goose491

Hmmm, sounds like phun... if it's a "scared straight" type of movie you're looking for. Requiem for a Dream was pretty shaking too. Now, my attachment shows a real kids movie My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

It could have been even more gay, I could have quoted send in the clowns. Yeah, that would have been about as straight as a bent nail. lol Hey, what about freestyle??? I think it's dope and all but, I don't know, each time I see a guy in those leotard-looking pants... hmmm. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Trunuf!! I've only recently made the switch to Girlfriend NT. Supposed to have little to no effect on the skydiving operating system. Over time however, I hear the NT, or "No Twadle" system, picks up minor bugs and errors and it won't be long before it conflicts with the skydiving 98 I've been using. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

That's because you are the wind beneath my wings. Seriously dude, that's pretty gay. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Really? What a queer response. hehe I have to say style and acc... just because of the pointy-heeled-shoes lol. Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I'm sorry to hear it man. Joy wouldn't feel so great, if it wasn't for pain mind you. And if you need a stranger to PM... feel free to send to Goose. Don't even worry about it.... Reaching out is always good for the soul

6 hours? Hubba hubba! And you still thought of other items to put on the pole... that's what I find impressive Nick Edited for spelling. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

by must i meant according to the rules not that its a physical impossability. Aviation regulations state that if you (pilot or passenger) are between 10,000ft and 13,000ft for over half an hour, you need oxygen... but if you'er above 13,000ft for any duration, you need oxygen. Now, we go regularily to 13,500ft... and no one wears... no big deal though. Friends of mine have reported feeling 'silly' and 'really good' at 18k in the plane without O2... I'm sure it's different for each person but 16k under canopy, and I'd be real careful coming in to land. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Congrats bud! The spanish Shark eh? Nice! Have fun with that My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Looking sharp there bud! Your thread inspired me to change mine... Everybody look at MY new avatar!!! Okay, I've stolen the attention for long enough... back to comments about the zoot soot My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Beautiful Pics Viking! Nice how you tied it to the poem, got some real creativity in ya! Blues My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Perhaps they are fixing some internet problems I was experiencing earlier on in the week? They said they'd have to send me a new patch but gave me LAN settings to enter manually. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Right, that's what I figured. I noticed it this morning on my work computer and was wondering if someone was checking up on me... HELO! to anyone that might be Perhaps I should logg off DZ.com for now. Thanks all

Helo all, Any computer super-savies out there that can tell me what this little Icon is on my Taskbar today? Remote Control Host... Does that mean someone else could be logged onto my work computer? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Naw, some girl fell off the back of one. She was just climbing on and once she stood up, her boyfriend gunned it as a joke to make her fall off. Well she fell flat backwards and pretty much croched the jet... I hear it blew some real internal damage. Is that a real warning label? I mean the warning is valid!... I just can't hardly beleive they'd actually put the words 'rectum and vagina' on there. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Hey! You never answered! Where did you find those? Looking to buy a pair for my honney

Are we talking about advances in technology? I was thinking about that too... Like in "Jr." with Arny? I hated that movie! lol My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

There's only ever one first. There was one who set the precedent.... not one and only one gay, married couple! sheesh! I don't see the big deal either.. but if it's about rights, then fight for additional rights as a common-law couple. There are already too many marriages anyway, YES the marriage was created by the church, YES it was adopted by the government. So how is it that the government can just CHANGE the definition? True that not all marriages are performed in the church anymore... does that negate the fact the "the wedding" originates from a religious ceremony? Does it change what it's all about? Apparently so. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

to your definition, maybe not. To the Supreme Court of Canada, it is. I personnaly dont see the big deal... NO, there was one gay couple married in Ontario, where this may have set some sort of president, it has not changed the definiton of a regcognisable marrige. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I think you misunderstood. It's not that you have to be a parent in a perfect world... It's perfectly fine if you don't want kids... but in a perfect world, you wouldn't get pregnant if you diddn't want to... then you wouldn't have to give the kid up because you don't want to have it.... Then there wouldn't be a kid born, whose folks don't "give a shit to have kids" BUT went and had one anyway by acident. See what I'm getting at? In "perfect world" adoption would not exist... and thusly, a gay couple would not have this option. Hey, that's the case, tell the kid whatever it is you want to tell them (you don't necesarily have to scare them for life lol). But that is the case. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Oh I know it Remmy, and like I said, there are subtle differences. Thought some may still beleive there are some issues to iron out from one province to the next, I think, for the most part, what we've got set up now is pretty fair. All I'm pointing out here is that in Canada, if you are common-law, you are treated pretty much the same as being married with a few minor differences here and there. Wether gay or hetero, a couple are common-law spouses and are entitled to all the benefits of a common-law marriage if: "they have co-habited for a period of no-less than 3 years... or, if they have a child and are in a relationship of some permanance." If anything, the gay community should be looking into making certain changes to the rights of common-law couples if they feel they are not being treated fairly. IMHO, they should not be fighting for the right to be officially married because a gay marriage is not a marriage... I'm not being mean, unfair or anything, it's just that a marriage is between a man and a woman. If you have to change the definition of what a marriage is, then why do you want it so bad? If the answer is because there are certain rights a married couple get that common-law couples don't (money talks), then look at expanding your rights, not switching groups. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Ooh! Thanks for quoting that, Remi! I missed that. That statement is completely untrue! This girl Jenny had a common law marriage in Indiana. hehehe, read where the quote came from... It ended with "In Canada." There are subtle differences yes, but for the most part, here in Canada, a common-law marriage is treated pretty much the same as a real one. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Aggie I don't think he's knocking the concept of adoption... These children have no life ahead of them until someone else, whos looking to provide them one, steps in and that's great for all parties involved... But what he is saying holds some validity and that's that a gay couple may be able to raise a child... but they would not be able to in a perfect world (perfect world being one where every parent is willing and able to raise their own children) Well, I suppose they still could go the in-vitro route, or serrogate (sp?) mother route but same thing applies, it puts a kink in the lineage doesn't it? In the family tree? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Bwahaahaaaa! That killed me mama! My $0.02: Though I support the idea that all should have the same rights, I also stand fast to the idea that a marriage is between a man and a woman... a man and a woman... a man and a woman. So needless to say, I am anti-same-sex-marriage. I don't know what it's like exactly in the states, but here in Canada, common-law marriages have every same benefit as any other marriage... and same-sex partners can be common-law so it's a moot point. The gays in Ontario are fighting for the right to be officially married which brings me back to "a marriage is between a man and a woman, a man and a woman... a man and a woman!" hehe. Don't really know if this is what you were getting at... monogamy? Hmmm, straight up, if your in a serious relationship, you should be faithful. Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Not the hottest of the hot... but here's me and my Sammy My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!