Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The politicization of homosexualityFollow

#52 Feb 18 2004 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
new page, woohoo

I didn't take the time to read all of the stuff posted on page 1, but it looks like it's really heating up in here.

By the way, who's keeping score?


/em grabs some popcorn
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#53 Feb 18 2004 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu the Furtive wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Quote:
but the institution of marriage conveys a built-in assumption of a child producing couple.

Since when? 1940? The 50's?


My thoughts exactly.

I have 2 children. Neither was conceived while I was married. After my second one was almost a year old, my b/f and I got married.

I have my tubes tied. Should we get divorced?


Hmmm... To paraphrase Smash: Just because you personally choose to marry and not have children, does not mean that others may not choose specifically to marry for the purpose of having children.

Unfortunately, when you come right down to it, marriage exists for the purpose of ensuring legitimacy and inheritance of children (as well as ensuring economic support for women). All of the legal benefits are pretty obviously aimed in that direction if you step back and look at them. Even if you choose not to have children, the assumption is that you *might* have children. Traditionally, of course, there wasn't really any reason to get married unless you intended to have children, but we don't follow tradition much anymore.


This is where most of the problems are coming about. Marriage doesn't seem to "fit" with homosexuality at all. Of course, marriage doesn't fit today with most people's lifestyles. We have lots of laws and legal arrangements that don't "fit" today's world. The common law marriage idea is definately one of them. Why were they created? To prevent men from avoiding the responsibility for women and children by simply refusing to marry them (the women, not the children). The *assumption* was that if a man and a woman were living together, they were having sex, and were likely to produce children eventually. The certainly didn't consider that in the future, adult males and female would share appartments as a matter of financial convenience with no sexual relationship assumed at all.


Same with marriage. Today, lots of people get married simply for the finacial convenience (ok, and "love" thppth...). Quite often, there's little or no plan for children at all. The issue though is that the traditionalists can accept that sort of arrangement between a man and a woman because they *might* have children, or *might* raise a family at some point in the future. They can kinda brush the fact that marriage has changed under the rug and ignore it because the potential for it's original pupose is still there. If you start allowing same sex marriages, it basically tosses that change right into the face of the social conservatives. You can't hide the fact that a gay marriage has nothing to do with children, and is purely an economic and social contract.

That's where I see the issue. We've already kinda sureptitiously changed the meaning of marriage over time, but have never had to face that change directly as a society. Gay marriage forces us to do exactly that. I think it'll be "interesting" at least, to see what happens.

What I find really amusing is that what gays want most is the social contract bit. They want joing power of attorney. They want joint guardianship over eachother. They want join finances. They want to be able to sign hospital release forms and be considered family to their SO. That's it. If the conservatives had just given them that stuff, then they wouldn't now be in danger of "losing" their precious institution of marriage. Morons...


Quote:
Personally, I'm embarassed that my state California - not exactly a bastion of right wing ideology - had a proposition pass defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It's obvious to me this is a religous definition and that we will have gay marriage eventually. It must be so frusturating to be a conservative; you must know you are going to loose eventually.



Yup. Actually, what's going on in California right now is probably the best thing that could have happened for gay rights. California conservatives stupidly put their law in writing. That makes it challengable in court. That's exactly what's happening. You see, they can't throw out all those marriages that are being issued in San Fransico right now. They are in every way "legal". They have to bring them to court and try to get each one revoked based on the new law. This allows automatic appeal. It's going to go straight to the State Supreme Court, and is virtually guaranteed to go to SCOTUS right afterwards. That will force a rulling on the constitutionality of the state law, at a time when it's most likely to be overturned.

If they'd waited for the Religioius Right to push through their US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, there would be a whole different problem with trying to get the law tossed on constitutional grounds. The law has to be tried based on its legality at the time, so assuming a win for the gay rights folks, this will establish a whole ton of precidence, and likely prevent the ammendment from ever getting off the ground.

It's a good thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Feb 19 2004 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
all religious basis aside, still some things have to be considered...one of which is the extremely high (and growing) rate of STDs among the gay community..AIDs being the leader but by far not the only one. whether being gay is causing the STDs or not who the heck knows..but what we DO know is that the lifestyle is causing a rapid SPREAD of them.

kill yourselves off with STDs if you want, but the rest of the people around are increasingly at risk the more it spreads. any number of a hundred thousand plus circumstances can cause me to contract HIV from someone around me..and that scares me. now I know that ANYONE can get HIV or have it...thats not what I am getting at. And I know that not all gay people have it either..i'm not clueless. but no matter how naive you are or how far into denial you are, you can't ignore the fact that AIDs is at an alarming level and rising even higher in the gay community. thats gotta say something..what I don't know but it scares me.

I have my own personal beliefs, but I don't have the right to judge...and thats not what I am doing here. there needs to be some research or control done with the whole thing though..and aside from the fact that the institution of marriage needs to be left alone, its just encouraging a lifestyle that is showing to be dangerous.

we have enough problems with our system being twisted and changed to satisfy the desires of a specific group of people...and its getting worse. if our founding fathers saw it now they'd probably blow a head gasket. its getting to be the only way to get any rights in this country is to start your own special interest group and claim your not being treated fairly.
#55 Feb 19 2004 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the fastest-growing group of HIV positive cases were married hetero women whose husbands "aren't gay?"
#56 Feb 19 2004 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
could be..not in the studies I read. I can't say for 100% certainty because I didn't perform ANY tests on my own, but I heard differently.

It definately varies by region, etc...I probably should have stated I was speaking in relation to the SF bay area in which I live. The studies I read stated gay males ages 23-38 (ages could be different, I'm trying to quote from memory) had the largest % of reported HIV cases in the bay area.

I apologize for leaving that detail out and misleading..I forget sometimes I must be more detailed and clear and instead assume people know where I'm coming from. I can admit fault. ;)
#57 Feb 19 2004 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
[quote=The Great Empyre]but what we DO know is that the lifestyle is causing a rapid SPREAD of them.

Nonsense. Ignorance is causing the spread of STDs, by both hetero and gay people. In fact, to localize it, I have known more hetero people to have STDs than gay people. Sexual preference has nothing to do with choosing whether or not to try and protect yourself from diseases. Being an idiot does.

kill yourselves off with STDs if you want, but the rest of the people around are increasingly at risk the more it spreads.

How is this reasoning even possible, since you have so neatly separated "us" and "them"? They do what they like and we should stay away from that, right? Puh-lease. If there is "cross-over" between gays and heteros, then both sides are to blame for the spread of disease, but I understand that it is easier to point the finger at the "others", right?

but no matter how naive you are or how far into denial you are, you can't ignore the fact that AIDs is at an alarming level and rising even higher in the gay community. thats gotta say something..what I don't know but it scares me.

What do you suggest we do, Empyre, even if your analysis is correct? Separate them from "us"? Maybe we should ship them out to sea? Line 'em up and shoot them?

I have my own personal beliefs, but I don't have the right to judge...and thats not what I am doing here.

Really? And yet, you seem to be judging quite well here, since I see no balanced argument. It's all the gay community's fault that we face AIDS and STDs on the rise.

we have enough problems with our system being twisted and changed to satisfy the desires of a specific group of people...

Not unlike "twisting" our "system" to accomodate bible-thumping, homophobic zealots, huh?

and its getting worse. if our founding fathers saw it now they'd probably blow a head gasket. its getting to be the only way to get any rights in this country is to start your own special interest group and claim your not being treated fairly

Yeah, you are right, Empyre it is getting worse. Our founding fathers also thought slavery and wife-beating were ok. I'm all over those antiquated values. They rule! Feminists were such a "special interest group" back in the day. Wow - those kooky broads wanted their own rights and stuff. Get with the real world, Empyre. I don't ask what you did in your bedroom last night, or if you've ever had STDs, because it's none of my business. It's none of anyone's business what gay people do either. They pose no greater threat than half of the male and female sluts you met in the bar last weekend.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#58 Feb 19 2004 at 9:19 PM Rating: Decent
The latest numbers out of San Fransico not Toronto show about 3k gay couples having gotten hitched in about a week with people lining up for more.

I see it as a civil rights issue, and to try and label someone as being in a "civil union" as opposed to a in a "marriage" as discrimination based upon someones sexual oreintation. Will the gays settle for a "civil union" sounds like a lot of the Democrats hope so, but if it was me and my orientation I dont think it would satisfy me.
#59 Feb 19 2004 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You know blaming gay people's "lifestyle" for the spread of HIV makes about as much sense as blaming straight people's "lifestyle" for the spread of..birth defects.

Sure, go ahead and be straight. Cause as many children to be born with horrible crippling genetic malformities as you want. If you really want to cause pain and anguish to children, go ahead and be straight. It's clearly more important to you to have heterosexual sex with your sick heterosexual freinds than it is to perserve the lives and health of children. That's right. Many children born with birth defects DIE as a result.

Sick ******* child killing heterosexuals.

For the children everyone, for the children.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#60 Feb 20 2004 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent
I think this issue got all riled up with the U.S. Government passing their marriage act into law years ago, in which over half of the 50 states followed suit. California has yet to pass such a law, and that was why some couples from other states have been going to San Francisco for such a thing.

I think this is a gray-line here between local authorities and higher powers; between morality and civil rights. I will stay neutral on this issue because many people try to uphold common traditions, while at the same time, others break traditions to bring in new trends. With all the strange things that go on in a person's life today, there are reasons why some people turn homosexual. Sooner or later, governments, militaries, and companies should do some intensive research and plan new legislations accordingly.
#61 Feb 20 2004 at 12:15 AM Rating: Decent
Sorry about the double post. IE wouldn't load fast enough afer I had posted.

Edited, Fri Feb 20 01:06:51 2004 by LordDeArnise
#62 Feb 20 2004 at 12:16 AM Rating: Decent
To answer why gay canadians don't get married in the 2 provinces that allows it, it's because it's only partially legal. The federal goverment asked the Supreme Court of the country to analyse his new law to be sure it would be legal (mariages will be celebrated by goverment officials not Churchs).It's only legal in 2 province because the Low court said so, but it's not law yet. Here in the province of Quebec, we have a civil union (almost equal to mariage) and gays are getting "married".The law was passed 2 years ago . (Quebec, the french-speaking province is always a bit in advance for it's time a bit like the netherland and Sweden).

But if you look at the statistics, you will see that same sex unions are not booming.Why??? Because it's like that everywhere. Just look at straight people, single life is IN . No one wants to get tied up in mariage. I'm gay and i don't want to get married yet, but one day i will want to and when that day will come, i want to have the right,period.
#63 Feb 20 2004 at 12:19 AM Rating: Decent
To answer why gay canadians don't get married in the 2 provinces that allows it, it's because it's only partially legal. The federal goverment asked the Supreme Court of the country to analyse his new law to be sure it would be legal (mariages will be celebrated by goverment officials not Churchs).It's only legal in 2 province because the Low court said so, but it's not law yet. Here in the province of Quebec, we have a civil union (almost equal to mariage) and gays are getting "married".The law was passed 2 years ago . (Quebec, the french-speaking province is always a bit in advance for it's time a bit like the netherland and Sweden).

But if you look at the statistics, you will see that same sex unions are not booming.Why??? Because it's like that everywhere. Just look at straight people, single life is IN . No one wants to get tied up in mariage. I'm gay and i don't want to get married yet, but one day i will want to and when that day will come, i want to have the right,period.
#64 Feb 20 2004 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Ok, nybbass, so single life is in, but to the extent that only a tiny fraction of the gay population is bucking that trend by getting married? As a mirror, the hetero population isn't anywhere close the same ratio of married to singles.

Can you shed any light on this?

Totem
#65 Feb 20 2004 at 4:23 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
all religious basis aside, still some things have to be considered...one of which is the extremely high (and growing) rate of STDs among the gay community


Spread of Aids and other STDs is caused by promiscuity, hetero, **** or bisexual. Therefore by allowing homosexual marriage you are also encouraging monogomous relationships.

Grats you on arguing the case for allowing homosexual marriage!
#66 Feb 20 2004 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Quote:
Therefore by allowing homosexual marriage you are also encouraging monogomous relationships.

RACK Patrician.
#67 Feb 21 2004 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Quote:
What do you suggest we do, Empyre, even if your analysis is correct? Separate them from "us"? Maybe we should ship them out to sea? Line 'em up and shoot them?


actually I was leaning more towards education to encourage "safer" measures..******.

Quote:
Really? And yet, you seem to be judging quite well here, since I see no balanced argument. It's all the gay community's fault that we face AIDS and STDs on the rise.


way to go dr. drama. I said no such thing.

Quote:
Not unlike "twisting" our "system" to accomodate bible-thumping, homophobic zealots, huh?


back to this again. tell me..is this angerish outburst of name calling any better than the accusations it contains?

Quote:
Yeah, you are right, Empyre it is getting worse. Our founding fathers also thought slavery and wife-beating were ok. I'm all over those antiquated values. They rule! Feminists were such a "special interest group" back in the day. Wow - those kooky broads wanted their own rights and stuff. Get with the real world, Empyre. I don't ask what you did in your bedroom last night, or if you've ever had STDs, because it's none of my business. It's none of anyone's business what gay people do either. They pose no greater threat than half of the male and female sluts you met in the bar last weekend.


actually, I don't support most of the stuff our founding gathers stood for..i'm half indian. but the system of laws they established I think we should stick to. but let's see you grab HIV as an innocent bystander and then be an advocate for minding your own business. I'm sure if there were child molestors hanging around in your neighborhood and you had kids, you wouldnt be saying "its their own business what they do" and letting your kids play freely.

looking out for your own can only take you so far in the ever populated world of today. there also has to be a certain measure of proactive action one must take to ensure the safety of themselves and people around them. Now there is also a fine line between that and creating a dictatorship, but the world is about balance now aint it?
#68 Feb 21 2004 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
The Great Empyre wrote:
actually I was leaning more towards education to encourage "safer" measures..******..


But you didn't say that once, Empyre. You simply stated that the gay "lifestyle" is posing a threat to anyone who doesn't have HIV and STDs and that actually caused you to fear them.


Quote:
way to go dr. drama. I said no such thing.


"its just encouraging a lifestyle that is showing to be dangerous." No balance to your argument at all.

Quote:
back to this again. tell me..is this angerish outburst of name calling any better than the accusations it contains?


There's no anger, Empyre. I'm just doing what you're doing...making sweeping, inaccurate statements. I am pointing the finger at group of people that I mistrust and blame for posing a threat to my well-being.

Quote:
actually, I don't support most of the stuff our founding gathers stood for..i'm half indian. but the system of laws they established I think we should stick to. but let's see you grab HIV as an innocent bystander and then be an advocate for minding your own business. I'm sure if there were child molestors hanging around in your neighborhood and you had kids, you wouldnt be saying "its their own business what they do" and letting your kids play freely.


Again, I repeat, the system of laws that they established are antiquated and mostly inappropriate. You should be down with that - since you are half native. How am I going to get HIV as an innocent bystander, Empyre? I either have unprotected sex (entirely my choice) or some "accident" occurs (blood transfusion, needle prick) and I contract AIDS. It doesn't blow in the wind and up my dress. And the child molester analogy only amplifies what I have been saying. You present the child molester as a predator, preying on the innocent children. Gays and lesbians are not preying on "innocent bystanders". Both hetero and gay lifestyles and mostly ignorance is leading widespread AIDS and STDs.


Quote:

looking out for your own can only take you so far in the ever populated world of today. there also has to be a certain measure of proactive action one must take to ensure the safety of themselves and people around them. Now there is also a fine line between that and creating a dictatorship, but the world is about balance now aint it?


Here you are completely contradicting yourself. You are advocating a system of "looking out for your own" - and preventing "those people" from posing a threat to you. I agree that proactive action needs to be taken, in the form of education and discussion but people ultimately make their own decisions. Finger-pointing and accusations don't do much to change things. I, for one, feel empathy for gays and lesbians.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#69 Feb 22 2004 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
(I hate it when you lose an entire post you were typing)

Quote:
There's no anger, Empyre. I'm just doing what you're doing...making sweeping, inaccurate statements. I am pointing the finger at group of people that I mistrust and blame for posing a threat to my well-being.


lol, how can you say an opinion is innaccurate? geesh, who died and made you god?

Quote:
Again, I repeat, the system of laws that they established are antiquated and mostly inappropriate. You should be down with that - since you are half native. How am I going to get HIV as an innocent bystander, Empyre? I either have unprotected sex (entirely my choice) or some "accident" occurs (blood transfusion, needle prick) and I contract AIDS. It doesn't blow in the wind and up my dress. And the child molester analogy only amplifies what I have been saying. You present the child molester as a predator, preying on the innocent children. Gays and lesbians are not preying on "innocent bystanders". Both hetero and gay lifestyles and mostly ignorance is leading widespread AIDS and STDs.


I'm not by ANY means saying "gays and lesbians are preying on people"..nice try on twisting my words. I have many good friends that are gay, and its their choice...not mine. but if you think your limited to a very few options on contracting HIV, come out of your bubble and join the rest of us. Here's a few to get you started: standing near someone getting shot, helping with an accident you were in (or better yet being INVOLVED in an accident where blood is everywhere), someone with a nosebleed trying to get off the bus/train falls on you as it surges...the list goes on. The chances I or you will probably ever have any of those happen...slim to none, but those chances I bet are a lot more real to the ones that are suffering HIV as a result of them.

iono..maybe you live out in the sticks with 14 other people and these things arent a reality to you, but to some of us they are. in this country, we're so afraid to offend someone, even if it means banning our flag on gov't property, that we overlook our own comforts and protections. There has to be some sort of accountability for actions like these, and a LOT more preventative measures. Currently its just "let everyone do what they want and pretend nothing happened until it happens to us.."

EDIT: one more thing. the only reason my analogy didnt make sense to you is because you took it the wrong way, not my fault. I wasn't comparing gays to child molestors...i was talking about looking out for your own. nice job on completely missing the point tho.

Edited, Sun Feb 22 16:01:00 2004 by Empyre
#70 Feb 22 2004 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Spread of Aids and other STDs is caused by promiscuity, hetero, **** or bisexual. Therefore by allowing homosexual marriage you are also encouraging monogomous relationships.

Grats you on arguing the case for allowing homosexual marriage


Bah, Pat beat me to it.

I could also be off base but if I remember studies on this at all, the growing portion of AIDS and HIV is in 3rd world countries were it is becoming an epidemic. Africa in particular.

Edit--one last side thought I was watching Bill O'Reilly the other nite and he had a poll on FNC website about how many Americans were against gay marriage and his numbers were a staggering 91% against =). Just goes to show you that polls cant be skewed I spose =).

Edited, Sun Feb 22 17:31:02 2004 by flishtaco
#71 Feb 22 2004 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
someone with a nosebleed trying to get off the bus/train falls on you as it surges
WTF??

Yeah, if I hurry up and rub my newly bloodstained shirt all over my open wounds, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Feb 22 2004 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
***
3,813 posts
I could be wrong, but I believe HIV dies when exposed to air.

Praetorian
#73 Feb 23 2004 at 1:56 AM Rating: Decent
In all honesty I believe this whole mess with gay marriage can be solved with a simple fix. Get government out of the business of marriage. It is a religious ceremony performed by a church. I don't think the government should have any say on who a church can or can not marry. For legal purposes any two (or more?) people who wish to form a domestic union should be able to do so. This would not be a marriage however unless performed by a clergyman. It would instead be a civil union (or another appropriate moniker) and would not have the same meaning that marriage does but give the same rights to anyone whether it is traditional or not. The government can then decide in what way they want to recognize marriages performed in churches as civil unions in the same way that they legally recognize them now. This would give equality to everyone while still holding sacred the religious implications that the word "marriage" embodies.

I never have understood why churches and conservatives wanted government involved in marriages in the first place. It seems to go agains the idea of a smaller less intrusive government that Republicans always like to talk about.
#74 Feb 23 2004 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Quote:
Get government out of the business of marriage. It is a religious ceremony performed by a church.

Quote:
The government can then decide in what way they want to recognize marriages performed in churches

How could anyone pass up this gem?!?

What you have here is your old fashion catch-22. Gay people wont be able to change the mind of the church. That much is certain. People all accross the world live and die for their beliefs in their respective religions. Do you think they will just up and change thousands of years of belief on a whim?

The other half of the problem is the government. See, they have this thing they do called "separation of church and state". That means that religion can't be present in any form government. This means that the government can't recognize marriages performed by churches. That's why we have this whole thing about what a "legal marriage" actually means.

And that's the catch-22
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#75 Feb 23 2004 at 3:23 AM Rating: Decent
Sorry if my post was that confusing to you. Let me clarify. A church can marry whomever they want to based upon their rules. Any two adults can be legally joined by the government in a civil ceremony. The state can decide which of those church marriages it wishes to recognize as a civil union but the church would have no say in how the government defines a civil union.

The government already does this now in some form in that a marriage performed in a church may or may not be recognized by the government as a legal marriage. A marriage performed by a justice of the peace is not recognized by most churches. I'm just proposing a change in the nomenclature for what our government uses so everyone would be equal and have the same rights under the law.
#76 Feb 23 2004 at 3:28 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Dyzalot wrote:
I never have understood why churches and conservatives wanted government involved in marriages in the first place. It seems to go agains the idea of a smaller less intrusive government that Republicans always like to talk about.


Hmmm... I've said the answer to this every time this topic comes up. But does anyone listen? Oh no...

Government is "in the business" of marriage because of one reason (how many times do I have to say this?):

Governments are in the business of handling legal issues like inheritance, paternity, power of attorney, and a ton of other things. Folks that get married quite often have children. The presence of children requires that all of the above (and more! I gave you the short list) must be established.

Yes. In todays more promiscous times, we have government into the business of dealing with children of unwed parents (and does anyone think that's handled "well"?). However, the ultimate reason that governments deal with marriage is to create a single "status" that establishes a whole ton of legal issues in one swoop, all of which fall directly from the assumption that a married couple may have children.

One could argue (bear with me on this one), that if people didn't have children, we would not have the concept of marriage at all. Why would we? What purpose would it serve? If children just poped up out of the ground, we would have no need to legally tie two people together. We'd have to come up with some other convention, but we wouldn't have marriage.


That's why there is a somewhat legitimate reason to disagree with gay marriage. Same sex couples can't have children. Not "may choose not to", or "may not be able to". They cannot, possibly, under any circumstances, have children together. Thus, the traditional reason for having marriage simply doesn't exist. Heh. Of course, we don't do everything for the "traditional" reason anymore though.

That's not to say that we maybe shouldn't revamp our entire process. Maybe it's time to recognize a status where two people want to just share their life together, and perhaps a different one where children may or may not be involved? But just tossing the bandaid of allowing gays to use the existing state of marriage, while amusing, and certainly a step in the right direction, really isn't solving any problems. There's a much bigger issue here...

Edited, Mon Feb 23 03:35:41 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 355 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (355)