Page 65 of 159 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775115 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #641
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Moderator's Warning:
    Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]This thread is about the impending decision on SSM, NOT about theories of homosexuality. Please stay on topic or consequences will occur.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #642
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In terms of practicality, normally-functioning people (people who can meet the "reasonable person" test under the law) should be afforded exactly the same protections under the law that are afforded to all other persons. Equal protection does not mean equal for some, but not others. By definition, that is unequal protection.
    Equal protection does not mean, nor involve, a great many things.

    Equal protection also does not involve equal outcome, nor equal reward.

    Equal protection does not involve equal outcome for groups or pairings, but rather only equal opportunity for individuals.

    Equal protection also does not mean equal protection (or outcome) under different TERMS, but rather only equal protection under the SAME TERMS.

    Blacks did not petition Woolworth's to eat at the counter at any hour of the day and night, nor to demand whatever they wanted to eat under their own terms, but rather to be able to eat at that counter under the same terms as everyone else.

    Women did not petition for suffrage under their own terms, demanding to vote whenever they wanted, for whatever they wanted, but rather only the ability to vote under the same terms as everyone else.

    The fact of the matter is that gays already have access to marriage under the same terms as heterosexuals, but choose to not avail themselves of that institution by the terms that have existed long before the foundation of this country, going back to the mankind's first civilizations. Instead gays want to dictate theirr own terms, then claim denial of rights under those terms, and then demand these terms are recognized as the equivalent in benefit to society of heterosexual marriage, to receive the same recognition and reward, which is untrue, a false equivalence, and thorough corruption of the Constitution's terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As the cases that made it to the Supreme Court are legally sound, it is more likely than not that the Court's decision to be released tomorrow morning will take a step toward greater equality under the law with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) being found to have violated the U.S. Constitution's protections. There is a smaller possibility that a somewhat broader ruling could be offered. Almost certainly, the parsed arguments by DOMA's backers that any person is free to marry--just of the opposite sex--won't be a relevant factor in the decision.
    As shown above, the cases before the Supreme Court cannot be legally sound by the terms claimed.

    Given that DOMA does not prohibit the states from making any laws, nor does DOMA itself create any definition of marriage, but rather only recognizes the definition that long precedes this country, and has long been recognized in this country, ...

    ..The only thing that DOMA actually does is prohibit the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution from compelling one state fabricating a new definition of marriage by legislative or judicial fiat, nowhere in that state's original authority, and wrongly compel that redefinition on each and every state, which is contrary to the intent of the clause, and the Constitution overall.

    Imposing gay marriage by abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause would create a precedent of ever-expanding anarchy in which each and every state would be compelled to recognize the most expansive and irresponsible definition of any one state on any matter. As example, by such precedent, one state might expand Driver's Licenses to include the ability to operate aircraft, thereby compelling every state to recognize anyone with a Driver's License to allow them to fly any plane. Such an expansive definition would very soon take us back to a time prior to the Wright brothers. Now that's "Progress".
    Last edited by Trip; 06-26-13 at 04:13 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  3. #643
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    This is what I think.

    Prop 8 wrongfully reversed legal marriages in California performed prior to it being implemented. Those marriages should not be revoked. However, Prop 8 should stand for all future marriages. It won in a legal election with the majority voting to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Those people have their right to vote and that should not be revoked or ignored in much the same way if another state voted to legalize same sex unions as marriages

    DOMA should be repealed, it is a state's right to define marriage and there should be nothing Constitutionally that forces homosexual marriage to be the law of the land under some guise of "equality." For some reason if Prop 8 is reversed it should still hold that other states may uphold their bans or approvals of SSM.

  4. #644
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    This is what I think.

    Prop 8 wrongfully reversed legal marriages in California performed prior to it being implemented. Those marriages should not be revoked. However, Prop 8 should stand for all future marriages. It won in a legal election with the majority voting to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Those people have their right to vote and that should not be revoked or ignored in much the same way if another state voted to legalize same sex unions as marriages

    DOMA should be repealed, it is a state's right to define marriage and there should be nothing Constitutionally that forces homosexual marriage to be the law of the land under some guise of "equality." For some reason if Prop 8 is reversed it should still hold that other states may uphold their bans or approvals of SSM.

    Why do you think that any the Federal government, any state government, or even any populist majority has the authority to dictate something that long precedes this country's existence, and is founded on the biological fact of human reproduction?

    Where do the states have the authority to define marriage, when they have no original jurisdiction over marriage, nor to alter the definition of words to alter outcomes?

    Neither the states, nor the federal government, have any authority in dictating the terms of society, social engineering, by which false equivalences are created, and made to meet the whims of a populist majority.

    The fact of the matter is that marriage is recognized to involve a man and a woman, because this is how human beings are created, and societies promoted and advanced. Societies have a vested interest in recognizing the the public commitment of heterosexual marriages, because these are the means by which offspring are able to mature over the prolonged period to adolescence in a stable environment, to be produced, well-developed citizens.

    Marriage is not a compulsion or demand to procreate, but heterosexual reproduction are the only means that offspring are produced. Marriage is not a guarantee that the offspring will be well-developed and positive additions to society, but the biological home is the best guarantee of this.

    Society has no vested interest in whatever union, that cannot possibly produce offspring, and thereby does not promote its own offspring to habit society, and does not thereby advance society, and it is a false equivalence to insist that gay unions are the same as heterosexual unions.

    If homosexual unions do have children, it is only as a result of broken biological and social ties, thus making recognition of these homosexual unions contrary to the interest of society.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  5. #645
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Though you may not like the birth defect reality of homosexuality, it remains the one single solid scientitifc presentation on the etiology of homosexuality.

    Reality remains that the birth defect etiology of homosexuality simply was not "refuted" .. it was whined against .. a lot .. but not "refuted", obvious from a simple reading of the thread.

    Granted, the birth defect reality of homosexuality will be a harsh reality for ideologues to accept, and for reasons presented in the OP of that thread.

    But the birth defect reality of homosexuality is reality.

    And, acceptance is always for the best.
    Lets assume for a split second that you are right, that it is a birth defect even though there is no evidence that it actually is. Mentally handicapped people, which is considered a birth defect, are allowed to marry so obviously birth defects are not a pre-requisite for not allowing someone to marry. The same goes for any other birth defect out there. So your point fails as a reason to not allow them to marry.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #646
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    Two things. 1. The gun-grabbing agenda is too important to the pinkos and pinkos will vote for it no matter what they say. 2. Homosexuals are already free to live with and love whoever they please. I'd have been a lot more sympathetic about "rights" and "freedoms" if the homosexual community hadn't rejected "civil unions" offering ALL the same rights as marriage. It was then that I realized that it wasn't about homosexuals actually wanting to get married; very few would actually benefit from that. It was about something else and something a lot less honest and a lot less heart wrenching than bleeding heart stories about being deprived of rights.
    Actually in California a Mayor once tried to offer and perform civil unions for many gays and they fully accepted. But then the religious folks had a tizzy and convinced the courts to nullify all the civil unions that the Mayor had performed. So it was obvious to everyone that the religious had no intention of allowing gays to have any form of marriage. It was that slap in the face that solidified the push for actual marriage.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #647
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    This is what I think.

    Prop 8 wrongfully reversed legal marriages in California performed prior to it being implemented. Those marriages should not be revoked. However, Prop 8 should stand for all future marriages. It won in a legal election with the majority voting to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Those people have their right to vote and that should not be revoked or ignored in much the same way if another state voted to legalize same sex unions as marriages
    So if the people in a state voted to remove your freedom of speech for all people born after 6/26/2013 then its perfectly acceptable? No vote cast should ever take away a persons right.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #648
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Equal protection does not mean, nor involve, a great many things.

    Equal protection also does not involve equal outcome, nor equal reward.

    Equal protection does not involve equal outcome for groups or pairings, but rather only equal opportunity for individuals.

    Equal protection also does not mean equal protection (or outcome) under different TERMS, but rather only equal protection under the SAME TERMS.

    Blacks did not petition Woolworth's to eat at the counter at any hour of the day and night, nor to demand whatever they wanted to eat under their own terms, but rather to be able to eat at that counter under the same terms as everyone else.

    Women did not petition for suffrage under their own terms, demanding to vote whenever they wanted, for whatever they wanted, but rather only the ability to vote under the same terms as everyone else.

    The fact of the matter is that gays already have access to marriage under the same terms as heterosexuals, but choose to not avail themselves of that institution by the terms that have existed long before the foundation of this country, going back to the mankind's first civilizations. Instead gays want to dictate theirr own terms, then claim denial of rights under those terms, and then demand these terms are recognized as the equivalent in benefit to society of heterosexual marriage, to receive the same recognition and reward, which is untrue, a false equivalence, and thorough corruption of the Constitution's terms.
    I am not sure how you wrote all of that and did not realize that gay marriage is just like the examples you are talking about. Gays do not want gay marriage. if they did they would want civil unions which would be an entirely new thing. Gays want to be married. They do not want a new marriage law. They simply wish to be allowed to partner up with the people they want to partner up with and get the same legal benefits and responsibilities as anyone else. They do not actually want a news law. they do not want any new things at all. they just want to be a part of the old law. They just want to be married like black wanted to vote and sit at the counter, and women wanted to vote.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    As shown above, the cases before the Supreme Court cannot be legally sound by the terms claimed.

    Given that DOMA does not prohibit the states from making any laws, nor does DOMA itself create any definition of marriage, but rather only recognizes the definition that long precedes this country, and has long been recognized in this country, ...

    ..The only thing that DOMA actually does is prohibit the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution from compelling one state fabricating a new definition of marriage by legislative or judicial fiat, nowhere in that state's original authority, and wrongly compel that redefinition on each and every state, which is contrary to the intent of the clause, and the Constitution overall.

    Imposing gay marriage by abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause would create a precedent of ever-expanding anarchy in which each and every state would be compelled to recognize the most expansive and irresponsible definition of any one state on any matter. As example, by such precedent, one state might expand Driver's Licenses to include the ability to operate aircraft, thereby compelling every state to recognize anyone with a Driver's License to allow them to fly any plane. Such an expansive definition would very soon take us back to a time prior to the Wright brothers. Now that's "Progress".
    Actually, it has been set by precedent that states need to respect marriages in other states. There has been precedent set that forces other states to recognize marriages that would not be legal within their own state to protect the rights of married couples. For instance if state A said you could not be married until you were 18, and state B made it 16, a couple from state B who were legally married would stay married when crossing the border. In that aspect DOMA has run up against a long history of court precedent and federally mandated recognition of marriage contracts across the entire US. DOMA was passed in hopes that it would allow states to not recognize other states marriages, and that actually weakens all marriage contracts if the court upholds that part of it. Imagine if because you moved to a new state you had to get married again because that states laws might be different. You would have to be married in all 50 states to make sure you would not run into legal problems if you traveled.

    Let me put what you are talking about into context for you. Let us say you have a wife. You and her go on a little trip. You go to a neighboring state which doesn't recognize your marriage because you were not married there. You get into a car accident and she is injured and in a coma. You are not allowed to visit her or make medical decisions to help her because they do not recognize you are married. That is what you are talking about putting gays through. You are not stopping them from being married in the eyes of god because they can do that in all 50 states any day of the week as long as they find a willing church. None of this is about god, all of it is about the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage by contracted law here on earth.

  9. #649
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    I am not sure how you wrote all of that and did not realize that gay marriage is just like the examples you are talking about. Gays do not want gay marriage. if they did they would want civil unions which would be an entirely new thing. Gays want to be married. They do not want a new marriage law. They simply wish to be allowed to partner up with the people they want to partner up with and get the same legal benefits and responsibilities as anyone else. They do not actually want a news law. they do not want any new things at all. they just want to be a part of the old law. They just want to be married like black wanted to vote and sit at the counter, and women wanted to vote.
    I'm not sure how you read all that, and can still claim that gay marriage is just like heterosexual marriage.

    I wasn't referring to gays wanting "gay marriage" but was distinguishing it from heterosexual marriage, just as you do in your first sentence. If gays want to be married, they are quite able to do so now in any one of the States.

    Gays may not want a new marriage law, but they want a new marriage definition, one not recognized over the history of mankind, and then they want to abuse whole sections of the Constitution from full faith and Credit, to Equal Protection so as to force that corrupted definition on every individual in every state.

    What they want is an entirely new and corrupt meaning to 'equal protection' so it now involves equal results, but under different terms. Gays have nothing in common with blacks wanting to sit at the counter, nor women, because gays want the same results, but under their own terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Actually, it has been set by precedent that states need to respect marriages in other states. There has been precedent set that forces other states to recognize marriages that would not be legal within their own state to protect the rights of married couples. For instance if state A said you could not be married until you were 18, and state B made it 16, a couple from state B who were legally married would stay married when crossing the border. In that aspect DOMA has run up against a long history of court precedent and federally mandated recognition of marriage contracts across the entire US. DOMA was passed in hopes that it would allow states to not recognize other states marriages, and that actually weakens all marriage contracts if the court upholds that part of it. Imagine if because you moved to a new state you had to get married again because that states laws might be different. You would have to be married in all 50 states to make sure you would not run into legal problems if you traveled.
    Actually under the Full Faith and Credit clause, states recognize the documentation of other states, for the same application. But it is a corruption of FF&C clause, and abuse of the Constitution, to compel other states to accept an entirely new definition as the equivalent of what they have recognized, and then by the FF&C force the same recognition in each and every state. That's commonly called tyranny, and is no more legitimate by abuse of the terms of the Constitution, than it would be if the State offering Gay Marriage came and dictated those terms to other states directly.

    No, DOMA was NOT passed hoping that it would allow states to not recognize other state's marriages. DOMA fully allows states to recognize other states altnerative marriage definitions, or not, as the states themselves choose.

    All DOMA does is not compel states to recognize gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause, and indicates that the federal government will recognize the standard definition of Marriage that has always been recognized by this country and is instituted into federal laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    Let me put what you are talking about into context for you. Let us say you have a wife. You and her go on a little trip. You go to a neighboring state which doesn't recognize your marriage because you were not married there. You get into a car accident and she is injured and in a coma. You are not allowed to visit her or make medical decisions to help her because they do not recognize you are married. That is what you are talking about putting gays through. You are not stopping them from being married in the eyes of god because they can do that in all 50 states any day of the week as long as they find a willing church. None of this is about god, all of it is about the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage by contracted law here on earth.
    But your hypothetical about a wife and marriage is entirely inaccurate as to what is going on.

    What is going on is one or two states have fabricated a new definition of marriage, that is not based on the fact of human biological reproduction, cannot possibly produce offspring, and is incapable of populating society with offspring it cannot produce, and thereby society has no compelling interest in recognizing gay marriage.

    Yet some states want to comel this irrelevant fabrication of marriage on other states, forcing them to accept it as equivalent to marriage, by abuse of the FF&C clause, Equal Protection clause, and even the meaning of "rights", when gay marriage is factually not the equivalent of marriage.

    The relevant example here is one I've previously given. If one state were to redefine Driver's Licenses as also applying to airplanes, and then tried to abuse the Full Faith and Credit clause to force every state to recognize those licenses for flying any plane in those states. This would obviously create a problem because those licensee's are really not qualified to fly planes, and are not the equivalent to pilots. If this License recognition were forced on every state, then every state and its citizenry would lose faith in plane pilots, and not want to get aboard planes. The result would be the destruction of the Airline Industry <marriage>, and the undermining of society.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-26-13 at 07:59 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  10. #650
    Lurker
    iangb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,927
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    What they want is an entirely new and corrupt meaning to 'equal protection' so it now involves equal results, but under different terms. Gays have nothing in common with blacks wanting to sit at the counter, nor women, because gays want the same results, but under their own terms.
    Firstly (and I haven't the time yet to read the thread entire, so my apologies if this has already been dealt with - point me to the relevant posts and I can deal with them in turn), this presupposes that marriage already has a valid definition specific to heterosexuals (or, specifically exclusive of homosexuals). Given that you are pleading a biological basis for marriage, as below, that implies that no such definition already exists. Instead, it seems you are trying frantically to retcon in a definition of your liking so that you can protest that marriage is being 'redefined', rather than - as many would no doubt have - accept that the wide scope of marriage is merely being formally recognised. I'll deal with the validity of your argument from biology later on.

    Secondly - under the racist/sexist views of previous times, the same arguments you are making do indeed apply to blacks or women. Just one example:

    [original]"Gays already have the right to get married, just like straight people do. What gays want is to have the same results (gays and straights can marry any consenting adult), but under their own terms ("redefining" 'marriage between man and woman' to 'marriage between two people')"[/original]

    [parody]"Blacks already have the right to drink from public fountains - just like whites do. What blacks want is to have the same results (whites and blacks can drink from any fountain), but under their own terms ("redefining" 'whites-only' and 'blacks-only' fountains to 'people-only' fountains)"[/parody]

    ("Redefined" in quotes due to my earlier arguments)

    What is going on is one or two states have fabricated a new definition of marriage, that is not based on the fact of human biological reproduction, cannot possibly produce offspring, and is incapable of populating society with offspring it cannot produce, and thereby society has no compelling interest in recognizing gay marriage.
    Marriage is not based on 'the fact of human biological reproduction'. Otherwise those who were infertile would not be allowed to marry - after all, they "cannot possibly produce offspring, and [are] incapable of populating society with offspring [they] cannot produce".

    Marriage is not dependent on biology. It is a social arrangement, not a biological one. If you want to come up with a reason why marriage should be seen as 'straights-only', you're going to need a better one than that.

    As a sideline, given that many anti-SSM are also pro-life, and a common pro-life argument favours adoption, you would think that increasing the number of couples who are willing to adopt and whom the evidence suggests will not be hindered as parents by their sexuality whould be a good thing for society...

    The relevant example here is one I've previously given. If one state were to redefine Driver's Licenses as also applying to airplanes, and then tried to abuse the Full Faith and Credit clause to force every state to recognize those licenses for flying any plane in those states. This would obviously create a problem because those licensee's are really not qualified to fly planes, and are not the equivalent to pilots. If this License recognition were forced on every state, then every state and its citizenry would lose faith in plane pilots, and not want to get aboard planes. The result would be the destruction of the Airline Industry <marriage>, and the undermining of society.
    That would only be a relevant example if:

    a) Such a drastic redefinition had taken place in the first instance, which isn't the case - a more relevant example would be that when a new car comes out, the driving licence automatically accomodates it, even though the driving license was not granted with that specific car in mind.
    b) Allowing gays to marry would somehow affect the marriage of straight people, which also isn't true. If you feel that allowing Jane and Wendy to marry each other poses a threat to your own marriage, then prehaps we shouldn't be taking lessons from you in what constitutes a 'stable marriage' in the first place.
    Last edited by iangb; 06-26-13 at 08:48 AM.
    The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head. ~Terry Pratchett

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •