Jump to content

LBGTQ


Mo Horn

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 but there's no valid reason to even apply "mental" to the illness.


 

It’s not an illness.  It’s a difference.  True trans aren’t defective.  They’re born that way.  They may not feel it at a young age, and feelings might not come on until teen years or later, but they were still always trans.  
 

I do think there are a lot of bandwagon trans for whatever reason.  A lot of weirdos, pervs, and sickos making real trans people look bad.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Goddammit, it is not that big of an ask 

You’re right. I apologize.

 

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, here's the thing on that.  Brain chemistry that isn't quite right is every bit as physical as a pancreas that doesn't work right, or some cells that start to mutate and divide into cancer.

Sure, it's not a broken leg or skull, but there are lots of diseases that involve a malfunctioning body part with no external cause.

So, with the stigma, you're part of the way there, but there's no valid reason to even apply "mental" to the illness.

Research suggests that there are physical differences in brain structure among trans folk. More so ftm.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

 

I try to keep in mind that nature makes humans born with male, female, and hermaphrodite genders. Given the complexity of the human brain, I am bemused by the confusion and resistance at the idea that being transgender is a not uncommon human trait.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Research suggests that there are physical differences in brain structure among trans folk. More so ftm.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

 

Scientific American has lost a lot of cred recently for too much political stuff.  Their President just resigned a few weeks back for that reason.  

 

I'm not sure I trust an author that thinks or hopes people's gender might one day be determined by a brain scan.  It's always the person's choice and no one else's.  Not even the child's parent.  

 

Quote

given the variety of transgender people and the variation in the brains of men and women generally, it will be a long time, if ever, before a doctor can do a brain scan on a child and say, “Yes, this child is trans.”

 

 

I trust that most of SA is still very much science based, but you do have to be careful when quoting or linking them because of things like this  

 

 

GZLw-Mo-CWw-AEZuk-T.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

Scientific American has lost a lot of cred recently for too much political stuff.  Their President just resigned a few weeks back for that reason.  

 

I'm not sure I trust an author that thinks or hopes people's gender might one day be determined by a brain scan.  It's always the person's choice and no one else's.  Not even the child's parent.  

 

 

 

I trust that most of SA is still very much science based, but you do have to be careful when quoting or linking them because of things like this  

 

 

GZLw-Mo-CWw-AEZuk-T.jpg

 

Perhaps the NIH and JAMA will meet your criteria and allow you to consider their findings.

Regarding sports, I do not share the common outrage. Especially for athletes who receive early medical support, as all sport is dominated by both will and genetics, which will be altered by gender affirming medical care.

These past Olympics are a good example of my pov, for the Olympic Committee follows guidelines as to classifying an athlete as male or female. Disagreement is fine with me, but take your beef to the Committee, and leave individuals in peace. I am content letting experts make those kinds of decisions 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2804855

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I tend to agree with the notion that the Great Trans Scare was one of the primary determining factors in the election.

Back in October, I posted an article with a quote from the president of the Human Rights Campaign saying she was concerned because she saw that those stupid commercials were gaining traction among white suburban moms with Trump lying about kids coming home from school suddenly transitioned in a single school day.

All of that Sturm und Drang over a vanishingly small number of affected adolescents: $222,000 in scary ads per kid.

Congrats to the haters, I guess.

 

'A very, very small number' of teens receive gender-affirming care, study finds

How many transgender teens in the U.S. are receiving medical care related to gender transitions? According to a peer-reviewed research letter published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, the answer is very, very few.

It's a key data point as Republican lawmakers in Congress and around the country continue to focus on transgender youth in contexts ranging from sports to bathrooms to doctors' offices. In a legislative sprint over the last few years, half of U.S. states have enacted bans on gender-affirming care. Some of those laws have been blocked in court, and one such legal case was just argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in December.

The care at issue includes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy — medications that help transgender teens develop characteristics that align with their gender identity. Use of these treatments is supported by major American medical groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"It's important to put numbers to the debates that are currently happening," says Landon Hughes, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health. "There weren't any peer reviewed studies that were looking at the rate of hormone use and puberty blocker use among youth in the U.S., and so we wanted to fill that void."

Hughes and colleagues at Harvard and Folx Health, a virtual LGBTQ health care company, used a data set of private insurance claims from 2018-2022 that included more than 5 million adolescents.

"The total number of youth who had any diagnosis of gender dysphoria was less than 18,000," Hughes explains. "Among those folks, there were less than 1,000 [youth] that accessed puberty blockers and less than 2,000 that ever had access to hormones."

In other words, the study found that less than 0.1% of teenagers with private insurance in the U.S. are transgender and receive gender-related medicines.

A recent mental health survey from the CDC found a much higher percentage — 3% of high school students — self-identified as transgender. Not all transgender people seek a medical diagnosis or treatments related to their identity, notes Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ health policy at the research organization KFF. "Much more common is to change hair grooming, style of clothing, using a different name," she says, pointing to KFF research.

Dawson, who was not involved with the research, said the study was notable for the large sample size. "It echoes past work that has found that gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone treatment, is relatively rare among all trans and nonbinary people, but especially so among adolescents," she says.

Hughes says the study puts the political attention on this group into perspective. In the recent election, Republicans spent more than $222 million on anti-LGBTQ advertisements, according to a report by AdImpact shared with NPR.

"It's a very, very small number of people that has managed to eat up all of the oxygen in our political discourse over the last few months," Hughes observes.

The American Principles Project, a conservative political advocacy group that has opposed transgender policy for years, is likely to push for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors under the Trump administration, Jon Schweppe, policy director at the organization told NPR in November.

"We've poll tested that, and we're pretty confident that the American people agree," Schweppe says.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

They’ve done so much already not even sure I can post it all. Harrowing. 

identification - mostly taken away, only thing that remains are existing identification. I’d expect that to be dealt with soon.

stripping all mention of gender identity, changing everything to sex, no accommodation whatsoever.

bathroom ban in federal buildings came out tonight. 

no gender affirming care for those under 19 years old.

no federal assistance for any trans related care. 

trans kicked out of the military.

prisons based on sex at birth. 

Texas wants to retroactively change back DLs.

what else?

Edited by troph
  • Rage+1 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the Idaho legislature is asking the Supreme Court to over turn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before that comes back to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma AG is challenging a ruling regarding changing sex on birth certificates. 

Folks they are coming for it all. 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who views marriage as an antiquated institution, I haven't followed this legal fight very closely, so I'd like to be educated on the issue.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, on what basis did SCOTUS affirm the right and on what basis could they reverse it?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

As someone who views marriage as an antiquated institution, I haven't followed this legal fight very closely, so I'd like to be educated on the issue.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, on what basis did SCOTUS affirm the right and on what basis could they reverse it?

 

The civil contract of marriage and the rights it’s provides are fundamental and hardly antiquated. 

equal protection and right to privacy which stems from roe v wade, which is why alarm bells went off when roe was overturned. Contraception, interracial marriage, sex other than missionary style between a man and a woman (so gay sex, oral sex, anal sex), are all conceivably on the chopping block. Thomas has said as much. Well, except for interracial marriage, he likes that one.

Edited by troph
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’ve posted about that before. Berlin was more progressive than the US was during the Obama Admin pre-Hitler.  And yes they came for my people first. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve posted about that before. Berlin was more progressive than the US was during the Obama Admin pre-Hitler.  And yes they came for my people first. 

I think they got to the undesirables first with their eugenics programs and facilities starting in the late 1920s. Since they couldn’t resist and were already in state run facilities (mental hospitals).
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:


I think they got to the undesirables first with their eugenics programs and facilities starting in the late 1920s. Since they couldn’t resist and were already in state run facilities (mental hospitals).

That’s probably be right, splitting hairs though. It wasn’t all of a sudden the Jews. It was incremental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, troph said:

That’s probably be right, splitting hairs though. It wasn’t all of a sudden the Jews. It was incremental. 

I think it was always about normalizing the brutality and horror and working their way to their goals.   I suppose it could be just interpreted as getting their industrialized mass murder of the Jewish and Roma people started required a learning curve and that was means tested on other populations first.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, troph said:

no gender affirming care for those under 19 years old.

If this really was just about protecting children, however misguided, than this is all they would be doing.

But like everything else, children are just being used as a tool to attack people's rights and liberties.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I think it was always about normalizing the brutality and horror and working their way to their goals.   I suppose it could be just interpreted as getting their industrialized mass murder of the Jewish and Roma people started required a learning curve and that was means tested on other populations first.  

It was never just about the Jews it was about everyone but the favored. Jews were especially targeted because they assimilated well and were blamed as the existential threat because they were too successful. The rest of us are just annoyingly in the way. 

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

If this really was just about protecting children, however misguided, than this is all they would be doing.

But like everything else, children are just being used as a tool to attack people's rights and liberties.

We’ve been saying this for years 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DixonHur said:

As someone who views marriage as an antiquated institution, I haven't followed this legal fight very closely, so I'd like to be educated on the issue.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, on what basis did SCOTUS affirm the right and on what basis could they reverse it?

 

Essentially the same basis as it affirmed abortion. The death of Roe v. Wade has already ended a number of previously recognized rights. It'll just take time for the law to catch up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2024 at 4:52 PM, Willfully Horn said:

You’re right. I apologize.

 

Research suggests that there are physical differences in brain structure among trans folk. More so ftm.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

 

I try to keep in mind that nature makes humans born with male, female, and hermaphrodite genders. Given the complexity of the human brain, I am bemused by the confusion and resistance at the idea that being transgender is a not uncommon human trait.

Humans are basically conceived and develop for something like 8 weeks as females. Then a complex process begins if a Y chromosome is present. That process involves the genetic code, in utero conditions, the mother, and biochemistry in the developing fetus. That’s likely where a human first goes trans. From there though there are literally millions of cascading interactions over the life of a human that are not a given to conform to the simple XX or XY template. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now is the time for allies to stand up and speak out. It can't just be the LGBT community. I get that probably a majority in this country have been made to feel sickened or threatened by trans people, so not holding my breath

But this is now at the level of persecution and erasure. Direct genocide is not out of the question because I can't envision a length the christofascists in charge wouldn't go to, given carte blanche.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, troph said:

The civil contract of marriage and the rights it’s provides are fundamental and hardly antiquated. 

Not sure why you felt the need to attack my personal beliefs, but I appreciate you answering the question.

I just never felt like the government had a role in my personal life, or that my love needed to be codified by law.

Those ideas are based on the familiar contracts that formed the basis for the origin of marriage.  In most of the developed world today , marriage is based on lover, not arrangements between countries/families, so the legal contract is of little importance, IMO, which is what I mean by antiquated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Not sure why you felt the need to attack my personal beliefs, but I appreciate you answering the question.

I just never felt like the government had a role in my personal life, or that my love needed to be codified by law.

Those ideas are based on the familiar contracts that formed the basis for the origin of marriage.  In most of the developed world today , marriage is based on lover, not arrangements between countries/families, so the legal contract is of little importance, IMO, which is what I mean by antiquated.

Government recognition of marriage significantly impacts one's life regardless of personal beliefs. An obvious example of that is the ability to file jointly on a tax return and the tax benefits that provides, but other examples include the recognition of the rights of both parents of an adopted child. Your belief isn't being attacked. Your dismissal of the importance of government recognition is. It doesn't impact you because the government will readily recognize your union. It didn't always do so for others and will likely revert to those old ways. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Government recognition of marriage significantly impacts one's life regardless of personal beliefs. An obvious example of that is the ability to file jointly on a tax return and the tax benefits that provides, but other examples include the recognition of the rights of both parents of an adopted child. Your belief isn't being attacked. Your dismissal of the importance of government recognition is. It doesn't impact you because the government will readily recognize your union. It didn't always do so for others and will likely revert to those old ways. 

Fair.  But perhaps you should question the government's control over these aspects of your life, and why they were enacted in the first place, instead of accepting them as natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Fair.  But perhaps you should question the government's control over these aspects of your life, and why they were enacted in the first place, instead of accepting them as natural.

What? That's sovereign citizen talk. That's like saying I don't think it should be illegal to steal so I'm going to ignore the law and steal shit. I can do it. But I'm not going to be free from the consequences when I get arrested and thrown in jail. Similarly, I can believe the government shouldn't have any say in marriage, but that isn't going to help me get tax benefits or any other benefits provided by the law to married couples. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Fair.  But perhaps you should question the government's control over these aspects of your life, and why they were enacted in the first place, instead of accepting them as natural.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Not sure why you felt the need to attack my personal beliefs, but I appreciate you answering the question.

I just never felt like the government had a role in my personal life, or that my love needed to be codified by law.

Those ideas are based on the familiar contracts that formed the basis for the origin of marriage.  In most of the developed world today , marriage is based on lover, not arrangements between countries/families, so the legal contract is of little importance, IMO, which is what I mean by antiquated.

I spoke facts not beliefs. The tax benefits are annual, not antiquated. Healthcare rights are significant and I’m 50 and my wife is 54. It’s highly relevant. Call it antiquated it the rights afforded those in w civil marriage contract are immense and highly relevant. Those are actual facts not opinions. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Fair.  But perhaps you should question the government's control over these aspects of your life, and why they were enacted in the first place, instead of accepting them as natural.

Oh wow a galaxy brain. This is the kind of garbage that libertarians believe is mind blowing genius level thinking.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Fair.  But perhaps you should question the government's control over these aspects of your life, and why they were enacted in the first place, instead of accepting them as natural.

god damn you post some unbelievably stupid fucking shit sometimes.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Fair.  But perhaps you should question the government's control over these aspects of your life, and why they were enacted in the first place, instead of accepting them as natural.

Well maybe. But until everybody does that and we all live in autonomous anarchist communes, we might as well make marriage fair.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, some of you folks are so myopic it's hard to comprehend.  Why do some on this board assume every post they don't agree with is an attack on gay and trans people.

I only stated that I think marriage is antiquated to point out why I haven't paid attention to the gay marriage issue.  Marriage was originally about pacts between families, tribes and nations.  Literally placing a member of their family into another to stave off war.  That is antiquated.  

Love does not require government approval.  What you are arguing about is the tax code ...which is also antiquated.

Did you know joint filing has only been a thing since 1948?  Some of you act like it's some God given right that's existed since the dawn of time.  Before that everyone, married or not, was taxed on an individual basis.  Joint filing was only enacted because married people were trying to cheat the system.  And because women started entering the workforce in greater numbers, it's been amended several times since then to try to keep women from being unfairly taxed.  This has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

And I've never once said, or even slightly suggested that gay/trans people should be taxed differently than straight people.

Good god, have some fucking perspective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

If this really was just about protecting children, however misguided, than this is all they would be doing.

But like everything else, children are just being used as a tool to attack people's rights and liberties.

 

it's about fundraising off GoP billionaires obsessed with this issue 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Wow, some of you folks are so myopic it's hard to comprehend.  Why do some on this board assume every post they don't agree with is an attack on gay and trans people.

I only stated that I think marriage is antiquated to point out why I haven't paid attention to the gay marriage issue.  Marriage was originally about pacts between families, tribes and nations.  Literally placing a member of their family into another to stave off war.  That is antiquated.  

Love does not require government approval.  What you are arguing about is the tax code ...which is also antiquated.

Did you know joint filing has only been a thing since 1948?  Some of you act like it's some God given right that's existed since the dawn of time.  Before that everyone, married or not, was taxed on an individual basis.  Joint filing was only enacted because married people were trying to cheat the system.  And because women started entering the workforce in greater numbers, it's been amended several times since then to try to keep women from being unfairly taxed.  This has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

And I've never once said, or even slightly suggested that gay/trans people should be taxed differently than straight people.

Good god, have some fucking perspective.

 

i am not interpreting and assessing the silliness of your previous post to be a direct attack on trans people. you are the one misinterpreting that. i am simply pointing out that what you posted is really stupid because it is akin to posting "hey, i have the opinion that the concept of marriage and the tax code are antiquated and wrong and, despite acknowledging that the united states does not currently agree with my opinion and that there are practical implications of day-to-day life that are tied up in those status determinations and how impactful it may be to other peoples' lives that are being discriminated against, you should just get over it because in my fucking idiotic fantasy land in which the world works according to king dixonhur, it would hypothetically not matter because there would be no administrative or governmental implications to marriage (which i, dixonhur, acknowledge is not the reality in which we live) and love conquers all."

instead of constantly painting yourself as a victim on this board while pretending to espouse fourth grader libertarian bullshit, think about what the people that are responding to you are saying.

"hey, my legally issued passport is now invalid because it has an x gender denomination so my trip to french polynesia to have copious amounts of group sex with french models is now not happening."

dixonhur: "well in my world, you would never need a passport so you should just get over it and get on with life."

Edited by sidis
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Wow, some of you folks are so myopic it's hard to comprehend.  Why do some on this board assume every post they don't agree with is an attack on gay and trans people.

I only stated that I think marriage is antiquated to point out why I haven't paid attention to the gay marriage issue.  Marriage was originally about pacts between families, tribes and nations.  Literally placing a member of their family into another to stave off war.  That is antiquated.  

Love does not require government approval.  What you are arguing about is the tax code ...which is also antiquated.

Did you know joint filing has only been a thing since 1948?  Some of you act like it's some God given right that's existed since the dawn of time.  Before that everyone, married or not, was taxed on an individual basis.  Joint filing was only enacted because married people were trying to cheat the system.  And because women started entering the workforce in greater numbers, it's been amended several times since then to try to keep women from being unfairly taxed.  This has nothing to do with being gay or straight.

And I've never once said, or even slightly suggested that gay/trans people should be taxed differently than straight people.

Good god, have some fucking perspective.

That's rich. You're the one conflating unlike things. This isn't about your belief about how government should work. We are criticizing your dismissal of a very real issue that very really affects a lot of people and prejudices their ability to exist in society as equals. That we may all want to live in a world where things were different is completely irrelevant to the question of how the current world--including its "antiquated" laws and rules--operates.

You have some fucking perspective and realize that you're whistling past the graveyard of rights that are being taken away from people RIGHT FUCKING NOW. So yeah, you're going to get some heat, deservedly so, because you have no fucking perspective yourself. Who the fuck cares that people couldn't file their taxes jointly 100 years ago? You can today if the government recognizes you as being married. If you don't believe it would be right to exclude LBGTQ people from that benefit then I don't understand what point you think you're making. 

See my previous post on sovereign citizenship bullshit. That's what you sound like right now. The rules apply to you and other people no matter what you think of the rules or how the world should operate. 

 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Not sure why you felt the need to attack my personal beliefs, but I appreciate you answering the question.

I just never felt like the government had a role in my personal life, or that my love needed to be codified by law.

Those ideas are based on the familiar contracts that formed the basis for the origin of marriage.  In most of the developed world today , marriage is based on lover, not arrangements between countries/families, so the legal contract is of little importance, IMO, which is what I mean by antiquated.

Goddamn hippie. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sidis said:

i am not interpreting and assessing the silliness of your previous post to be a direct attack on trans people. you are the one misinterpreting that. i am simply pointing out that what you posted is really stupid because it is akin to posting "hey, i have the opinion that the concept of marriage and the tax code are antiquated and wrong and, despite acknowledging that the united states does not currently agree with my opinion and that there are practical implications of day-to-day life that are tied up in those status determinations and how impactful it may be to other peoples' lives that are being discriminated against, you should just get over it because in my fucking idiotic fantasy land in which the world works according to king dixonhur, it would hypothetically not matter because there would be no administrative or governmental implications to marriage (which i, dixonhur, acknowledge is not the reality in which we live) and love conquers all."

instead of constantly painting yourself as a victim on this board while pretending to espouse fourth grader libertarian bullshit, think about what the people that are responding to you are saying.

"hey, my legally issued passport is now invalid because it has an x gender denomination so my trip to french polynesia to have copious amounts of group sex with french models is now not happening."

dixonhur: "well in my world, you would never need a passport so you should just get over it and get on with life."

Oh, ok, so opinions are only correct if the state agrees with them.  Gotcha. 

I think I need a break from the mental gymnastics of the CR.  Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sidis said:

i am not interpreting and assessing the silliness of your previous post to be a direct attack on trans people. you are the one misinterpreting that. i am simply pointing out that what you posted is really stupid because it is akin to posting "hey, i have the opinion that the concept of marriage and the tax code are antiquated and wrong and, despite acknowledging that the united states does not currently agree with my opinion and that there are practical implications of day-to-day life that are tied up in those status determinations and how impactful it may be to other peoples' lives that are being discriminated against, you should just get over it because in my fucking idiotic fantasy land in which the world works according to king dixonhur, it would hypothetically not matter because there would be no administrative or governmental implications to marriage (which i, dixonhur, acknowledge is not the reality in which we live) and love conquers all."

instead of constantly painting yourself as a victim on this board while pretending to espouse fourth grader libertarian bullshit, think about what the people that are responding to you are saying.

"hey, my legally issued passport is now invalid because it has an x gender denomination so my trip to french polynesia to have copious amounts of group sex with french models is now not happening."

dixonhur: "well in my world, you would never need a passport so you should just get over it and get on with life."

You know someone is irritated when they don't even stop to capitalize. Lulz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Oh, ok, so opinions are only correct if the state agrees with them.  Gotcha. 

I think I need a break from the mental gymnastics of the CR.  Goodbye.

Something as simple as needing a procedure but your significant other can't sign off on it because your union isn't recognized is a pretty big deal. Couldn't imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Oh, ok, so opinions are only correct if the state agrees with them.  Gotcha. 

I think I need a break from the mental gymnastics of the CR.  Goodbye.

Good god, what opinion do you think you're expressing? Read my posts. Right now, your opinion appears to be that because you don't like the law, it doesn't matter or affect anyone. That is a stupid opinion. If otherwise, you're going to need to clarify. Your shit doesn't make sense. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i mean he didn't even really get negged. we're doing better, my fellow cabalians! 👍

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

haha no but really... there were no negs that i saw and he still couldn't stick around? ok.

image.gif.df63656a17e0c1cae9d5bfa2939cc535.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...