Gay marriage.

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby jehler » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:41 pm

VGM-Hunter wrote:I'm Full of them tho......

No they shouldn't be allowed to be married and yes they have every right to pay the same taxes I do where is the contridiction? OHH the Marriage tax your right my bad you got me there!!!

But I'm Full of them i tell ya!!
I like how you change your quote to make it fit your claim. makes you come across real intelligent like.
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17110
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI


Postby VGM-Hunter » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:43 pm

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sepration of church and state
I don't believe Gov. should say its ok to be married when Church says it is between and man and a women.

Rights yes gays have every right I have, they can pay the same taxes I do.

what did I change??
VGM-Hunter
hunter
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 am
Location: Western NC

Postby jehler » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:45 pm

so they shouldnt be allowed to be married but they should have every right you have. do you have the right to be married?
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17110
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby seastreet » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:45 pm

VGM-Hunter wrote:I'm Full of them tho......

No they shouldn't be allowed to be married and yes they have every right to pay the same taxes I do where is the contridiction? OHH the Marriage tax your right my bad you got me there!!!

But I'm Full of them i tell ya!!


Bag of hammers...

Image
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby jehler » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:47 pm

:lol:
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17110
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby VGM-Hunter » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:51 pm

Read all of it!!! Don't read part of what I said like Clutch does the Bible. I said


Rights yes gays have every right I have, they can pay the same taxes I do.


Funny how this little tread can get turned around by not reading all of what someone says.
VGM-Hunter
hunter
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 am
Location: Western NC

Postby jehler » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:53 pm

VGM-Hunter wrote:Read all of it!!! Don't read part of what I said like Clutch does the Bible. I said


Rights yes gays have every right I have, they can pay the same taxes I do.


Funny how this little tread can get turned around by not reading all of what someone says.
funny how you talk from both sides of your mouth without noticing
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17110
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Postby VGM-Hunter » Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:02 pm

All you can say is I talk from both sides of my mouth. I'm still waiting to see the other contridictions I'm full of. As I discredited that one. But you are right I'm sure I have before and I am willing to say we all have one time or aother. Just not the Bible.
VGM-Hunter
hunter
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 am
Location: Western NC

Postby jrockncash » Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:52 pm

So... How old is the earth?


Should I post another link to the creationist museum? Were we can see the Cavemen riding saddled dinosaurs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

In one exhibit, a model Triceratops is shown wearing a saddle and another, along with a Stegosaurus, is shown aboard a scale model of Noah's Ark.[34][6] The museum is also directly critical of evolutionary theory that links dinosaurs with the origins of birds. The second room of the creation museum for example displays a model prehistoric raptor, stating that the species was featherless and had no connection to birds; this is a reference to Genesis 1, which states that birds were created before the advent of land animals.[33] Biologists and paleontologists, however, have long held the opposite (that today's birds are descended from certain dinosaurs) and point out that the recent discovery of a Velociraptor forearm bearing quill knobs, distinct structural parts of bones into which feathers are anchored, provides further evidence that the species did indeed have feathers.[
There is more value to land not developed than simply monetary. Aldo Leopold

The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmond Burke

What could be worse than getting humped by Bears? Bubbles Trailer Park Boys
User avatar
jrockncash
hunter
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: yelling at kids to get off my lawn.

Postby ALMODUX » Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:27 pm

Sorry seastreet...homos aren't protected by the constitution because they're homos, but in SPITE of the fact that they're homos....i.e, we recognize they're cuckoo, but we gotta protect the cuckoos too...they're still people, after all. The minute we give them 'special' status, that gets them rights above and beyond what a normal, hetero married couple would have, then we use government to promote the abnormality. Then comes the goofy argument for normality of homos....humans ain't seahorses. :rofl:
Here's a thought: Let the ducks work and decoy.
ALMODUX
hunter
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: NE Alabama

Postby HotDog » Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:06 am

CLUTCHfan wrote:
HotDog wrote:I am not pushing my morals onto anyone.
I am pushing back as they try to get me to abandon my morality.


You're not pushing your morals, yet you're the one who brought morals and religion into this discussion. How are you pushing back when you are initiating?


The question was should gays be allowed to marry.
My view was NO.
They shouldn't asking that a ritual with a deeply religious foundation be performed when the religion sees their behavior as sinful. If all they want is couples benefits, do a civil union.
Society has to have a morality. Ours gets its morals from judeo-christian beliefs.
When will we acknowledge that the granting of 'rights' to special interest groups only gnaws away at society as a whole?
The list of people seeking their 'rights' goes on and on.
Don't girls have the right to join the boy scouts?
Why can't boys join the girl scouts?
Can't gay men be leaders for the boy scouts?
Why can't brothers marry sisters if they love each other?
Should transvestites be allowed to use public restrooms designated for women?
All could be considered rights, but does allowing these things to occur take something away from the rights of society as a whole?
Should people with strong moral beliefs look the other way?
WTN10 wrote:
"Why do you assume I'm a genius? Have you ever considered that I'm average and that you're retarded?"
User avatar
HotDog
hunter
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:37 pm
Location: Addison County, VT

Postby DC KILLER » Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:49 am

its depressing how many of our fellow duckhunters are fairy supporters and athiests. many of you have given your definition of a homosexual. a fag is some dude that wants another dude's hairy cornhole. pretty disguisting right? thats what you people are supporting. if it was my choice, id ship all those SICKOS (cause thats what they are) to some island where they can all be buttdiggers and marry all they want for the rest of their pathetic lives and never reproduce. then the problem will take care of itself.
SouthArkduckslayers- "I think I got cancer...."
DC KILLER- "HUH?"

"yea, I got this bump on my lip"

"REALLY?"

"yea, hang on a second and Ill tell ya bout it, let me put this dip in"
User avatar
DC KILLER
hunter
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:39 am
Location: Bossier City, LA

Postby captainduckhead » Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:57 am

Our Country would cease to exist without Christianity? :huh: If that's true, (and I'm not disspelling that comment), why don't we banish Muslims? Buddhists, and Pageans? from the United States.
Secondly, I am not critical of Christianity because it's hip, or cool. I am Critical of Christianity because I learned to think for myself, unlike the "God Fearing" church goers who swallow the Christianity teachings hook, line, and sinker.
I like and believe the basic teachings of Christian churches, kindness, forgiveness, love, and all that jazz.
It's the hypocritical, rules, and regulations, and the constant changing of the rules in order to suit the immediate needs of whichever church, that turns me off. Not to mention, that Devot Church goers read the bible and cannot see that the "STORIES", are generalizations, not actual facts, and they are hand picked and politically motivated by the leaders of the time.
I don't want to remove the comfort people get from religeon, but I also don't think it (religeon) should come up in any fact based arguements. It's like arguing over ghost stories in court.
To address Rockbass, I think it's possible to be conservative on certain issues and liberal on others. For example, I am not oppossed to gay marriage, but I am very opposed to homosexuals adopting children.
Mojo Mallards are gay
captainduckhead
hunter
 
Posts: 3816
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: St. Lawrence River, NY

Postby VGM-Hunter » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:10 am

There are false Churches out there or False Christianity. Which is stated in the Bible. Captain your right churches that are willing to change there rules because if they didn't our society sometimes corupt would be in a uproar sometimes gives Christianity a bad rap. They want to fit society instead of following God's word.

I'm proud I belong to a church that teaches out of the Bible. With over 4000 people at our church on a sunday and our peacher says its a Sin to be gay and you need to repent isn't changing. We have a HUGE gay community where I live and I'm sure he made some people mad. Sometime I question what is said or disagree BUT thats ok. After reading more or talking with our paster I realize its our Society that changed my views or thought. I am very new to the christian life and not long ago I was on the other side of the fence. And am glad about where I am.

Christian or Not
Gay or Striaght
Left wing or Right wing
Ect.
One things for sure..

I'm a very PROUD AMERICAIN and am glad to have a place where we can have diferent views and beliefs. If I've insulted anyone or their family that was not my intention. I always injoy a good debate. One things for sure we all like to hunt ducks!! Unless some PETA person are on here to stir up trouble but thats a different thread.
VGM-Hunter
hunter
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 am
Location: Western NC

Postby seastreet » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:17 am

ALMODUX wrote:Sorry seastreet...homos aren't protected by the constitution because they're homos, but in SPITE of the fact that they're homos....i.e, we recognize they're cuckoo, but we gotta protect the cuckoos too...they're still people, after all. The minute we give them 'special' status, that gets them rights above and beyond what a normal, hetero married couple would have, then we use government to promote the abnormality. Then comes the goofy argument for normality of homos....humans ain't seahorses. :rofl:


No one is asking for special rights. They are simply asking for equal protection. They are being recognized with equal protection by the rule of law, not the court of public opinion. The equal protection that would protect a homosexual from being denied a job solely on being gay, is the same equal protection that would protect you from being denied a job solely on being a christian.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby cannon » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:24 am

seastreet, equal protection from what? The fourteenth amendment was enacted to prevent the abuse of power by a government against a class of people. I suppose, if you want to stereotype homosexuals as a class, I can accept that. However, if you want to assume as a "constructionist" that the 14th amendment was enacted to prohibit the government's failure to recognize the existence of self-created rights, you're sorely mistaken, both as to the contemporary and conventional construction of the constitution and the intent of its framers. Bad argument, bad point. Less than 30 years ago, sodomy was technically illegally illegal in every state in the union, and those laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. How would the equal protection clause of the constitution serve to protect "rights" of individuals to engage in activities which would have been in direct contradiction to federally enforced State mandates? Agree or disagree, I'll not weigh in on the moral side of the argument. However, once you start stepping in on the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution, it starts to become a burr in my shorts. I'd feel the same way if you tried to argue that the 14th amendment guaranteed the right of a straight marriage. That AIN'T what it was put there for, and it AIN'T the federal government's business.

AND, in as far as the establishment clause is concerned, don't go off assuming the founding fathers to have included any clause in the constitution regarding the "separation of church and state". It don't exist, and it ain't in there. The phrase, and the ensuing court-imposed "constitutional" doctrine, came about as a quotation from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danville (I think that's the correct name) Baptist Church, and the phrase was included therein to assure the church that our country would not be forced to rely upon an abusive clergy, such as was the case in England at the time of our departure. The cut-and-run series of court decisions which have ensued in recent years banning nativity scenes on public property couldn't be farther from the intent of the founders, and is, in essence, the exact opposite of what was intended in the establishment clause.
Smell that? Smells like sumthin died in here.
User avatar
cannon
hunter
 
Posts: 4049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: At the stop sign in the ditch at Byers Farm, unlocking the gate.

Postby seastreet » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:26 am

HotDog wrote:When will we acknowledge that the granting of 'rights' to special interest groups only gnaws away at society as a whole?

No special rights. Just can't deny them anything government related based upon their sexual orientation. It's that simple.

HotDog wrote:Don't girls have the right to join the boy scouts?
Why can't boys join the girl scouts?

Private org unrelated to government function. They can do whatever they want.

HotDog wrote:Can't gay men be leaders for the boy scouts?

Same answer as in the girl scouts. Private orgs are free to do as they please.

HotDog wrote:Why can't brothers marry sisters if they love each other?

I wasn't aware that there were homosexuals in West Virginia.

HotDog wrote:Should transvestites be allowed to use public restrooms designated for women?

If they have had the operation to complete the transformation, then sure. If you are comfortable with your sexuality, then it shouldn't bother you at all.

HotDog wrote:Should people with strong moral beliefs look the other way?

I didn't say that. You shouldn't just expect government to enforce your religious beliefs upon others.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby seastreet » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:31 am

DC KILLER wrote:its depressing how many of our fellow duckhunters are fairy supporters and athiests. many of you have given your definition of a homosexual. a fag is some dude that wants another dude's hairy cornhole. pretty disguisting right? thats what you people are supporting. if it was my choice, id ship all those SICKOS (cause thats what they are) to some island where they can all be buttdiggers and marry all they want for the rest of their pathetic lives and never reproduce. then the problem will take care of itself.


Embrace your hate dude. If you are comfortable with your sexuality, then why are you worried about what grown consenting adults do?

You know, there are studies that show that people who degrade homosexuals are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and have homosexual tendencies themselves. Is there anything you want to tell us?

You guys need to realize that I am not being a liberal or pro-gay, but rather pro-liberty and anti-government. If you have a business or private org, then you can hate all you want. If you have business with the government or accept government funds, equal protection applies, regardless of what religious beliefs you have.
Last edited by seastreet on Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby seastreet » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:35 am

cannon wrote:seastreet, equal protection from what? The fourteenth amendment was enacted to prevent the abuse of power by a government against a class of people. I suppose, if you want to stereotype homosexuals as a class, I can accept that. However, if you want to assume as a "constructionist" that the 14th amendment was enacted to prohibit the government's failure to recognize the existence of self-created rights, you're sorely mistaken, both as to the contemporary and conventional construction of the constitution and the intent of its framers. Bad argument, bad point. Less than 30 years ago, sodomy was technically illegally illegal in every state in the union, and those laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. How would the equal protection clause of the constitution serve to protect "rights" of individuals to engage in activities which would have been in direct contradiction to federally enforced State mandates? Agree or disagree, I'll not weigh in on the moral side of the argument. However, once you start stepping in on the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution, it starts to become a burr in my shorts. I'd feel the same way if you tried to argue that the 14th amendment guaranteed the right of a straight marriage. That AIN'T what it was put there for, and it AIN'T the federal government's business.

AND, in as far as the establishment clause is concerned, don't go off assuming the founding fathers to have included any clause in the constitution regarding the "separation of church and state". It don't exist, and it ain't in there. The phrase, and the ensuing court-imposed "constitutional" doctrine, came about as a quotation from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danville (I think that's the correct name) Baptist Church, and the phrase was included therein to assure the church that our country would not be forced to rely upon an abusive clergy, such as was the case in England at the time of our departure. The cut-and-run series of court decisions which have ensued in recent years banning nativity scenes on public property couldn't be farther from the intent of the founders, and is, in essence, the exact opposite of what was intended in the establishment clause.


If you are assuming that equal protection grants special rights to homosexuals as a class, then you are not seeing my point. If you see equal protection protecting homosexuals from discrimination on government related functions / or recognized states, then you see my point.

And as far as sodomy.... I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. get the point? :biggrin:
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby cannon » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:52 am

seastreet wrote:And as far as sodomy.... I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. get the point? :biggrin:


No, but I am assuming you're talking about packing fudge. If that be the case, check out the definition of sodomy. Once you've done that, don't start in on me about heterosexual sodomy, cause that ain't the point. The point is that it is not constitutionally protected behavior, whether between a man and man or a man and a woman, any more than hate speech or obscenity is protected by the 1st amendment. The fact that there is a "class" of people who engage in that conduct doesn't vest them with special rights, and it doesn't require the federal government or our constitution to protect those rights that do not exist.

The issue of gay marriage is not a constitutional issue, any more than the issue of driving at age 9 or taking the stand under oath at 17. People under the age of majority are a class of people, but that doesn't mean that they're vested with the privileges of every other class of people. Why can't 9 year-olds get driver's licenses? Because they have no "right" to drive, and any perceived right to do so is not, and should not be, protected by our federal constitution. They haven't met the criteria for getting a driver's license, and therefore are simply out of luck.

If it will make you feel better, look at it this way: The laws of our various states don't say that gay people can't get married. If they did, there would be a constitutional issue. Rather, the laws say they can't get married to other people of the same sex. No constitutional issue exists, because they are not being discriminated against. The right to marriage, like the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to bear arms, or any other right guaranteed by our federal government, is qualified upon conditional behavior. Gays can get married whenever they want, just not to other people of the same sex. The constitution don't apply to this issue.
Smell that? Smells like sumthin died in here.
User avatar
cannon
hunter
 
Posts: 4049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: At the stop sign in the ditch at Byers Farm, unlocking the gate.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:02 am

I haven't read hardly any of this thread, but "straight" people don't have the right to marry whom ever they wish.

Brothers and sisters can't marry. Fathers and daughters can't marry. Why not? If it's a Constitutional right for any two consenting adults to marry, then why not incestuous relationships?

Come on people. Think about it. There is no Consitutional right regarding marriage. This is not an issue of rights. There is a large section of law that is decided by the people and marriage falls into this category. On this issue, we can pretty much make up any damn rules we want with very little restriction from the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee for or against polygamy or same-sex marriage, incestuous marriage, or even straight marriage. If we wish to subsidize certain marriages, it is our collective right to do so through the laws.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby DC KILLER » Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:44 am

seastreet wrote:
DC KILLER wrote:its depressing how many of our fellow duckhunters are fairy supporters and athiests. many of you have given your definition of a homosexual. a fag is some dude that wants another dude's hairy cornhole. pretty disguisting right? thats what you people are supporting. if it was my choice, id ship all those SICKOS (cause thats what they are) to some island where they can all be buttdiggers and marry all they want for the rest of their pathetic lives and never reproduce. then the problem will take care of itself.


Embrace your hate dude. If you are comfortable with your sexuality, then why are you worried about what grown consenting adults do?

You know, there are studies that show that people who degrade homosexuals are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and have homosexual tendencies themselves. Is there anything you want to tell us?

You guys need to realize that I am not being a liberal or pro-gay, but rather pro-liberty and anti-government. If you have a business or private org, then you can hate all you want. If you have business with the government or accept government funds, equal protection applies, regardless of what religious beliefs you have.


I'll let you stick to embracing the fags. seems your pretty good at it. Ill stick to despising them.Cause im pretty good at it.

And your trying to imply that I have homosexual tendencies because i dont care about homos? That makes 0 sense. were these "studies" done by fags from Wilmington?
I dont know how things work in North Carolina, but down in the real South, you say that to a country boy like myself...... well, lets just say it'd be the last time you'd smart off.
SouthArkduckslayers- "I think I got cancer...."
DC KILLER- "HUH?"

"yea, I got this bump on my lip"

"REALLY?"

"yea, hang on a second and Ill tell ya bout it, let me put this dip in"
User avatar
DC KILLER
hunter
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:39 am
Location: Bossier City, LA

Postby seastreet » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:39 am

DC KILLER wrote:I'll let you stick to embracing the fags. seems your pretty good at it. Ill stick to despising them.Cause im pretty good at it.

I don't embrace them. However, I do treat them as human, because they deserve to be. That doesn't mean I agree or endorse their lifestyle. I see you are pretty good at hate. Maybe a klan leadership will come open soon. You should run for it.

DC KILLER wrote:And your trying to imply that I have homosexual tendencies because i dont care about homos? That makes 0 sense. were these "studies" done by fags from Wilmington?

No. I am suggesting that you may not be as comfortable with your sexuality as you think, if you have to bash gays, in order to prove how much of a man you are.

DC KILLER wrote:I dont know how things work in North Carolina, but down in the real South, you say that to a country boy like myself...... well, lets just say it'd be the last time you'd smart off.

I guess us ol' southern boys in NC were the last left in the fight in the war of northern aggression. Fort Fisher was the last confederate fort to fall in that war. We held out longer than anyone else.

As far as your idle threats, you don't scare me, so just sit behind your keyboard and continue to get intellectually bitch slapped again. Your nimble mind thinks that because I defend equal rights for homosexuals, that I am somehow, gay myself. I can assure you that I don't have a gay bone in my entire body, but I also don't feel the need to bash gays to prove to everyone else that I am not. Maybe you should explore your inner self more. It's okay if you come out of the closet. Your rights will be protected. :yes:
Last edited by seastreet on Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby rockbass » Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:39 am

The only positive to come from gay marriage would be economical.
I can't help but think. Weddings, engagements, parties, no kids, and then divorce lawyers. That would be a nice economic stimulus.

My problem with this is very basic. As a professional I'm not allowed to sway my students towards my beliefs period. I do have pictures of my family on my desk. Is this now pushing my political\sexual views on students. My students know I'm not, but they also know the two guys down the hall are. Don't our kids have enough crap to grasp today?
"Alcohol is not the answer. It is however a great temporary solution"
rockbass
hunter
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:49 am
Location: cape vincent Where the Lake meets the River NY

Postby LIGHT12 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:04 pm

Just reminding you guys to keep it civil. A2 left a warning about words used. Don't push it guys. This is one of those topics that gets ugly fast. not worth getting your wrist slapped for.
Have you ever woke up one day and said. Damn when does the season start.
User avatar
LIGHT12
hunter
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: ARIZONA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests