeah, 13 year old isn't really valid enough to have an actual emotional connection in THAT sense.
Considering the fact that at that age a lot of people tend to had experienced new emotions and such for the first time, and as such they often get some things confused. Like how they think that they might have a huge crush on a teacher to the point of thinking that they may love the teacher. THEN later on they actually realize that the feelings that they had was ADMIRATION, not a Crush/love. Hell, even I went down that path myself before once when I was that age.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Hawk at 8:49AM, Aug. 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I'm wondering if 13 is even old enough to really know you're a lesbian. It seems like you'd want your hormones to settle or something.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved