I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[martybegan]

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.

What is your obsession with your caps lock?

Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.

I'm sure your goon squads will go for the others sooner or later.

 

[SweetSue92]

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

If it were simple the SC would have ruled on it last time Masterpiece came up. They did not; they punted. Now we have an even more conservative court. There's nothing simple about it, which is why it went up to the SC in the first place. It's non-discrimination laws vs. first amendment religious Constitutional rights.

 

[bodecea]

Tears, not fear. It would be terribly funny if someone actually feared queers getting married.

No tears here. Be "married", be happy and content. It's your life...but I know how it ends

I was married long before it become legal, but I know how it ends too...in Halls of Valhalla.

Lol..no. God is pretty clear on this

No...just people who think they talk for the gods.

Read God's word ya stupid sob.

Good grief...do you ever tire of getting slapped around like a faux sailor?

Why would I read any book written by people telling us that it's their god's words? Everything we know about what a god or goddess wants was told to us by another person. Why do we have to believe them automatically?

 

[Olde Europe]

The Baker..always with the Baker--Here is the thing...The plaintiff and the defendant..in this case..knew each other...I think the plaintiff deliberately set the whole thing up..and the Baker played into their hands.

A tale of one Attention Whore and 2 Drama Queens!

All the baker had to do was claim scheduling problems and refer them to another baker.

All this 'standing on principle' and such tripe, ruined his business. He decided to go that route.
He has let himself be used..by people that do not give a damn about him--his choice.

Do I think the Baker had the right to refuse to bake or decorate a cake..sure he did.
But he could have handled it far better for all concerned.

A wedding cake is not an essential service that the denial of which would constitute an egregious hardship. If he had been the only Baker in 100 miles..then maybe.

Yeah, that's the slightly gentler, slightly more intelligent version of the same dog shit argument. If he can't muster the respect for his customers, he deserved to go out of business, and nothing else in that non-argument cuts the mustard. Not least, it requires us to forget the centuries of legal discrimination that the Christer Taliban want back. The baker is still free to worship his gawd, he's still free to follow "love thy neighbor" as best he can, and he has as much of an argument as have you, I am sorry to say, which is none. This is not at its core about "hardship". It's about the culture war following Obergefell, which the Taliban try to reverse by other means: "If we can't denigrate their unions any longer and have to accept they can get married, we're taking our revenge by other means, that is, express disrespect towards Those people." That's all this is about, and one has to make a strenuous effort not to see it. It really pains me to see you chime in, if halfheartedly.

 

[bodecea]

All these tears over fags getting married are simply delicious. I lap them up like a fine bourbon.

When have I complained about them getting married?

My argument has always been about free exercise in the case of the whole cake thing, and the fact that Obergfell is terrible SC precedent.

Obergfell should have allowed the rednecks to continue to not issue SSM licenses, but to accept licenses from out of State under full faith and credit.

I was happy when NY passed SSM legislatively, that was the right way to do it.

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

That doesn't change, just reaffirms the pattern.

 

[bodecea]

All these tears over fags getting married are simply delicious. I lap them up like a fine bourbon.

When have I complained about them getting married?

My argument has always been about free exercise in the case of the whole cake thing, and the fact that Obergfell is terrible SC precedent.

Obergfell should have allowed the rednecks to continue to not issue SSM licenses, but to accept licenses from out of State under full faith and credit.

I was happy when NY passed SSM legislatively, that was the right way to do it.

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

I don't see what's so "fascinating" about it.

Homosexuality is based the proposition that men should be taking it in the ass from other men. That's it.

If you eliminate Sodomy from the equation, you eliminate the very reason why people decide to become gay in the first place.

Is that all you think of when someone says the word "gay"? The sex act? (actually only one kind of sex act)

 

[bodecea]

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.

 

[SweetSue92]

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.

What is your obsession with your caps lock?

Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.

 

[bodecea]

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

Are you saying a wedding cake is like a 'dick' cake?

 

[martybegan]

When have I complained about them getting married?

My argument has always been about free exercise in the case of the whole cake thing, and the fact that Obergfell is terrible SC precedent.

Obergfell should have allowed the rednecks to continue to not issue SSM licenses, but to accept licenses from out of State under full faith and credit.

I was happy when NY passed SSM legislatively, that was the right way to do it.

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

That doesn't change, just reaffirms the pattern.

yep, you have no measurable sense of humor.

 

[SweetSue92]

The Baker..always with the Baker--Here is the thing...The plaintiff and the defendant..in this case..knew each other...I think the plaintiff deliberately set the whole thing up..and the Baker played into their hands.

A tale of one Attention Whore and 2 Drama Queens!

All the baker had to do was claim scheduling problems and refer them to another baker.

All this 'standing on principle' and such tripe, ruined his business. He decided to go that route.
He has let himself be used..by people that do not give a damn about him--his choice.

Do I think the Baker had the right to refuse to bake or decorate a cake..sure he did.
But he could have handled it far better for all concerned.

A wedding cake is not an essential service that the denial of which would constitute an egregious hardship. If he had been the only Baker in 100 miles..then maybe.

Yeah, that's the slightly gentler, slightly more intelligent version of the same dog shit argument. If he can't muster the respect for his customers, he deserved to go out of business, and nothing else in that non-argument cuts the mustard. Not least, it requires us to forget the centuries of legal discrimination that the Christer Taliban want back. The baker is still free to worship his gawd, he's still free to follow "love thy neighbor" as best he can, and he has as much of an argument as have you, I am sorry to say, which is none. This is not at its core about "hardship". It's about the culture war following Obergefell, which the Taliban try to reverse by other means: "If we can't denigrate their unions any longer and have to accept they can get married, we're taking our revenge by other means, that is, express disrespect towards Those people." That's all this is about, and one has to make a strenuous effort not to see it. It really pains me to see you chime in, if halfheartedly.

Welcome to the First Amendment in America, pal. Remember us fondly when you're kneeling for prayer on a rug five times a day. Remember: don't call us, we'll call you. Really. Don't call.

 

[martybegan]

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.

Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?

Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.

 

[bodecea]

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

It's just got a different topper. Two men in tuxes in this case. You don't even write the couple's name on a wedding cake.

Actually, the "woman" in a gay relationship wears a wedding gown, the "man" in the relationship wears the tux.

Oh really? You should tell us more about what gays do....you are an encyclopedia of gay knowledge.

 

[Polishprince]

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

Are you saying a wedding cake is like a 'dick' cake?

A Gay Wedding cake certainly is. A lot of bakers would have moral objections to baking a "dick cake" just like they would a Gay Wedding cake. Oftentimes, its the same people too.

 

[bodecea]

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

It's just got a different topper. Two men in tuxes in this case. You don't even write the couple's name on a wedding cake.

Actually, the "woman" in a gay relationship wears a wedding gown, the "man" in the relationship wears the tux.

Do tell...been to lot of gay weddings, have you?

FYI--not all gay relationships fall into the partner's conforming to Hetero stereotype.

Some are just Bromances with benefits. Some are two old biddies--and sex doesn't really take center stage at all.

People are people..and we are far more variegated that you might suspect.

I've seen many gay weddings on TV, a lot of homosexuals over the years have tied the knot on the Springer program and the distinguished Mayor Emeritus of Cincinnati had a minister on staff to do the nuptials.

Oh well...the Springer show.

 

[bodecea]

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.

What is your obsession with your caps lock?

Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.

I'm sure your goon squads will go for the others sooner or later.

Victimhood...part and parcel

 

[bodecea]

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.

What is your obsession with your caps lock?

Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.

View attachment 265076

Says who?

 

[martybegan]

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.

What is your obsession with your caps lock?

Christians are the ones being gunned for because they are the easiest target for identity politics driven progs.

I'm sure your goon squads will go for the others sooner or later.

Victimhood...part and parcel

No, running to the government because someone didn't want to sell you a contracted cake, and asked you to go somewhere else is the pinnacle of victimhood,.

 

[bodecea]

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

That doesn't change, just reaffirms the pattern.

yep, you have no measurable sense of humor.

You are investing a great deal here. Whatever.

 

[martybegan]

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

That doesn't change, just reaffirms the pattern.

yep, you have no measurable sense of humor.

You are investing a great deal here. Whatever.

Run away like you usually do when you've run out of the same shit to bitch about.

About time for you to whine about me having to "do something about it" besides posting on this board.

You are tiresome and predictable.