Now have some guts and answer this

[Strikest]

Let's get back on topic here guys.

I'm straight but I have kissed a guy before. Well, more than that. I did enjoy it, but not because it was another guy. I think it was more so the psychological aspect of dominating another male. You can also be rougher with a man than you can with a woman, because I just find their femininity makes them appear more fragile.

 

[Gilles]

Of course it's good that he's happy but without religion he would be much happier.

On what grounds? Non-religious people are happier?

I, as a Christian, Roman Catholic have no problem with gays.

As in you are all for gay marriage; or you accept them and love them? There's a difference between loving someone and agreeing with them.

Clicky

Using giant words doesn't make your argument stronger.

As I just said, love and agreement are totally different things. I can love you and not allow you to kill another person. Why can't I love you and not allow you to marry someone of the same sex?

 

[Adaethus]

On what grounds? Non-religious people are happier?

That's not what I was saying. His religious beliefs telling him that gay sex is sin is detrimental to his happiness and he's missing quite an important part of a person's life.

Using giant words doesn't make your argument stronger.

As I just said, love and agreement are totally different things. I can love you and not allow you to kill another person. Why can't I love you and not allow you to marry someone of the same sex?

How are there giant words in that? lol

I don't see how gay marriage would take away anything from anyone else's marriage. It's like denying someone from eating cake because you're on a diet.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Also, I think Pharoah_ mentioned something about the bible's morals being incompatible with modern values? I would highly beg to differ.

No problem with disagreement, but when you present no counter-argument, it just makes you a person who mindlessly disagrees. From your next paragraph you only say that you are fine with gays (which is good, kudos to you), but it doesn't really answer to why you think Bible's morals are still compatible with modern values. Unless you want us to infer that you follow Bible on a letter-by-letter basis.

Paranoid because of what? That gay people will overpower and rape me?

I am starting to think that you are getting really defensive and your arguments are thus becoming tenuous and infantile. People experience raping in random occasions, as well as prison and army, but self-proclaimed gay people will be the threat to you, who are more sensitive than silk. If you in fact live in such a country, no one would do that to you (unless you actually think that you belong in the most-wanted list). Don't magnify your stereotypes and make their victims look like a threat (and that's advice, not an actual order).

 

[Zombie]

I was being sarcastic, Pharaoh. I exactly intended to point out that no such thing will happen to me.

Either I phrased it wrong or you misunderstood me.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I was being sarcastic, Pharaoh. I exactly intended to point out that no such thing will happen to me.

Either I phrased it wrong or you misunderstood me.

It was within the context of people already getting your potential jobs in media (which I am sure it's not a career you will ever pursue), so why exactly should I take it as sarcasm? ;p

 

[Zombie]

Because I'm not afraid of coming under physical harm by gay people, more so their appearance as a "trend" in entertainment and fashion, as well as the expansion they have in pretty much every art-related area.

I like art.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Because I'm not afraid of coming under physical harm by gay people, more so their appearance as a "trend" in entertainment and fashion, as well as the expansion they have in pretty much every art-related area.

I like art.

I'm sorry, call this stereotype of my own, but conservatism and art don't bridge - in any way.

 

[Zombie]

It's a matter of taste, actually.

While I'm not a fan of "conservative art" either, it's still better than gay art.

I don't like bearded women representing Europe.

 

[Pharaoh_]

It's a matter of taste, actually.

While I'm not a fan of "conservative art" either, it's still better than gay art.

I don't like bearded women representing Europe.

Define gay art. Bearded women is not art to my eyes - it's an expression. I don't like that either by the way, it's a mixed signal. At the same time, I realize it's something new to me and I know how people react to something different: they avoid/judge/curse it. So, since I know why I don't like it, I don't proceed with any of the former acts.

 

[Solu9]

It's such a grey area. Because where should the line of tolerance be drawn?
If it's where the law says so, then in some countries being gay is a crime and the line is drawn there. Regardless of genetic.
What about animals? (not drawing parallels).
If it's allowed to have sex with animals in a country by law are you intolerant if you are disgusted by it?

 

[Pharaoh_]

It's such a grey area. Because where should the line of tolerance be drawn?
If it's where the law says so, then in some countries being gay is a crime and the line is drawn there. Regardless of genetic.
What about animals? (not drawing parallels).
If it's allowed to have sex with animals in a country by law are you intolerant if you are disgusted by it?

Laws are created by humans and are conventional, thus, they are subject to stereotypes and social stigmas that overrun their creators. In this scope, referring to them is not a solution or an argument. We've seen a lot of laws changing in favor of same-sex marriage.

 

[Solu9]

Laws are created by humans and are conventional, thus, they are subject to stereotypes and social stigmas that overrun their creators. In this scope, referring to them is not a solution or an argument. We've seen a lot of laws changing in favor of same-sex marriage.

Not my point.
Take the bearded woman. Now you say it's an expression, but it's also a transgender. Being a transgender is "allowed" by law, yet you do not like it. Does that make you intolerant (even though you would not stigmatise him/her).
Crossing to gays.
Are people intolerant because they don't like gays?

 

[Pharaoh_]

Not necessarily and I see your point. Discussing it is the first level of intolerance. Acting is the second.

 

[Footman16]

As in you are all for gay marriage; or you accept them and love them? There's a difference between loving someone and agreeing with them.

I am against gay marriage because my government, the UK Government, made it law which in turn forced those who didn't want to, have to perform gay marriages. I would've rathered that the Catholic Church welcomed gays into their community and made it their practice (along with every other religion) instead of having it shoved down their throats. Out of those two I believe the pope etc realising that the supposed passage in the bible about "man shall not lay with man" being a part of the cultural side as opposed to the spiritual side and accepting these people is the greater sign of progress and our humanity. That said I love gays as much as the rest of humanity.

In answer to you Pharoah, the bible is surprisingly up-to-date when it comes to modern values: love one another; don't rob one another; don't be jealous etc etc should be endorsed more in today's world than ever before as there is a distinct lack, in my opinion, of these kinds of values.

Also my favourite line in the bible - "Never trust a gossip for a gossip can never keep their mouth shut" - something which I think is true in at least my circumstance.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I don't like bearded women representing Europe.

WTF does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that you think something is wrong with woman who due to their genetic makeup produce too much male hormone and grow beards? Being straight is not enough for you now, you also want them to be genetically perfect

Most women who grow beards are perfectly straight, and often have many children. The beard is caused entirely by hormones which some times they are forced to take for medical reasons. Other times they are individuals who naturally produce too much of the hormone. Most cases can be treated by hormone creams and supplements restoring their bodies to more natural balances. Other times laser based cosmetic hair surgery can be used to permanently remove the facial hair allowing them to mask the underlying problem (which may or may not be solvable). Some times it turns out that the individual was technically a male (he has a Y chromosome) but due to some birth defect he was mislabelled as a female. In all cases this is beyond the control of the individual (with exception of women who take the hormones for body building).

I am against gay marriage because my government, the UK Government, made it law which in turn forced those who didn't want to, have to perform gay marriages. I would've rathered that the Catholic Church welcomed gays into their community and made it their practice (along with every other religion) instead of having it shoved down their throats.

We in the UK technically worship the Church of England, not Catholic (we do not believe in the Pope, although the values of the church are largely Catholic based). Seeing how this church was founded on divorces, it is only natural that Gay marriages should be allowed. God knows what took them so long in fact.

In answer to you Pharoah, the bible is surprisingly up-to-date when it comes to modern values:

It is also full of a lot of delusional drug crazed ramblings and also stuff which makes no sense in this day and age. Some core parts of it are good, but others like the creation of the world are total nonsense.

 

[Pharaoh_]

WTF does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that you think something is wrong with woman who due to their genetic makeup produce too much male hormone and grow beards? Being straight is not enough for you now, you also want them to be genetically perfect

Most women who grow beards are perfectly straight, and often have many children. The beard is caused entirely by hormones which some times they are forced to take for medical reasons. Other times they are individuals who naturally produce too much of the hormone. Most cases can be treated by hormone creams and supplements restoring their bodies to more natural balances. Other times laser based cosmetic hair surgery can be used to permanently remove the facial hair allowing them to mask the underlying problem (which may or may not be solvable). Some times it turns out that the individual was technically a male (he has a Y chromosome) but due to some birth defect he was mislabelled as a female. In all cases this is beyond the control of the individual (with exception of women who take the hormones for body building).

Some parts of the post make me think that you know what are we talking about, but some others don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchita_Wurst

In case you knew from the beginning, ignore this.

 

[Footman16]

We in the UK technically worship the Church of England, not Catholic (we do not believe in the Pope, although the values of the church are largely Catholic based). Seeing how this church was founded on divorces, it is only natural that Gay marriages should be allowed. God knows what took them so long in fact.

It is also full of a lot of delusional drug crazed ramblings and also stuff which makes no sense in this day and age. Some core parts of it are good, but others like the creation of the world are total nonsense.

Where? Show me the passages that are "drug crazed ramblings". Actually about the creation of the world if you ever read it, it sounds eerily like someone's interpretation of the Big Bang if you ever take physics to even standard grade or intermediate 2 as they're now calling it then you'll find they have a lot in common.

Also about the Church of England thing, the CoE was exempt from the gay marriage law, go figure.

Also we in the UK technically have multiple religions. As I being a uk citizen is quite aware of britain's religious status. My use of the Catholic Church was just a model but my point is that gay marriage should come from a world wide understanding of religious leaders as opposed to forceful law.

 

[Solu9]

Where? Show me the passages that are "drug crazed ramblings". Actually about the creation of the world if you ever read it, it sounds eerily like someone's interpretation of the Big Bang if you ever take physics to even standard grade or intermediate 2 as they're now calling it then you'll find they have a lot in common.

Ehm Adam and Eve being the first humans created by God.
Ramblings such as that.

 

[Footman16]

Storytelling is a great way to get a point across. Jesus used parables a lot why is the Adam and Eve story any different.

If you take the bible for face value and believe it, that's bad. If you take bible for face value and don't believe it, that's just as bad.

 

[Nuclear]

It's all a metaphor when it suits you, right? What a load of bullshit.

 

[Footman16]

It's all a metaphor when it suits you, right? What a load of bullshit.

That's nice and yes because when it suits me it also happens to make sense, so I think that's more than reasonable of me, in my opinion.

 

[Dr Super Good]

My use of the Catholic Church was just a model but my point is that gay marriage should come from a world wide understanding of religious leaders as opposed to forceful law.

Religion does not represent the will of the people. It instead empowers religious leaders with the ability to twist and deform potentially wise men's writings and philosophical ramblings for their own gain. There was a reason that during the Middle Ages the Pope was one of the most powerful people in the world who literally had life and death over countries. You can be sure the people did not vote him in (instead it is "divine intervention" that is meant to).

The parliament is meant to look after the people's best interests with its elected representatives. Whether or not it fulfils this job is another mater (both the Scottish parliament and EU have me asking this at the moment) but clearly it works in some cases. If it were left to religious leaders to decide on gay marriage we would not see it happening before the universe stops existing. Heck at the moment large numbers of Islamic leaders (mostly not in the UK although there are a few here) are teaching people to kill non Muslims and oppress Woman, let alone allow Gay marriage.

Some parts of the post make me think that you know what are we talking about, but some others don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchita_Wurst

I am having problems understanding what a drag queen has to do with anything? Does she suffer some strange genetic problem? Is she one of those people who have no clearly defined sex?

In case you have anything against men dressing up in women's cloths, they have been doing this for thousands of years. In Greek society it was forbidden for Women to act an as a result any female actor had to be portrayed by a man. Even the famous Globe Theatre of William Shakespeare had men dressing up as women, including all the complex dress designs of the time that took them a good part of an hour to put on.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Religion does not represent the will of the people. It instead empowers religious leaders with the ability to twist and deform potentially wise men's writings and philosophical ramblings for their own gain. There was a reason that during the Middle Ages the Pope was one of the most powerful people in the world who literally had life and death over countries. You can be sure the people did not vote him in (instead it is "divine intervention" that is meant to).

The parliament is meant to look after the people's best interests with its elected representatives. Whether or not it fulfils this job is another mater (both the Scottish parliament and EU have me asking this at the moment) but clearly it works in some cases. If it were left to religious leaders to decide on gay marriage we would not see it happening before the universe stops existing. Heck at the moment large numbers of Islamic leaders (mostly not in the UK although there are a few here) are teaching people to kill non Muslims and oppress Woman, let alone allow Gay marriage.


I am having problems understanding what a drag queen has to do with anything? Does she suffer some strange genetic problem? Is she one of those people who have no clearly defined sex?

In case you have anything against men dressing up in women's cloths, they have been doing this for thousands of years. In Greek society it was forbidden for Women to act an as a result any female actor had to be portrayed by a man. Even the famous Globe Theatre of William Shakespeare had men dressing up as women, including all the complex dress designs of the time that took them a good part of an hour to put on.

Whether I have a problem with men dressing up in women's clothes or not, who am I to judge. They can do whatever they want, I don't and I should not control it. It is however associated, since both gays and drag queens fall into the LGBT group.
I agree with you, so no need to reference facts. If you noticed my posts, you would know.
But, since you brought this up, I am Greek (maybe you purposely used the example), but it doesn't necessarily mean that my ancestors' practices are something I should agree with.

Moreover, supporting the fact that it was regular in ancient times would be convenient, to make a point, but previously I said how Bible (in my opinion) is not representative of today's values, so referring to ancient Greece is pretty much the same deal. I like to see how mindsets have evolved within time, but that's it. Obscure thinking was never part of me.

 

[Gilles]

That's not what I was saying. His religious beliefs telling him that gay sex is sin is detrimental to his happiness and he's missing quite an important part of a person's life.

Is it really all that important? What's so important about sex?

I don't see how gay marriage would take away anything from anyone else's marriage. It's like denying someone from eating cake because you're on a diet.

No it's not. If I said no one could get married because I don't want to, your analogy would work. As it stands it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ralle]

I would like to remind everyone that we have rules against sexual content. I have removed a few rule breaking posts, probably far from all. Please keep a civil tone.

 

[JamesxcX]

Yes guys please stay on topic!

 

[Death Adder]

It's all a metaphor when it suits you, right? What a load of bullshit.

That's nice and yes because when it suits me it also happens to make sense, so I think that's more than reasonable of me, in my opinion.

Well each person perceive things differently thus everything, or close to, is naturally subject to change as each person would have different values. Nothing is of importance unless you decide it is.

Also as there is no way to make others to perceive as you do, that I know of, the idea of having an argument is flawed to begin with. You can't make someone believe as you do, only make them believe that they do.

Is it really all that important? What's so important about sex?

Here would be an example of this, somebody values sex while another most likely does not.

 

[Adaethus]

Is it really all that important? What's so important about sex?

Most people do value it, to different extents of course. I wouldn't be surprised if giving up sex cost him a lot emotionally.

-----

Are there any legitimate reasons to not have gay marriage anyway?

Legalizing gay marriage would promote non-discrimination, improve the psychological and physical well being of LGBT people, truly promote freedom of religion, legitimize LGBT families and increase business opportunities.

So far the only reasons against it are "it goes against my religion", "it's always been like this", "it denies a child a father/mother" and "it imposes a homosexual lifestyle" or something along those lines. (not trying to point at you specifically here)

Either way it seems that debating it here is a waste of time considering it's bound to be legalized - at least in the western world - sooner rather than later.

 

[Gilles]

Most people do value it, to different extents of course. I wouldn't be surprised if giving up sex cost him a lot emotionally.

You didn't answer the question.

missing quite an important part of a person's life.

What's important about it?

Most people value it

See what I mean? I can already assume you put value to sex since you said it's an important part of life. Telling me it's valuable doesn't offer new information or answer the question. This is a fallacy called "begging the question."

Are there any legitimate reasons to not have gay marriage anyway?

You use the phrase "legitimate reasons". Could you consider a reason that you disagree with to be a legitimate one?

Either way it seems that debating it here is a waste of time considering it's bound to be legalized

I enjoy exercising my critical thinking, so no it's not pointless. If we intend to
A) Change each others minds
B) Change a law
then no, there is no point. Debating online is futile if your goal is to "win". To explore what you believe and come to understand philosophy and life, then it's not the worst place to do so.

Also I just pointed out a fallacy you committed (no worries, we all do it), and hopefully people can learn from that.

 

[Callahan]

Legalizing gay marriage would promote non-discrimination, improve the psychological and physical well being of LGBT people, truly promote freedom of religion, legitimize LGBT families and increase business opportunities.

No it won't do any of that.
Re-read your sentence.It sounds like an unsubtle propaganda slogan.

 

[Solu9]

No it won't do any of that.
Re-read your sentence.It sounds like an unsubtle propaganda slogan.

Perhaps you should elaborate on that.
Saying "no it won't" and deeming it propaganda are not arguments in themselves.

 

[Callahan]

Perhaps you should elaborate on that.
Saying "no it won't" and deeming it propaganda are not arguments in themselves.

I thought it wasn't necessary to explain how gay marriage won't cure cancer or make you rich.It's just legislation nothing more.

 

[Solu9]

I thought it wasn't necessary to explain how gay marriage won't cure cancer or make you rich.It's just legislation nothing more.

Blowing his arguments up to ridiculous proportions is also not good rhetorics.
What he said was very reasonable arguments to why gay marriages should be made legal.
You still have not said anything that can counter this other than ridicule his arguments.

 

[Callahan]

Blowing his arguments up to ridiculous proportions is also not good rhetorics.
What he said was very reasonable arguments to why gay marriages should be made legal.
You still have not said anything that can counter this other than ridicule his arguments.

Except it's not a matter of proportion but causality.
Gay marrirage won't cure common cold or pay my modest wage either.
And yes a valid counter argument often ridicule invalid argument.

Yet I'm still the only one producing intellectual thinking.A good interlocutor would have provided proof at how gay marriage can improve health and economy (and "true freedom of religion"wtf?) by now.

 

[Solu9]

Except it's not a matter of proportion but causality.
Gay marrirage won't cure common cold or pay my modest wage either.
And yes a valid counter argument often ridicule invalid argument.

Yet still you escape to give any definite answers to why he is wrong.
You are still not offering a rebuttal but merely states what gay marriages obviously can't or won't do. Neither of which not legalizing gay marriages will handle in any case either.
You have not stated why he is wrong. Just jumped to the conclusion that he is.

 

[Callahan]

Yet still you escape to give any definite answers to why he is wrong.
You are still not offering a rebuttal but merely states what gay marriages obviously can't or won't do. Neither of which not legalizing gay marriages will handle in any case either.
You have not stated why he is wrong. Just jumped to the conclusion that he is.

Yes I just did it twice.Gay marriage legislation has no causality on economy or health care.That's a definite answer just like my two last post.
And I said legalizing it won't.
And I never said that not legalizing gay marriage will improve health and economy so I don't need to provide argument on statement I never said.
Or maybe I said it in your imagination?

kk I'm still the only one producing thinking.Now your turn give me an argument or counter argument why would gay marriage legislation improve health, economy and religion.Or just keep asking the same question one more time to prove me I'm right.

 

[GhostThruster]

there are little to no direct economic benefits to gay marriage. but gay marriage isn't an economic issue, it's a moral and social one. legalising gay marriage leads to increased societal acceptance. indirectly, various benefits to a nations economic growth (employment, GDP etc.) and development (one can simplify this as 'health'; this also leads to better foreign perceptions/relations) can arise.

so callahan, whilst i agree that whoever u were replying to didnt raise any good points (and u can argue i didn't specifically state a benefit, which is true. so if u do i will gladly list what i thought wud be some obvious points), that doesnt mean ur producing intellectual thought. overt rationalism is in no way intellectual because it ignores humanity's metaphysical components.

 

[Solu9]

Yes I just did it twice.Gay marriage legislation has no causality on economy or health care.That's a definite answer just like my two last post.
And I said legalizing it won't.
And I never said that not legalizing gay marriage will improve health and economy so I don't need to provide argument on statement I never said.
Or maybe I said it in your imagination?

Why bring up such nonsense about curing cancer then. What's the point other than to ridicule? He never stated it could did he now. What he said was, again, very reasonable points to what legalizing gay marriage potentially could improve (granted the economy part I can't really eye).

kk I'm still the only one producing thinking.Now your turn give me an argument or counter argument why would gay marriage legislation improve health, economy and religion.Or just keep asking the same question one more time to prove me I'm right.

Again bad rhetorics. You sound like a politician.
By stating that you are the only one producing thinking you are at the same time saying I'm not. Thereby trying to lower my etos and making arguments made by me before, and in the future, count for less than yours.
Another example is: "as we all know" but that is beside the point.
It has no place in a debate.

Furthermore. I am not going to defend Doomlord's arguments. That battle must be on his account. I simply can't stand when people, in this case you, don't know how to debate in an orderly fashion without trying to degrade your "opponent" in the process.

Edit:
This thread has seriously stirred up some feelings.

 

[Death Adder]

You guys must be real bored to keep this up 6am, talk about beating a dead horse.

 

[Solu9]

You guys must be real bored to keep this up 6am, talk about beating a dead horse.

The conversation kinda strafed off didn't it ^^

 

[Death Adder]

The conversation kinda strafed off didn't it ^^

You do what you can to keep yourself entertained, atleast I do, but I'd rather be playing some gamez. Too bad they're all just money grabs these days

 

[Callahan]

there are little to no direct economic benefits to gay marriage. but gay marriage isn't an economic issue, it's a moral and social one. legalising gay marriage leads to increased societal acceptance. indirectly, various benefits to a nations economic growth (employment, GDP etc.) and development (one can simplify this as 'health'; this also leads to better foreign perceptions/relations) can arise.

so callahan, whilst i agree that whoever u were replying to didnt raise any good points (and u can argue i didn't specifically state a benefit, which is true. so if u do i will gladly list what i thought wud be some obvious points), that doesnt mean ur producing intellectual thought. overt rationalism is in no way intellectual because it ignores humanity's metaphysical components.

Can't help but be over rational when stating fact.You know fact > "humanity metaphysical compenent" when it comes to prove a point.Providing fact require cognitive capacity and analysing skill.It's intellectual enought to me.
Gay people can already get a job.They were not required to state their sexual orientation in job interview.Over rational?
Legalising gay marriage won't increase societal acceptance.People who didn't agree with it still doesn't agree with it and won't agree with their governemant for legalizing it.Over rartional?
And why should societal acceptance be automaticaly a good thing?What about societal acceptance of murder and pedophilia?More like social decadence.It's not because it improve social acceptance of something that it's good.
Why Gay marriage will improve GDP?It will excavate more ressources out of the gay dimension?
Pro LGBT governement sure as hell won't improve foreign relation with Russia.So it's invalid arguement to say it will automatically improve foreign relations and can only cause foreign relation improvement.Maybe they legalized gay marriage to improve relation with someone in particular.Then it's a purpose not a result.

If you insist on making up arbitrary causality between two unrelevant thing I could say gay genocide will improve economy because death care industry.Is it valid?

Also did you know that the whole LGBT lobby was originaly a failed attempt at legalizing pedophilia in 1950 from Kinsey institute?Guess they removed the P because people were not "open minded" enought.

 

[Callahan]

Furthermore. I am not going to defend Doomlord's arguments. That battle must be on his account. I simply can't stand when people, in this case you, don't know how to debate in an orderly fashion without trying to degrade your "opponent" in the process.

I wouldn't be able to degrade him if he didn't provide me the substance to do it.And by substance I mean stupid statement.
Just don't be stupid and I won't be able to belittle you.

 

[GhostWolf]

Oh look, a silly thread in Off Topic that shouldn't get any replies because it's silly, instead opened a flame war about <gays, religion, politics>. How very special.

The only amusing thing in this thread is its name and the fact that the OP didn't have the guts to speak for himself.

 

[Death Adder]

Since it's already derailed so far people take the liberty to say whatever, thinking it's going to get cleaned up or something?

 

[fladdermasken]

Oh look, a silly thread in Off Topic that shouldn't get any replies because it's silly

Honestly, when was the last time you saw a non-silly thread get a decent supply of valuable posts?

 

[Solu9]

Since it's already derailed so far people take the liberty to say whatever, thinking it's going to get cleaned up or something?

Topics like this always get derailed when people stand strongly on one side or the other, trying to convince they are right. Ultimately it leads no where, as usual, and we start to bring all sort of crap into play.

 

[GhostThruster]

i was going to write a long-ass post in reply to callahan, but i give up like the wise nuclear did much earlier. i must retire to my studies now.

on-topic: i went to a friend's place, and brought my xbox controller with me. when i left, i forgot the controller. the next day i asked if my friend cud return it to me. and the next. and the next. and for the next 6 months, i asked the lazy bastard. one day, he finally decided to return it to me. upon happily reuniting with my xbox controller, i kissed my friend on the cheek. he then told me to fuck off. closest gay experience i've ever had... (and it involved xbox)

 

[Callahan]

gg no re.