The Gay Thread - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-20-2014, 11:27 AM   #91
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 06:10 PM
I dunno, his reasoning sounds pretty airtight to me. Ever since gays have started legally marrying, I've begun thinking that I, a happily married heterosexual man with no sexual interest in other men, could totally go for a gay fling!






It's almost as if Regnerus wasn't satisfied with others discrediting his work and wanted to start contributing to that cause himself.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 12:44 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
speaking of slippery slopes, look out ladies!
If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere -- and not a few husbands -- to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship. Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men's sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and in the American imagination." - Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus, speaking at Franciscan University.



yeah, that's the same researcher who did that junk study about gay parents.
Yeah. Because God knows women have never wanted multiple partners while retaining a primary relationship. That is strictly a male pursuit. :eyeroll: And of course mere discussion of greater openness would be pure tragedy.
__________________

__________________
jeevey is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 02:57 PM   #93
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,714
Local Time: 04:10 PM
That is one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever heard.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:07 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 08:10 PM
Quote:
"If gay marriage is perceived as legitimate by heterosexual women, it will eventually embolden boyfriends everywhere -- and not a few husbands -- to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed: sexual novelty in the form of permission to stray without jeopardizing their primary relationship. Discussion of openness in sexual partners in straight marriages will become more common, just as the practice of heterosexual anal sex got a big boost from the normalization of gay men's sexual behavior in both contemporary porn and in the American imagination." - Discredited researcher Mark Regnerus, speaking at Franciscan University.


Gosh, there must be something wrong with me. With all the gay weddings and lesbian chic going on, I have yet to switch teams. Guess homosexuality isn't all that contagious after all.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:36 PM   #95
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
That is one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever heard.
So you're telling me you don't think gay marriage will lead to heterosexuals having homosexual affairs for fun?

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:41 PM   #96
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,714
Local Time: 04:10 PM
Just call me Krazy Kori!
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:47 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:10 PM
here's another thing.

we keep hearing that if we allow SSM, what's to stop polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, incest, etc.

setting aside the insulting comparison to actual crimes -- incest, bestiality -- let's take a look at polygamy or polyamory via this interesting article on Atlantic Monthly.

Quote:
Up for Polyamory? Creating Alternatives to Marriage
How one lawyer helps those, like her, in non-traditional relationships
ROC MORINFEB 19 2014, 11:02 AM ET

“When I was a child,” Diana Adams began, “I had a doll house and a rich fantasy life. I imagined that I was a cancer-curing surgeon, a world-class ballerina, and a TV show host all at the same time. I was also an amazing mom to all my dolls, but it was always a little mysterious about where they had come from and whether they all had the same father. A little neighbor boy once said to me, ‘I’ll be the daddy.’ I thought about that for a moment. I said, ‘No, you can be my gay lounge singer friend. That’s much more fun.’ I’ve always liked boys. I just like them better in groups.”

Over the years, the aspiring ballerina/surgeon/TV host shifted her focus to law. As a lawyer, Adams now runs a Brooklyn-based legal firm oriented toward providing traditional marriage rights to non-traditional families like the one she imagined as a kid. As an openly polyamorous woman, Diana lives inside a version of that doll house today. Along with her primary partner Ed, she is currently romantically involved with several other men and women.

I sat down recently with the 35-year-old to discuss her life and career.

Why does polyamory work for you?

I remember from a very young age realizing that I was bisexual, and that I tended to be attracted to many different people at the same time. I really think that polyamory for me is an orientation, like being heterosexual or homosexual. Humans in general have a hard time with monogamy. That’s always been the case. We used to have a sense that it was acceptable for husbands to go out and have other lovers, but with the shift to egalitarianism, rather than to say that woman could do that too, we’ve gone in the other direction.

What are the consequences of that, do you think?

I think it's interesting to see the way that when people get into a monogamous couple dynamic, they often have to neuter their sexual desires. As the initial intensity of a relationship shifts to feelings of long-term love, you can end up in a sexless marriage, and I think that’s a huge contributor to infidelity and the breakup of a lot of families. We put so much emphasis on a partner being everything—that this person completes you—and when that doesn’t happen it creates a lot of pressure. I don't think that open relationships are for everyone but it's something that you should no longer feel ashamed to talk about at a time when so many marriages are failing.

What do your other lovers give you that your primary partner can’t?

Well, for example, with my female partners, I feel a different kind of power dynamic. I feel a protective impulse toward women I’m involved with. It's a different kind of love feeling. My partner Ed is a wonderful feminist man, though sometimes I’d really like to be out on a date with the kind of man who wants to open car doors for me and treat me like a princess. I don't want that all the time, but I might want that once a month.

How do your different lovers get along with one another?

They’re really good friends. The men even have a name for themselves. They call themselves “The Man Harem.” Sometimes they’ll play with that. They’ll all show up in matching clothes – wearing all pinstripes, or all red shirts, for example. They’re friends and they help each other. For instance, I just had my birthday and my partner Ed is off doing amazing work as a scientist. As a consolation, my long-term boyfriend is staying in the house for the week. So, rather than my boyfriend saying, “Wow why's your partner going out of town when it's your birthday?” he’s asking if my partner is okay having to be away for so long, if he needs support. And my partner is saying, “Thanks for taking care of Diana since I can’t be there.” There’s a real feeling of compersion. Compersion is the opposite of jealousy.

What role does jealousy play in your relationships?

Jealousy is an emotion that we treat in a really blunt way. We often say somebody’s jealous and then that's an excuse for all sorts of bad behavior: throwing a drink in someone's face, or storming out, or manslaughter. In manslaughter, it's basically a defense: “I walked in on my wife having sex with another man and I killed them.” We treat jealousy almost with this reverence, but we don’t unpack what’s behind it. Let’s get more specific. There are different versions of jealousy. One version might be a feeling of scarcity. Another can be insecurity. The way that I discover what version I’m dealing with is that I ask myself, “How old do I feel right now?” And when I'm insecure, I'm feeling like I'm 13.

How do you deal with those emotions?

We talk a lot. We check in with each other, “Is this okay with you?” and the answer can be, “I don't know.” For instance maybe Ed and I are going to a party together and this guy that I've been dating is at the party too. “Will it feel okay with you if I go over and kiss him?” Polyamory will find your buttons and it will push them. If you don't want to have that kind of challenge, it's not the right lifestyle for you. But, if you're up for it, polyamory can be the catalyst for powerful personal growth.

How does your family view your lifestyle?

Well, I come from a very religious household. I mean my dad is a fundamentalist deacon, so it was hard at first. But, basically my parents have been incredibly supportive. I think that's because they get to see me having wonderful love in my life and getting a lot of support.

Can you give an example?

Well, a while ago my dad had a massive heart attack and two of the men in my life came together to be with my family at the hospital. They’re both scientists, so they understood what was going on with his body and were able to explain everything that was happening. Both of them had busy jobs, so they actually coordinated with each other so that one of them was there at all times.

My family was just completely awestruck, “Wow, not just one smart, compassionate, great boyfriend, but two.” I think that if they learned about it in another way, they might've thought I was being sexually exploited, but obviously I wasn’t. It was clearly something that was really nurturing.

How are you using the law to empower non-traditional relationships like yours?

Our laws are about 20 years behind what families actually look like. I'm working to create alternatives to marriage, because I think that if we could choose marriage affirmatively instead of it being a default, it would make relationships stronger. Marriage is an incredibly intense contract. It's a legal-financial contract that you're making, declaring that you're going to be the other person's social welfare state and safety net if they screw up. I mean, you’re signing the most important document you’ll sign in your life and people read it less carefully than a cell phone contract. People have no idea what they’re actually committing to and are horrified a lot of times when they find out.

What kinds of alternatives to marriage are available?

There are different options. Domestic partnership, for example, has tremendous possibility to create a more expansive version of what a relationship can look like. Domestic partnership was originally created as an alternative for gay couples who couldn’t legally get married. But then, all these surprising things started happening where these other kinds of people started using it for their own purposes. For instance, many elderly widow friends have entered into platonic domestic partnerships. It’s a situation like the Golden Girls. These are friends saying, “I live with her, and we watch out for each other, and I want her to be the person I can share my health insurance with.”

How about in relationships with multiple partners like your own? Of the 1,200 or so rights and privileges provided by a traditional marriage contract, how many can you replicate?

I can't approximate all of them, however there are a lot of rights that we don't necessarily need. For example, if you’re buried in a government cemetery, you have the right to have your spouse buried next to you. Okay, how many people does that actually apply to? There’s the right not to testify against your spouse, but [for most people], that will probably never come up.

But, there are a lot of basic things like ensuring tax benefits, or making sure that your partner is not financially vulnerable, or if you want to be sure that you can visit your partner at the hospital, we can do a healthcare proxy. The girlfriend can get the healthcare proxy because the wife can come in automatically. We can create agreements in terms of school or the doctor's office for a third parent to a child. And, I actually think that these arrangements can be better, because people can be really clear about what they want to create. They’re not signing on to things they maybe don’t actually want.

What else can you do for polyamorous unions?

I’m helping one polyamorous triad right now set up an LLC so they can share their finances. We’re making them employees of their own three person corporation so that they can be covered under an employee health plan.

Can you secure parental rights for a third parent to a child?

There are a lot of things we can do with co-parenting. With the busy lives that we lead, I think that three adults per child is actually a great ratio. So many parents are overburdened. I work a lot with lesbian couples and sperm donors in a three-parent model. They’re basing their relationship around a child. That’s a model that many courts and policymakers can wrap their heads around better than a polyamorous triad. If one woman contributes an egg, the man contributes sperm, and the other woman acts as a gestational surrogate, then all three of them are biologically a parent. We can do a three-parent adoption.

It takes a village right?

Right! You know Ed and I joke sometimes that we need a wife, because I get home from work at 10 and he gets home from work at 12, and it would be really awesome if there was somebody else helping with some of the household chores and child-rearing type things. I say “wife” in a joking way. I think the gender of the person doesn't matter. But, it would be nice to have another person in the home. You know, we pay other people for help like that in America when there are other possible models that actually create an even more stable and interconnected society.

my reaction: hey, good for them. but how much of this seems at all realistic for most people? i can't see many people, gay or straight, having much interest in what this woman has described. i'm sure it's possible -- even preferable -- for some people, and good for them. they are adults and can live how they wish.

but to read through this and think that most people are interested or even capable of a legally recognized polyamorous relationship is just silly. it's hard enough for 2 people find each other and stay together. 3 or more has to be nearly impossible except for a few highly motivated individuals. i can't see this being mainstream.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 04:43 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:10 PM
I think polyamory probably also deserves its own thread. To me the humor in this is that it's presented by the conservative right as an ultimate evil, the thing to be terrified of. Like when the world hits absolute bottom, you'll know that this is the case because people are having sex with more than one person, with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. That's the worst possible ending of the story, really?
__________________
jeevey is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 05:58 PM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,355
Local Time: 07:10 PM
No. The worst possible ending is that everyone catches the gay and humans fail to reproduce.

Which I think is the best possible ending.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:30 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday evening to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

The legislation prompted a heated debate on the floor of the House, touching on issues such as the religious freedom, constitutional protections and civil rights.

Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. One lawmaker held up a sign that read "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in arguing what could happen if the law took effect, drawing a rebuke for violating rules that bar signs on the House floor.

Democrats also said there were a host of other scenarios not involving sexual orientations where someone could raise their religious beliefs as a discrimination defense.

The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

"We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.

All but three Republicans in the House backed Senate Bill 1062 Thursday evening. All three House Republicans who broke ranks said they had problems with the proposal, though none elaborated at length.

"I disagree with the bill," said Rep. Ethan Orr. "I think it's a bad bill."

The two others were Reps. Heather Carter and Kate Brophy McGee.

The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.

Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

The legislation comes also as an increasing number of conservative states grapple with ways to counter the increasing legality of gay marriage.

Arizona's voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008. It's one of 29 states with such prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Federal judges have recently struck down bans in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but those decisions are under appeal.

Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough called his proposal a First Amendment issue during the Senate debate.

"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians that will reverberate through the economy because businesses and tourists will avoid Arizona like they did after the passage SB1070 in 2010 that cracked down on immigration.

"This bill is about going after the rights of the LGBT community in Arizona," said Rep. Chad Campbell, the Democratic minority leader. "This is going to be horrible for our economy."

But Republicans said it was simply an added protection for the faithful in the state who disapprove of gay marriage and want to be able to reject participating.

"Please, I will accept you because you are a child of God, I love you because you are a child of God," said GOP Rep. Steve Montenegro. "But please don't ask me to go against my religious beliefs."

The bill is similar to a proposal last year brought by Yarbrough but vetoed by Brewer. That legislation also would have allowed people or religious groups to sue if they believed they might be subject to a government regulation that infringed on their religious rights. Yarbrough stripped a provision from the bill in hopes Brewer will embrace the new version.

Civil liberties and secular groups countered that Yarbrough and the Center for Arizona Policy had sought to minimize concerns that last year's bill had far-reaching and hidden implications. During the Senate debate Wednesday, Democrats said the bill could allow people to break nearly any law and cite religious freedom as a defense.

Yarbrough called those worries "unrealistic and unsupported hypotheticals" and said criminal laws will continue to be prosecuted by the courts.

Rep. Chad Campbell of Phoenix, the Democratic minority leader, said during debate that gays and lesbians across the country would get the message that they're not welcome in Arizona.

"We're telling them, 'We don't like you. We don't want you here. We're not going to protect you," he said.

But the House sponsor, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, said the bill had been blown out of proportion.

"We're making some tweaks here because of what's been going on in other states where people have been punished for their beliefs," Farnsworth said.

Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, also said the Democrats were making too much of the bill's effect.

"Sometimes people's rhetoric tends to inflame instead of explain," Biggs said. "And I would suggest if there is going to be a backlash because of 1062 ... it will because of the intemperate and inaccurate rhetoric."

Religious Freedom Bill Riles Gay Rights Supporters - ABC News


so where does this end? does a first responder or nurse or doctor get to refuse to help a gay couple because his religious beliefs tell him that the wages of sin are death and the gay person had been hit by a car because it was God's will and he can't interfere with God's will?

why do we need to invent special rights for religious people when religion is a choice? can't they just keep their religion to themselves and not flaunt it in the face of everyone else?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:39 PM   #101
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81,104
Local Time: 04:10 PM
What do you think about the scenario they brought up, though? The one in which a photographer was sued for not taking pictures at a same-sex marriage, because of his religious beliefs? Do you think he should have been able to be sued for that? To me, that's a situation I can understand.

But a grocery store shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to an individual, either, so I don't know how you determine these things.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:45 PM   #102
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,802
Local Time: 04:10 PM
Was the photographer hired and then didn't follow through once he found out what he was doing? I'd sue a guy for that. Otherwise, meh.

I'm not OK with this bill, in any scenario. It seems like opponents of increasing gay rights are ratcheting up the intolerance to cartoonish levels instead of seeking a helpful, diplomatic middle ground to ease us towards the inevitable. What a fucking waste of time.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:50 PM   #103
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
What do you think about the scenario they brought up, though? The one in which a photographer was sued for not taking pictures at a same-sex marriage, because of his religious beliefs? Do you think he should have been able to be sued for that? To me, that's a situation I can understand.

But a grocery store shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to an individual, either, so I don't know how you determine these things.


the photographer is, to me, murkier than the baker. the baker is baking a cake and then he never sees it again. it's a product, and you can't refuse service to people like it's some lunch counter in Mississippi and it's 1956 when we have anti-discrimination laws (not all states do).

but the photographer does seem a much more active participant in that they're organizing and staging photos, etc. so, i don't know.

as i said in the other thread, we were turned down by one potential venue. it really does feel shitty, but there were other venues falling all over themselves to take our business so i'd rather spend my money there.

the worry, though, is that a blanket law like this could be used to justify all sorts of terrible behavior, and like marriage amendments, have no actual purpose other than targeting a specific group of people for discrimination out of animus as a way to scare up votes from a particularly old and paranoid section of the population.

in the end, it's stupid and bad business, as the AZ Republic points out:

Quote:
Gov. Jan Brewer’s pen is a powerful economic-development tool.

She should use it to veto legislation that would allow businesses to refuse service to gays and lesbians on religious grounds.

Doing so would further what Brewer calls “ongoing work to make Arizona the best state in the country for high-tech companies to do business.”

Brewer voiced that optimistic hope for Arizona’s high-tech future in response to news that Google is considering building a superfast fiber-optic network in Phoenix, Tempe and Scottsdale.

Business advocates tout Arizona’s potential to lure companies from Silicon Valley to relocate here.

It’s a worthy goal.

Legislation passed in the state House and Senate undermines those aspirations.

Twin bills, SB 1062 and HB 2153, are promoted by socially conservative groups that oppose gay marriage. The proposed law is so poorly crafted it could allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse service to a woman traveling alone.

Lawmakers opposed to this bill list a series of such scenarios.

The real target, however, is the gay and lesbian community.

Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough pushed his bill in response to a New Mexico Supreme Court decision against a photographer who refused to take a gay couple’s wedding pictures.

Dare we suggest that Arizona laws should respond to Arizona issues?

In the rush to prevent anticipated problems, this bill elevates the religious beliefs of some above the civil rights of others.

There has to be a better way to address the concerns of photographers who oppose gay marriage, especially in a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage.

Some people are uncomfortable about the cultural and legal changes that increasingly recognize gays and lesbians as equal and worthy human beings. Those individuals have a right to their opinions. They have a right to follow whatever faith they choose. But using religion as an excuse to codify discrimination is wrong.

What’s more, this legislation will severely damage Arizona’s brand. It is the antithesis of the openness and diversity prized by the high-tech industry.

Google, for example, was a leader in providing benefits to same-sex couples. Silicon Valley executives actively opposed California’s 2008 ban on same-sex marriage, which was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

Last year, Pew Research found that 70 percent of people born after 1980 support same-sex marriage.

Seventy percent.

High-tech companies need talented young workers, so they locate in places young people find attractive and welcoming.

Arizona should strive to be one of those places.

This bill is a do-it-yourself black eye that would tag Arizona as a champion of anachronistic views of sexual orientation.

That’s not just the wrong side of history; it’s the dumb side of economic development.

We urge the governor to veto this bill as part of her continuing message that Arizona is open for business.

Gov. Brewer, veto these religious-freedom bills
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:51 PM   #104
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 06:10 PM
Quote:
Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.
Wow. Apparently they have no problem with heavy handed actions from the legislature though, as long as the heavy-handed actions are against gays.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:52 PM   #105
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LemonMelon View Post
Was the photographer hired and then didn't follow through once he found out what he was doing? I'd sue a guy for that. Otherwise, meh.

agreed. we have someone in mind and we told him up front it's for an SSM, and he was all like, "cool beans, brah."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com