HOME | DD
writinchica2k — r u for real?
Published: 2012-04-16 19:17:59 +0000 UTC; Views: 2679; Favourites: 102; Downloads: 12
Redirect to original
Description
And if you believe that, holy crap do I ever feel sorry for you.Related content
Comments: 129
Oh yes, there's SO many of those wonderful "ex-straight" programs that people get taken to against their will and brainwashed- ohwait.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not talking about the programs or anybody other than you. This is about the fact that you just said that sexuality is static, when its obviou that it is not. Just admit you were wrong or that you meant to say something else. Stop changing the topic to something irrelevant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
>>Just admit you were wrong
Sooo, you want me to lie?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
-.-;
Have fun avoiding the topic then. I guess you're right, sexuality can NEVER change!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well being well versed in human psych I agree with you. Yeesh, so much for having an opinion around here lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You can't have an opinion on something that is fact. That's like saying "In my opinion fish are birds and the sky is yellow and the earth is the center of the universe".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Of course there is. What, you think there's a gay gene?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Nope but to think people wake up one day and go ''ooh I think I am going to be gay today'' and if you think homosexuals are not a repressed minroty would you like me to link to you the statics of how many gay teens are kicked out of the house just for being gay or for politcal Bills that prevent gay couples from seeing each other in the hospital.
I get that staying in a victim role is weak and shpuld be avoided but claming only responsiblity to Homosexuals and ignoring the hardcore Christians and conservatives wh care-a-little- to much about someone's orientation to the point of defeding laws that would make it okay to reject a homosexual work/apartment based on his or hers orientation and not on her/his actions/work experiences/criminal record. Then you're the one who is obvious a little blind to this subject.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's no argument against the idea that homosexuality is still seen as a social stigma, but you have be an idiot to think there's institutional discrimination akin to pre-civil rights racism. There are no "Bills that prevent gay couples from seeing each other in the hospital", I have no clue what that's even trying to refer to. I support a businesses right to exercise their own discretion when hiring. If somebody with a giant beard isn't hired I'm not going to make a court case claiming that people with giant beards are being discriminated against. It's entirely understandable and normal to want to keep gay people from being discriminated against, but you have to understand the difference between intentions and the results of legislation. For example, if gay people become a uniquely protected minority, not only is that against the constitutional concept of equal protection, but employers will actively avoid hiring gays as a result, not because of animosity towards gays, but because of the fear that they could be sued for discrimination if they're ever fired for any reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
here are no "Bills that prevent gay couples from seeing each other in the hospital", I have no clue what that's even trying to refer to
[link]
Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
-----------------
If I made a mistake, correct me but assist a loved one in times of emergency falls under hospital visits if you dont believe me however..
[link]
The fact that Obama had to make a bill specially to help and prevent discimnation towards gay couples in hospitals pretty much shows that its not just a rare case or has nothing to do with discimination. Just type in google, gay couples deniet hospital visit, you find plenty enough stories, with names, photos and documents on these case.
not because of animosity towards gays, but because of the fear that they could be sued for discrimination
I can see you're point HOWEVER we already have laws that protects people from Race, Gender, and heck even religion that protects from these actions. Isn't that kind of unfair to say,, well this group is okay to protect but not the other, or are you against this action on ALL acounts?
Also I like to add that unless a person is making it obvious A boss doesn't know if he hires a gay person or not, its not visable, THat's the point why people want a bill in order to prevent them from firing someone AFTER they find out their gay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They're not being denied hospital visits because they're a gay couple, they're denied hospital visits because they're not married. That's not a case of discrimination against gays, and again, I said before I'm in favor of redefining marriage to include gays, I'm just against making ridiculous connections to the civil rights movement and distortions in order to shame people into agreeing with me. And yes, I would be in favor of allowing organizations with a religious affiliation to not hire people who are not of that religion, it's an issue of liberty, same goes for other qualifiers. I'm generally against government intrusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You haven't awnsered my quistion.
At the moment the very moment right now
people of certain religion, race, age and gender are protected from losing their jobs because of said reason, Are you in favor of this or oppose it? if you are in favor then sure you would agree it should go for homosexuals as well unless you're saying only said other groups should get special treatment.
Also you didn't get my point, the current gay right momvement aren't in favor of people forced to hire gay people they want to help homosexual workers being prevented from being fired just BECAUSE there gay. The economy is in a really shitty place right now and firing someone when it has nothing to do with the way they work is just unfair and DISCIMNATION you can't sugarcoat it. I don't care what you're religion is, making people lose their jobs because you don't agree with them is just not a right thing to do.
Unless I am willing to comporomise where atheist are allowed to fire people if they find out their employees have a religion or religious belief that they are against.
Unless said homosexual is a flamming obvious gay person wearing panties and a Prpoud Gay shirt you cannot tell if he or she is gay or not. Again thats not what I am talking about.
Also goverment and religion should be seprated yet, at the same time Christians are getting special treatment for their religion. If you believe being gay is a choice which is fine but you cannot deny the fact that religion is more of a choice then an orientation.
And no if you look up a few stories in Google the problem is also that in some states they do not even Reqonise A civil Union. Thats still a huge problem.
Are you saying there is no such thing as civil right movement with homosexuals at all? or just in the USA because I can name a few countries where you are put to death for just being gay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let me be perfectly clear. I don't think somebody should be fired from their jobs just because they're gay. On the other hand, you can't make legislation that makes doing so a crime without resulting in a whole new batch of problems. An employer should have the right to terminate an employee for whatever reason they want, just as a boyfriend should have the right to cheat on his girlfriend. There's a limit to how much you can turn the law into the morality police before you're a fascist police state. I'm against affirmative action as well, does that mean I'm anti-black? On the contrary, I have more respect for black people than to apply a lower standard to them based upon skin color.
Going back to the point about hospital visits, again, I'm IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE, but until then, most hospitals have a simple one page form you can fill out to let anyone you want to visit you, the 'huge problem' is an entirely emotional appeal.
And of course I'm speaking specifically of the US, I know there's countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, and in those cases we're in complete agreement.
I think that about wraps it up. As a final aside, I don't hold somebody's spelling and grammar against them in a debate, but in all honesty yours is pretty bad. Certainly not below the minimum standard of comprehension, but if I can give you some advice, take the time to look over what you write before you speak your mind, it makes a difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have yet to make yourself very clear. Does this mean you would have no problem chancing the law so people can CAN fire someone for whatever reason?
Because till now people of religion/race/gender/whatever are protected you keep seeming to avoid awnsering this because the problems you are mentioning now ( if there will be a law against firing gays for being gay ) then the said same problems would be for all other groups minority or not.
Alright then.
I'm very sorry for that. But I am Dutch, English is not my first language trough I have to mention people complimented me for my English on this site, commenting that some Americans are much much worse. 
I'm getting a little frustrated because I feel like you are on purposely doging my questions and avoiding some issues. If you believe said a law would make the US facist country then..isn't US already a facist countries because they have those same laws that protects people of gender/age/Religion/ I just dont get why, adding homosexuals to the list would MAKE it a fascist country as if homosexuals don't count. Religion and The government should be separated so Religious groups should not have any special treatment regarding the law. They are not above it. If they don't want to hire gays they should give people a form to write so they know the details before they hire anyone. But I just find it ironic that you ( if I am not mistaken ) kept commenting that homosexuals should not get any special treatment yet you did suggested Religious groups should be allowed to fire someone based on religion. I am sorry but thats special treatment. Helping gays not lose their jobs because their bosses found out on facebook that they are going to have a gay marriage is not because currently if said person commented that she is going to convert to Christian, she will be protected by the law from being fired for that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok you're beginning to become irritating.
"Does this mean you would have no problem chancing the law so people can CAN fire someone for whatever reason? "
Yes. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I don't understand why you think I'm dodging the question. My answer is yes. Yes, yes, yes.
I didn't say such laws would make the US a fascist country, not even anywhere close. I was speaking in a broader, general sense, where the more you try to turn the state department into a morality legislator to force people into not behaving badly to the oppressed minority du jour, the more fascist it becomes. Your suggestion that I'm being a hypocrite is ridiculous and unfounded. If you still fail to understand then I say live and be well and end the conversation before you stick your foot in your mouth further.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Alright then.
I am sorry but you just pretty much asked for that suggestion. I kept asking what the difference is and you just avoided it while also not giving me a proper answer. Its not unfounded and if you believe so maybe that says more about you. I am trying to be polite but I am also getting frustrated here. I just am curious to why you made MADE the suggestion that religious groups should have exceptions regarding the law. Or maybe I mistake that comment should I link it to you to show or do you think you can clarity you're self on this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I used that as an example, identical and parallel to my other points, if a religious (or any other) group wants to discriminate based on religion (or any other standard) they should be able to. Get it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmm, I find that a little hard to believe, but I take it.
Personally I don't believe having human dignity is a wrong/facitst thing to do. Sure I disagree with some religion and I find the extreme religious life styles of Christians rather wrong but I don't think people should lose their jobs and get in trouble with paying their rent because I don't like the way they live. Its a childish and demeaning to discrimination in this day of age. I'm not saying people should be forced to love and like each other what they do but for fuck sake were all adults we all need that paycheck in the end of the someone's relationship, religion, gender, whatever has nothing to do with their work activity and doesn't say anything about that person being good or bad. I know you are also against this idea but allowing discrimination would just cause misery, families would be financially in trouble and considering in America we already have families living in tents maybe thats something to think about. I dont think its bad to encourage the idea that its BAD to discriminate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How is that hard to believe? You don't think I'm telling the truth? That's pretty insulting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know from you're previous comments it kinda come off as if you did believe religous groups and religious people should get special treatment. Sorry it kinda came off that way, maybe if would be a little different if we were talking in real life.
Either way I do understand the point you're trying to make but I don't understand how someone can sleep at night knowing they fired a person, who is going to lose their apartment and won't be able to make ends meet. I am not saying it isn't in that person's right but that would be a real Dick move.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Businesses aren't charities. You hire employees and hold them to a standard based upon what they can contribute to the business, not based upon how much they're paying in rent. I'll give a personal example to illustrate my earlier point. I worked in a design firm in California where once it was let loose I was a Republican, it was received as though I was a confessed Neo-Nazi. My boss brought me into his office and gave me a stern talking to about his left-wing views, and I listened intently and offered my own opinions. I wasn't fired, because I was a hard worker and a valuable employee, but if I was, I would have been upset, angered, and resentful. However, that being said, I wouldn't bring up a law suit against my former boss for damages and reparations, because once we were in court, he could just as easily say I was fired because he had found a more qualified designer, or that he had to downsize the department, or any number of reasons. I'd have to somehow prove that me being fired and me coming out as a Republican weren't circumstantial coincidences. As sure as I would be that it was the reason, it would be impossible to prove. A legal system in which the court would simply take my word for it, although it would be personally beneficial to me as an individual, would be a legal system in which employers who actually HAD had to terminate employees for legitimate reasons, would be swarmed with law suits claiming it was actually the result of whatever revelation about their personal lives that had recently become public.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You hire employees and hold them to a standard based upon what they can contribute to the business
and that's my freaking point someone's personal life has no effect on what they ca contribute to the business you fire someone if they are going a bad job not because they posted a pro gay pride banner on their facebook.
That's nice to bring out you're personal story but you are not a example of thousand of other people fired for something that has no effect on they do that work. A lot of people are pretty pissed for losing their job for something that shouldn't even be an issue. I mean we aren't children anymore were adults we should be old enough to deal and tolerate that some people might be different from ourselves.
You're still a dick if you fire someone for being black, gay white, christian left-right wing. ITS NOT charity to let a people work for their paycheck. I don't understand how you come to that conclusion.
If you can't work together or employee someone with a different view of the world as yours then how can you function on society. I am sorry but I dont think its wrong to encourage people to act like adults instead of telling people its okay to mistreat other people for being different then yours, Trough different its kind of like a group of kids forming a club and not allowing the handicapped kid to join because he is freaking handicapped. I rather teach my children unless people are being assholes they should learn to tolerate and respect other people and not cause them any harm because God forbid you're hard worker employee might follow a different religion then you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sigh. We're talking about two different things here. It's immoral, you're right, we agree. Trying to make it illegal however is an entirely separate issue altogether. Again I go back to the example of cheating on your girlfriend. Highly immoral, obviously, but making it illegal, you don't make relationships more stable, you make people avoid relationships out of fear of law suits. I think I've explained my points well enough, it's up to you to take it from there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think you can compare cheating with a job. I am sorry but you cannot make that comparasion....
1: You are paid to do you're job for you're boss you work for him. You have a contract you get health care insurance. You get a job to live.
2 : ...you don't get anything from that in relationships. Relationships are private and more so there different. Unless there is a hooker involved you don't get money from a relationship. Some people want short relationships ect ect
Trough I do like to mention if you're married and both couple set up a special contract ( which some couples do just in case ) you can bet you're ass the cheater will lose a shit load of money if he violated their personal marriage contract. In fact some people have successfully sued their husbands/wives because they didn't show up at the wedding despite they did sign their name under the contract.
The difference here is however is that these people signed an agreement. So they knew about it. Kind of like if a Christian gets a job-form when they apply to a job which says religious debates are not allowed during workhours or within the buldion. If they break that agreement knowing full well before they got the job, they will get fired. Which again is a case of ''before you get the job'' not after.
I like to mention again you, yourself said a boss should fire/judge their employee how much they contribute to company. Yet you think its perfectly fine for someone to fire them for being black/gay/hispanic/Star Trek fan/whatever.
Do you not see the irony within the comment that you made yourself?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No more "ironic" (you're really misconstruing the use of that word, fyi) than saying people should not judge a book by it's cover but it shouldn't be illegal for them to do so anyways. If you can't comprehend the difference then I'm wasting my time here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its kind of ironic when you yourself said it shouldn't be Charity it should be how much they preform and contribute is the point yet you think its okay to fire someone for something that is utter private. In the end that does mean if you're from any sort of group it doesn't mather how hard you work.
Also why did you ignored the part about the whole relationship thing and my point about the contract statement when it comes to marriage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because, again, you're talking about something different. You're talking about a breach of contract, a specific detailed agreement in which both parties are fully aware that a certain behavior will result in a certain repercussion. It was entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about. If somebody signs a contract that says if they're homosexual then they'll be fired, then it's not only moral, but legal to fire somebody if they breach that agreement. I'm done, if you can't comprehend the difference between immoral and illegal then I'm not going to hold an elementary civics course to educate you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not the one who can't tell the difference you're the one who suggested people shouldn't sue each other over a job and comparing it to a relationship despite the fact a relationship cannot hold in court unless there is a contract involved and geuss what, with a job there is A CONTRACT involved. That's the point that you are missing. It wouldn't be against the law to openly not be social with someone if you don't agree with their belief/orientation/whatever but in the workforce there is a contract force, hence their are other rules.
You're the one who is ignoring certain parts of the arguments. In case you didn't know in a debate you have to respond to a counter argument instead of ignoring them and resulting into child ish insults. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tere is a strait gene?
(I talking about love not instint)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What? Ok, I'll try and decipher your meaning. By a 'gay gene' I mean a solely genetic predisposition for homosexuality that supersedes all other factors, like an on/off switch in somebody's DNA. I've said this in someone elses response but I'll repeat it: homosexuality is a combination of hormonal, environmental, and genetic factors, and at least one of them can override the others in determining sexual preference. Now, as for a 'straight gene', again, that's just like saying there's a gay gene, just in the "off" position, so no, there isn't. There is however a genetic disposition towards genetic replication, so is that the same? I don't know, maybe? The very fact that many people don't breed shows that even that core genetic drive can be overridden.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They seem to be referring to those programs that claim to be able to "turn you straight", none of which actually work and all which are sort of horrible. Those are the people who use the term "ex-gay".
Some people's sexuality can change over time but that isn't what the term refers to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Regardless of it's through a program or not people can muster the willpower to formulate their own viewpoint. Nobody joins such a program against their will after all. Until it becomes involuntary THIS is the sort of rhetoric that stokes ridiculous unnecessary cultural warfare.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yeah, actually teenagers have been forced into programs like these against their will, or are heavily pressured by their families to go along with it if they don't want to be ostracized. I had an gay friend from an evengelical family who was given the option of going to one of these 'gay camps' or be kicked out of the house. Spare us the whole 'cultural warfare' bit, since the rights of gays and lesbians are constantly under attack on a daily basis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Uh huh. By friend you mean somebody who you talked to once online, not somebody who you knew on a real life personal basis, right? Right. Regardless, if the choice is between going to counseling or leaving home that's still a choice, but if you want to cut the bullshit I'm interesting in hearing about these supposed rights violations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't really think you have any interest in this issue, other than trying to reenforce your own homophobic viewpoints and dismissing any else's. And that's fine. As a gay person I have a bit more insight, and have to confront these issues near-constantly. I'm afraid it's going to be an uphill battle to even argue with you, so I'm cutting my losses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Homophobic? Excuse you, a completely baseless and dismissive insult won't make your point. Still waiting for your examples, unless you really have none.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You dismissed the existence of my friend in a way to derail this argument, as if it's impossible to know a gay person who'd been kicked out of his home because of homophobic parents. The only reason I included that anecdote was to show that homophobia has a human face, and he faced many years of deep depression because his parents gave him an ultimatum: renounce your homosexuality or you're not part of the family anymore. He chose to hide who he was so he wouldn't have to either be kicked out of go to one of those programs to 'cure' him. I was appealing to a sense of empathy, to realize how traumatic it can be to be in a gay person's shoes like that. So you can see why people are often coerced to go into ex-gay treatment.
As for examples, the most damming one that repairtive therapy doesn't work is that the co-founder of Exodus International came clean and admitted he was still gay.
[link]
There are endless other testimonies of gays who went into those programs and endured a lot of mental torture and abuse they still have to deal with, and you can find further ones with a minimum of fuss if you'd like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't believe that's somebody you actually know, I rather suspect that it was an emotional appeal for sympathy in the form of a fictional anecdote. If you think that's homophobic to suggest, then it's no wonder why you feel that you're under constant abuse, as you're surrounded by homophobes who actually aren't.
In the interest of full disclosure I have absolutely no animosity towards gay people, yet I don't harbor this delusion that everyone who is gay is such through a genetic predisposed "gay gene" that decides homosexuality like an on/off switch in human DNA. It's a combination of hormonal, environmental, and genetic factors, and it's possible for the effect of even a single one of these factors can hold enough influence to override the other two.
I was rather asking for an example of... how did you put it? "The rights of gays and lesbians are constantly under attack on a daily basis." Unless this is more of your phantom homophobes I'm interested to know how you come to this ridiculous conclusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I frankly don't care what you believe, because I provided you with a clear cut example and you won't even entertain me for a second. I could bring up instances of discrimination like the constant attempts to ban gay marriage, the push to take away protections that could protect gays from being unfairly fired for being homosexual, trying to ban gay adoptions, repealing civil union laws, right-wing religious groups fighting against the repeal of DOMA, re-instating anti-sodomy laws, and attempts to ban the mention of homosexuality in schools (the 'don't say gay' bill in Tennessee' for instance). You can't help but feel attacked when there's so many ignorant people trying to take away your rights.
I'm not arguing from a cold clinical perspective and don't care to get in the 'is gayness genetic' or not, since it doesn't matter any way. I believe that gays should have the same equal rights of everyone else. That's all. It's not cultural warfare to demand that you be treated the same as everyone else. This isn't an issue that defines your life, but it's a very personal one for me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, ok, those. Well understand that to say that not redefining marriage to include male/male and female/female definitionally doesn't constitute a case of unequal protection under the law. There is literally no inequality in the issue. The same standard applies to everyone regardless of sexual preference. A straight man can't marry a straight man, are they being discriminated against as well? Of course not. Besides the fact that there's absolutely no laws against ceremonial marriage, there's just no government endorsement. It's like if you started your own religion and didn't get government tax exempt status and then you claim that government is banning your religion. It's laughably ridiculous. That being said, I'm actually in favor of redefining marriage to include gays, but unlike you I don't formulate idiotic arguments in order to equate the issue with the civil rights movement to gain shallow and unintellectual emotional sympathy, something you seem fond of. If you can't make your case without distortions, you have no case. The "don't say gay" bill refers entirely to sex education classes, again, you distort it to make it sound like it's a police-state monitoring of unaccepted discussion. Re-instating anti-sodomy laws is another phantom fear, you'd be more validated to protest against being struck by lightning, it's far more likely. With nearly all your arguments for the notion that you're being "denied rights" are actually cases to keep gays from being granted UNEQUAL favor, like in the case of hate crime laws and denying adoption agencies the right to their own personal discretion. You're entitled to your perception of the issues, just not when they conflict with logical facts. If it really is a personal issue for you I'd suggest you take the time to understand the issues instead of swinging at make-believe oppressors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
So would you say that intersexed people aren't being left out because an intersex can't marry an intersexed, or that a straight person can't marry an intersexed person? Well they can, but families can challenge the marriage of an intersexed person to a normal person. Though some judges have ruled that the marriages aren't recognized because marriage is only between man and woman. Not manwoman and man or woman.
You do realize that homosexuals not being recognized by the state hurts intersexed people too? I don't mean the intersexed people that are transgenders. I mean the ones that were born that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't quite understand the premise of your question. You're asking if I think there's still no inequality of you throw hermaphrodites into the mix? No, there is still technically no unequal protection under the law argument to be made. Also don't get what you mean by "homosexuals not being recognized by the state", the issue is the state certification of marriage, not individual recognition. Again, I'm in favor of redefinining, but we can't get lost in semantic fallacies. You know the opposition is going to be very clear about distinctions, if we can't, we lose. At any rate I'm not too clear on how hermaphrodites are able to officially register as male or female, but chances are it's consistent with their sexual preference, right? Again, not quite sure what you're asking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well you so rudely use the word hermaphrodites. >.>
And there is not unequal protection where intersexed people can't marry just because of the sexes they were born? Why should they have to choose? Even if they do their marriage can still be challenged.
I throw that into the mix because like homosexuals they can't help being who they are, but they are denied the piece of paper saying that that are married that grants them the rights of a married couple.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Rudely? I wasn't aware hermaphrodite was a pejorative. Oh well, didn't mean to be rude.
Again, I support redefining marriage to include man-man and woman-woman, not sure why you're still being so argumentative. Calm down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh haha. I didn't know that is what you meant about redefining. It wasn't clear. Whoops. Sorry.
And you learned something new. ^.^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're not going to convince me that I'm not an oppressed minority with a string of tired rightwing talking points. I guess we'll have to strongly agree to disagree about this one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sad but understandable. It's emotionally seducing to see yourself in the enticing light of victimhood. It's the same sort of mentality that drives conspiracy theorists to construct a make believe world where evil hook nosed jew bankers control every aspect of their lives. It's much easier to blame 'the other' than to take responsibility for your own circumstances.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love you. In a non-sexual, you're-just-awesome-like-that way/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Regardless of their reason to try and go into these things that doesn't change that they still don't work. This term applies solely to programs like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Uh huh. You're saying that with no factual basis and completely against real cases. Ok.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>