![]() |
![]() |
#461 | ||||||||||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
![]() I assume you voted in the presidential election - you just imposed your belief about who is the best candidate upon those who had sincere beliefs that another person was the best. I hope you vote in the in-between elections - every time you do, you impose your belief about what is best for society on someone who has the opposite belief. Put up a sound wall on a part of the freeway, yes or no? You vote; you impose your belief on some who believe differently. Allocate more funds to the local library, yes or no? You vote; you impose. Define marriage definitions so 3 people can get married, yes or no? You vote; you impose. Broaden the discussion of origins in public schools by mandating teachers teach about faults in the Darwinian theory and allow discussions of creationism/ID and what is and isn't scientific about it, yes or no? You vote; you impose. I honestly do not understand this objection, Count. Do you agree with what I said in the paragraphs above? Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Is it your belief that if two people have sincere beliefs, then the least restrictive one should be chosen? Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One person, one (hopefully) sincere and thoughtful vote, based on what each person thinks is best for the society in which they live. Very good post, Count - I just truly do not understand your "imposing" issue. Hopefully my comments will bring you over to how I see it! If not, perhaps you can try explaining it to me again. I really try to see and understand what you write ![]()
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! ![]() "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#462 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Rian - I'll come back to it in more detail, because I don't have very long right now. But here's my imposing issue, in brief:
Making a law that prevents someone from doing something OR, conversely, requires them TO do something is an imposition. There are justifications for impositions; harm is the primary one, if not the only one. But that is an imposition. If I make a law that allows something but does not require it, that is not an imposition. So if there is a law that says "a man and a woman may marry, and take on X responsibilities in return for Y rights" that is no imposition. But if it says that "two people of the same gender may NOT marry, etc., while a man and a woman may," that is preventing homosexual couples from doing what heterosexual couples do, and it would require a justification for the imposition. This is because I believe that individual freedom of action is paramount. To prevent someone from doing something or require them to do it limits that freedom of action and must therefore be justified. So while you feel you are not "imposing" because you are merely using your vote, which we all have, as you see fit, I see the law you are (hypothetically) voting for against gay marriage as an imposition, preventing gays from marrying, whereas the law I would be (hypothetically) voting for that allows gay marriage as no imposition, because it neither requires nor prevents. It is not you, individually, imposing on gay person X, individually, but you, the collective society, imposing on gays as a group by preventing them from doing what non-gays can. The obvious counter to this is the belief that gays can do the same thing - they have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as anyone else has. But marriage does not seem to be mostly about the gender differences* - it is about love, and sex, and companionship, and all those things... and for a gay couple, those are all there with someone of the same gender. *And note: as above, CHILDREN and MARRIAGE are different policy issues in this society. Regardless of my triple negative ![]() Gotta run.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
![]() |
![]() |
#463 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Count,
'This is because I believe that individual freedom of action is paramount. To prevent someone from doing something or require them to do it limits that freedom of action and must therefore be justified. ' It is justified by the society and history and vote. You just don't like the outcome. Do you favor speed limits? gun laws? ![]()
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
![]() |
![]() |
#464 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Speed limits and gun laws are designed to PROTECT individuals within our society from undue harm. Anti gay marriage laws are not of their ilk. There is no immanent danger of direct harm to innocents as there is when some reckless twit decides to drive 150 miles an hour down main street or when some thug decides to use an illegal gun in a robbery. The question of how does gay marriage harm people has been asked again and again without any useful response. Siting ‘tradition’ over and over tells us nothing about harm. Using the bible as ones source for justifying the harm of gay marriage is useless as well.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
![]() |
![]() |
#465 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Beg to differ, IR,
Here's the testimony in Boston regarding gayness and parenting and marriage. It's lengthy, but quite persuasive that there is a real difference between marriage and gay(temporary)partnering with children. http://voteonmarriage.org/leghearing.shtml#dawn
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
![]() |
![]() |
#466 | ||
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
Quote:
EVERYTHING that was said in that statement could have been said about one of any of tens of thousands of STRAIGHT households. There are countless cases of child abuse, neglect, mistreatment, abandonment, etc. Wanna a hazard a guess how many of them involved heterosexual parents?
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#467 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
IR,
I meant the whole of the testimony given before the Court, not just the one account. However, I am glad to see that you think that one account of something does not establish an absolute fact about the general state. Since the relatively few "monogamous" relationships engaged in by homosexual couples seldom last four years, and the anomalies of longer relationships are truly anomolous, you can't base a pattern of relationship on insignificant numbers of exemplars, right? The other testimony before the court is EXTENSIVELY documented from studies. That was the primary reference. Did you look around or just hone in on the "advantages of a a gay parent" as primary custodial parent in a normative gay lifestyle? And, to be sure, there are hetero-couples who treat kids badly, but that is not the normative behaviour of those couples en masse. That's the significant difference that real marriage makes versus civil partnership pretending to be what it is not and can never be. Heather may have two mommies and Sandy may have two daddies, but to be sure Heather and Sandy both ahve a mother and a father somewhere. What Heather and Sandy don't have are married parents.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
![]() |
![]() |
#468 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Inked - gun laws and speed limits have very nice, clear harm justifications. I'd rather not be shot or hit at 75 mph, wouldn't you?
A justification for an imposition is not "it has been around a long time" or even "we voted for it," unless "we" is unanimous. A justification for an imposition is something like "it is harmful to person X" or "person Y will be unable to do good thing Z because of it." I felt I made this very clear in my previous post.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 06-03-2006 at 01:41 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#469 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Count,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../03/ngay03.xml Gay equality law will undermine religious belief, claims bishop By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 03/06/2006) Hotels and bed and breakfasts could face prosecution for turning away homosexual couples under new government proposals to protect gays and lesbians from being denied "goods, facilities and services" because of their sexual orientation. The proposed regulations, which could also affect shops that refuse to offer wedding lists for same-sex couples, are being introduced after complaints of discrimination by the homosexuals. Lord Mackay of Clashfern The proposals were attacked yesterday by a former Lord Chancellor and a senior Church of England bishop, who warned that they would hit Christian businesses, charities and faith schools. The Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations, which are out for public consultation until Monday, will make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal in the same way as race or gender. They could affect schools that are accused of failing to deal with homophobic bullying as they would other bullying, or golf clubs that turn down applications for membership on the grounds that the applicants are gay. But Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said in a statement issued by the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship that the proposals could also undermine people's rights to exercise their religious beliefs. The fellowship said that while churches might be granted exemptions, the new legislation could have a detrimental impact on a wide range of religious individuals and organisations. For example, it claimed, teachers could fall foul of the law if they failed to promote events such as gay and lesbian month or did not give homosexuality equal prominence in lessons to heterosexuality. It also warned that, under the new regulations, it could become illegal for Christian conference and retreat centres to refuse bookings from gay and lesbian groups, or for Christian hostels to refuse beds to same-sex couples. Lord Mackay said: "For people of religious faith who believe that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, these proposals seem to me to carry a serious threat to their freedom in their voluntary and charitable work and in relation to earning their livelihood in a number of occupations." Bishop Nazir-Ali said several of the main faiths in Britain would have "serious difficulty" with the regulations. "They will certainly affect a great deal of charitable work done by the churches and others. It is the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers." Rupert Kaye, the chief executive of the Association of Christian Teachers, said: "Diverse individuals and organisations should be free to agree to disagree. They should not be required by law to show 'mutual respect' to individuals or organisations whose beliefs or lifestyle are anathema." Senior Muslims were also critical. Dr Majid Katme, the spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association, argued that the proposals demonstrated that the Government was prepared to discriminate against faith communities in order to promote "equality". "The right to hold deep faith convictions that affect the way people think and behave in every aspect of life is sacrificed in these regulations," he said. The proposals were broadly welcomed by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, which said it strongly agreed with the Government's aim to respect "the dignity and worth of each person". It said Christian groups that were calling for wholesale exemptions were attempting to sabotage the central purpose of the proposals ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Try this lengthy legal response about impositions due to alleged discrimination... Really long, really detailed, really practical stuff... http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=316 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It is really absurd to try to hold that it makes no difference to falsely establish gay couples relationships as marriage. The above make it very plain that it is the intent of <2% of the population to hold 98% in absolute bondage to their error by force of law. They don't want equality, they want control.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 06-03-2006 at 08:42 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#470 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
But no, it is far more important to preserve the right of belief-based groups to discriminate against gays than it is to establish the right of gays to not suffer such discrimination, clearly. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#471 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
It's not really about what Tom and Johan or Lilac and Rosebud do in the bedroom at all. It's about undermining society to promote an agenda to cravenly yield to </= 2% of the population at best.
The point is not equality. It's control. But if you think the tail should wag the dog, happy wagging. On the other hand, if you think the population should vote and the majority rule, happy complaining. Isn't this the "tails I win, heads you lose" argument. Name the benefits that accrue to society on the basis of the approval of gay "marriage". Name the destructive effects. Put them in the balance and weigh. Is it worth it? Or, is there a need for promoting social functioning that supercedes individual expression?
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
![]() |
![]() |
#472 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
No, it's equality. Where is the evidence of harm?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#473 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Quote:
Mandatory homosexual curriculum :http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html Highjacking Civil Rights http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/285fhdqe.asp The Netherlands and family http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QwZWNjYzkzYjg= It ain't the Bedroom at Disney World http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...02/199804.html ******* "• A Christian high school in Wildomar, Calif., is being sued for expelling two students on suspicion of being lesbian. The parents' suit claims that the school is a business under state civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. • Catholic Charities in Boston, where same-sex marriage is legal, recently shuttered its adoption agency rather than serve gay and lesbian couples in conflict with church teaching. The church's request for a religious waiver from state antidiscrimination rules has made no headway. • Christian clubs at several universities are fighting to maintain school recognition while restricting their leadership to those who conform to their beliefs on homosexuality. Meanwhile, the Christian Legal Society and similar groups are mounting a national effort to challenge antidiscrimination policies in court, claiming they end up discriminating against conservative Christians. "The fight over same-sex marriage - and two very different conceptions of the ordering of society - will be a knock-down, drag-out battle," predicts Marc Stern, a religious liberty attorney at the American Jewish Congress." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p13s01-lign.htm ********* limiting free speech: http://www.marriagedebate.com/2006/0...manonymous.htm ************ Three for you and you for Three..... Three's Tyranny? The legal and cultural issues of polygamy and polyamory are taken up in two very different magazines of late, the gay weekly The Advocate and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. While the Advocate is boldly open to legally recognized pseudo-polygamous unions as part of the new order, the Standard argues that the move toward polygamy and polyamory (in legal briefs and culturally in such developments as HBO's Big Love television broadcast) represents a threat not just to traditional marriage but to democracy itself. The Advocate considers how much visibility to give to polyamory in the marriage debate, given the ways in which the very mention of a more-than-two marriage seems to confirm all their opponents fears: “There is a feeling of not wanting to allow the right wing to change the subject from the question that is really being asked, which is, What reason does the government have for denying committed same-sex couples the legal commitment of marriage?” says Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, which seeks equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. “Because the Right doesn’t have the answer to that question, they are eager to change the subject.” While there are grassroots efforts by straight people to legalize polygamy, there has been no noteworthy effort by LGBT activists to bring polyamory into the fight for marriage equality. “We’ve been very involved in work for same-sex marriage rights,” says Chvany. “Even if we aren’t interested in using them ourselves, they are important to our community as a whole and to people we care about.” In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz writes: Far from offering a democratic solution to the problem of multipartner unions, egalitarian polyamory simply reveals another face of the polygamy dilemma. It is inherently difficult to keep multipartner unions together. The traditional solution is to rely on rules, clear lines of authority, the suppression of emotion, and a sense of obligation to kin. Collective solidarity is the material and spiritual payoff for all the sacrifice. Yet the polyamorists cultivate love, resist authority, dispense with organizational rules, and try to wish jealousy away. Once all the stability-inducing sacrifices have been dispensed with, impermanence is the inevitable result. Polyamory is a cover-all term for a bewildering variety of relationship forms--everything from open marriage, to bisexual triads, to a man with multiple women, to a woman with multiple men, to large sexual groups, and many more. The "rules" governing these arrangements are entirely flexible. There might be three "primary" partners who actually live together, and several additional "secondary" partners (collectively shared or not) to whom the three "primaries" are less committed. The levels of commitment, and the range of partnership and mutual involvement, are subject to continual change and renegotiation. Open and honest communication is the only rule. Polyamorists emphasize that multipartner unions take intense and constant work. Yet this need for a higher level of monitoring and negotiation only highlights the forces pushing against stability. The contrast between postmodern polyamory and the patriarchal polygamy of Muslim fundamentalists resembles the nineteenth-century duality of "free love" and Mormon polygamy. Mormon plural unions were authoritarian and relatively stable (although even in the nineteenth century they had very high divorce rates). The free love experiments nearly all collapsed after a few short months or years, although new experiments were generated continually for decades. That record of instability was repeated when the hippie communes of the 1960s and 70s fell apart. This might not matter were it not for the problem of children. Family stability is highly desirable for children. Not only would legally recognized polyamory be unstable, but the legitimization of polyamory would also be incompatible with one of our core reasons for giving marriage the backing of law at all: to reinforce monogamy as a cultural value. You can't send the message that marriage means fidelity when even a small portion of recognized marriages are polyamorous. The reliance of Western marriage systems on monogamous companionate love for stability is all but ignored by the advocates of polyamory, who have little or nothing to say about children. Over and above prevention of individual abuses, protection of the broader cultural ethos of monogamy is the reason both polygamy and polyamory must go unrecognized in America. Democratic culture depends on monogamous marriage. The alternatives are either too authoritarian to be adapted to our society or so hyper-individualist that they cannot perform the work of families. And recognition of either alternative would undermine the monogamy on which the stability of American marriage depends. http://merecomments.typepad.com/mere..._tyranny_.html Societal dissing for equality? ![]() ![]()
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 06-05-2006 at 05:12 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#474 | |||
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#475 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Because hating gays is more of an absolute than loving thy neighbour, clearly.
Funny how the god-botherers are all ant-relativism except when it doesn't suit their prejudices and/or impulses. |
![]() |
![]() |
#476 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#477 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Quote:
I find that the rhetoric turns to "hate-mongering" accusations anytime anyone suggests - with data, too - that the rosy world view that gay=homosexual is somehow not = gay in the sense of happy. But the realities are otherwise. That's not hate. It's fact. And I don't think society should suffer for the sake of <2% as it in fact suffers. But check out the links and let me know when you think specifically about the data.
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 Last edited by inked : 06-05-2006 at 09:25 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#478 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
OK inked, but I thought you had a good understanding of what constitutes data:
Link No 1: opinion, not data. The only data in there is your 2% gay / 70% religious. I don't claim to know how many gays there are, but I do know that around a million people regularly attend Anglican churches in the UK (pop: 60 million), which is far less than 70%. So, clear evidence of bias there. Link No 2: appears to be about education. No data as such, just some rant about not being able to opt out of the curricullum. The main complaint seems to be that teachers will have to talk about homosexuality positively. Again, not data, just op-ed. Link No 3: attacks the parallel between gay rights and civil rights movements, based on the premise that being gay is about "desires and preferences" not about immutable characteristics. So, not data, assertion. * sigh * Link No 4: tries to link gay marriage to "out-of-wedlock" birthrate, which shows a staggering ignorance of biology and a truly mind-boggling logical gynmastic. It also doesn't report any data, merely asserting a "spike" in birthrate. And this is the argument that is being trotted out around the world? Thanks for further proof that the objectives of evangelicals is to drag society back into the dark ages. Link No 5: "cultural degradation", "hordes of extroverted homosexuals" crawling all over Disneyland. Interesting how they say: Quote:
OK, that's enough. I have all the data I need. Evangelical God-botherers are a nasty (Link 5), pernicious (3-5) and psychologically unbalanced (4) group who place greater value on imposing their own moral template on society than on loving their fellow man. Thanks for proving my point. Last edited by The Gaffer : 06-06-2006 at 04:19 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#479 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
There's a lot that can be said about the Netherlands, but not that.
__________________
We are not things. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#480 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
The Nethelands is awesome! I met some very lovely Dutch people when I was on exchange. <sarcasm> Clearly they managed to turn out okay despite their society falling apart around them.</sarcasm>
Also, who's talking about hedonism here? Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homosexual marriage II | klatukatt | General Messages | 736 | 05-15-2013 01:15 PM |
marriage | katya | General Messages | 384 | 01-21-2012 12:13 AM |
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 988 | 02-06-2006 01:33 PM |
Ave Papa - we have a new Pope | MrBishop | General Messages | 133 | 09-26-2005 10:19 AM |
Women, last names and marriage... | afro-elf | General Messages | 55 | 01-09-2003 01:37 AM |