• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Unions

Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    Votes: 13 31.0%

  • Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples

    Votes: 15 35.7%

  • Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Cephus said:
No, up until quite recently, religion CLAIMED ownership of marriage, whether or not that's actually true or not. However, what may have been true, or perceived to be true in the past, has no bearing on what is true today. In the modern world, religion simply provides a ceremony to celebrate marriage, it has no other function in the process.

You can walk down all the aisles in all of the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
Click to expand...

Religion CLAIMED ownership of marriage? Right. Whatever you say. I'm just going to let that statement sort of hang in air.

Marriage was an institution established for business purposes. It was a way to grant sexual rights to ensure legitimate heirs, a way to increase wealth by combining property, and a simple way to establish who inherits what. In Western cultures a wedding ceremony was necessary because the Catholic Church was the only uniform power recognized by every nation.

The dominant argument for homosexual marriage these days is "why can't a couple who loves each other get married like everyone else?" The cold and simple answer is that Western marriage has NEVER been about love.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Bodhisattva said:
Couldn't find the "Mexican" analogy, and in the end, I guess that this is all there is to it...
Click to expand...

you quoted me sarcastically agreeing with you that the dictionary is the leading authority on social issues.

good job.
 
emdash said:
you quoted me sarcastically agreeing with you that the dictionary is the leading authority on social issues.

good job.
Click to expand...


Thanks for providing no case at all, and by default, admitting that you have none.

You are dismissed.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Both analogies deal with people in a general sense, but not an absolute one.
You can try and be as nit-picky as you like, and keep taking it out of context,
but in the end you are not proving anything other than your ability to be snide.
Click to expand...

both analogies are idiotic and false.

when you include words like "not one" "anyone" "whomever"--kind of like "never" and "always"--you are not dealing with the general anymore. you are dealing in absolutes. I warned you not to make sweeping generalizations. they are seldom, if ever, valid. and yet rather than modifying your sweeping generalization, you challenged me to disprove it and then accused me of taking it out of context. a sweeping generalization, once disproved in any context, is no longer a legitimate argument--leaving you, as I said before, nonplussed.

I think it bothers you that I'm rational. admittedly, it's much easier to deal with raving bigots. kudos for bearing with me.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Thanks for providing no case at all, and by default, admitting that you have none.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

the only case I have seen you provide has been completely demolished. if I'm at zero, you're at negative one.
 
emdash said:
both analogies are idiotic and false.

when you include words like "not one" "anyone" "whomever"--kind of like "never" and "always"--you are not dealing with the general anymore. you are dealing in absolutes. I warned you not to make sweeping generalizations. they are seldom, if ever, valid. and yet rather than modifying your sweeping generalization, you challenged me to disprove it and then accused me of taking it out of context. a sweeping generalization, once disproved in any context, is no longer a legitimate argument--leaving you, as I said before, nonplussed.

I think it bothers you that I'm rational. admittedly, it's much easier to deal with raving bigots. kudos for bearing with me.
Click to expand...


Nothing about what you are doing "bothers" me. Don't flatter yourself silly one. What you are is obtuse, not rational. Rational would be to understand what is traspiring and keep it within the proper context.

An absolute? What are you... twelve?

I admitted such... who comes to such moronic debates about an errant absolute or not including something that is illegal such as incest? I don't care that you point out a misuse of an absolute, especially when your analogy against it is so ****ing stupid as to talk about an illegality like incest.

I used an absolute, and within the context that I used it, it is correct. All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want. Any. It is an absolute and you could next argue that a person in a coma can't marry since they are not cognizant. That is correct and that is fine. But it is out of context since a person in a coma, that is not cognizant, is not allowed to marry just like two first cousins or brother sister are not allowed to marry. That is why, after I said that, I said that you are taking it purposely out of context in order to make a point about absolutes, instead of creating a logical and rational argument that is on topic.

You are trolling about absolutes, about something that is so elementary that it is beyond stupid to nit-pick about. It is like a stupid grammar-Nazi that won't debate the issue because they are debating spelling. We are talking about the sky being clear and you are pointing out that there is a cloud on the horizon. You are a ravingly obtuse... that much is certain.

Now that you have not even presented a case, it is astounding that you think that you demolished anything. You offered some juvenile tactic about an absolute rather than trying to communicate and clear up misunderstandings. Your a troll. Not even a clever one.

I am done explaining this obvious stuff to you. If you are too stupid to get it, or Troll enough to keep arguing, then that is one you. Until you present a case, any case, regarding not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, then you will be ignored for the boring and obtuse Troll that you are.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Nothing about what you are doing "bothers" me. Don't flatter yourself silly one. What you are is obtuse, not rational. Rational would be to understand what is traspiring and keep it within the proper context.

An absolute? What are you... twelve?

I admitted such... who comes to such moronic debates about an errant absolute or not including something that is illegal such as incest? I don't care that you point out a misuse of an absolute, especially when your analogy against it is so ****ing stupid as to talk about an illegality like incest.

I used an absolute, and within the context that I used it, it is correct. All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want. Any. It is an absolute and you could next argue that a person in a coma can't marry since they are not cognizant. That is correct and that is fine. But it is out of context since a person in a coma, that is not cognizant, is not allowed to marry just like two first cousins or brother sister are not allowed to marry. That is why, after I said that, I said that you are taking it purposely out of context in order to make a point about absolutes, instead of creating a logical and rational argument that is on topic.

You are trolling about absolutes, about something that is so elementary that it is beyond stupid to nit-pick about. It is like a stupid grammar-Nazi that won't debate the issue because they are debating spelling. We are talking about the sky being clear and you are pointing out that there is a cloud on the horizon. You are a ravingly obtuse... that much is certain.

Now that you have not even presented a case, it is astounding that you think that you demolished anything. You offered some juvenile tactic about an absolute rather than trying to communicate and clear up misunderstandings. Your a troll. Not even a clever one.

I am done explaining this obvious stuff to you. If you are too stupid to get it, or Troll enough to keep arguing, then that is one you. Until you present a case, any case, regarding not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, then you will be ignored for the boring and obtuse Troll that you are.
Click to expand...

Perhaps clearing up some of the extraneous writing will help resolve this little issue.

Bodhisattva said: "All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want."

As a response emdash said: "allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent."

Your use of the word "any", Bodhisattva, implies that you view there are no exceptions to your statement. Emdash gave you an exception thus making your statement invalid. In order to maintain your stance, you must narrow down what you mean. Otherwise, we have only to assume that you're ok with sibling incest.
 
DGomez said:
Perhaps clearing up some of the extraneous writing will help resolve this little issue.

Bodhisattva said: "All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want."

As a response emdash said: "allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent."

Your use of the word "any", Bodhisattva, implies that you view there are no exceptions to your statement. Emdash gave you an exception thus making your statement invalid. In order to maintain your stance, you must narrow down what you mean. Otherwise, we have only to assume that you're ok with sibling incest.
Click to expand...

Holy ****ing ****. No duh. Not to be disrespectful to you, but jesus.

Of course I said any, and the context that I am using it, since it should already be obvious, is ANY PERSON THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MIARRAGE OTHER THEN SEXUAL PREFERENCE OR ORIENTATION.

Those reasons are against the law.
The thread is about this very subject.

This thread is not about incest as a reason to keep people apart.

If we were in a random thread and I made some random comment, emdashs point would be valid.
That is why we have this forum with its sections and particular threads...
They help narrow the discussions so that we don't have to freaking qualify every statement with all of the exceptions.

This is not the abortion section, or the war on terror section.
This is a poll section and this thread is specifically labeled.

Could not using an absolute have been more clear? Perhaps...
I generally try and avoid absolutes, in fact, I hardly use them for this very reason.

But within the context of how I was using it, hoping that others were clever enough to pick up that my comment is in context with the appropriated
thread, then it is clear enough as it stands. I am not interested in clarifying
an already simple statement in a debate... that is a waste of time.
 
Bodhisattva said:
and the context that I am using it, since it should already be obvious
Click to expand...

It was not.

Bodhisattva said:
is ANY PERSON THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MIARRAGE OTHER THEN SEXUAL PREFERENCE OR ORIENTATION.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying. Please be more precise in the future. It will help to avoid misunderstandings.

Bodhisattva said:
Those reasons are against the law.
Click to expand...

So is gay marriage.

Bodhisattva said:
The thread is about this very subject.
Click to expand...

Which is the legalization. Gay marriage is not the precedent. Your argument is for it to BECOME the precedent. Which leads to the question of why gay marriage should be legalized and other forms of coupling shouldn't.

Bodhisattva said:
This thread is not about incest as a reason to keep people apart.
Click to expand...

But incest is another type of couple that is ALSO illegal. So you must present an argument on why gay marriage should be the only thing picked out of the bin of illegal marriages.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Nothing about what you are doing "bothers" me. Don't flatter yourself silly one. What you are is obtuse, not rational. Rational would be to understand what is traspiring and keep it within the proper context.

An absolute? What are you... twelve?
Click to expand...

is that the best you can do? turning the other cheek has never been so easy.

Bodhisattva said:
I admitted such... who comes to such moronic debates about an errant absolute or not including something that is illegal such as incest? I don't care that you point out a misuse of an absolute, especially when your analogy against it is so ****ing stupid as to talk about an illegality like incest.
Click to expand...

when you base your argument on "errant absolutes" that leaves the opposition with nothing to work with.

Bodhisattva said:
I used an absolute, and within the context that I used it, it is correct. All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want. Any. It is an absolute and you could next argue that a person in a coma can't marry since they are not cognizant. That is correct and that is fine. But it is out of context since a person in a coma, that is not cognizant, is not allowed to marry just like two first cousins or brother sister are not allowed to marry. That is why, after I said that, I said that you are taking it purposely out of context in order to make a point about absolutes, instead of creating a logical and rational argument that is on topic.
Click to expand...

I already made rational arguments in that really long thread that got closed. I thought we had made some progress, but then I've always been an incurable optimist.

Bodhisattva said:
You are trolling about absolutes, about something that is so elementary that it is beyond stupid to nit-pick about. It is like a stupid grammar-Nazi that won't debate the issue because they are debating spelling. We are talking about the sky being clear and you are pointing out that there is a cloud on the horizon. You are a ravingly obtuse... that much is certain.
Click to expand...

I could just as easily say that making a blanket statement and then getting mad when it is refuted is so elementary that it is beyond stupid, but I would never be so rude.

Bodhisattva said:
Now that you have not even presented a case, it is astounding that you think that you demolished anything. You offered some juvenile tactic about an absolute rather than trying to communicate and clear up misunderstandings. Your a troll. Not even a clever one.
Click to expand...

the point, bodhisattva, is that sweeping generalizations are useless wastes of time, and no more welcome in an intelligent debate than a grammar nazi.

Bodhisattva said:
I am done explaining this obvious stuff to you. If you are too stupid to get it, or Troll enough to keep arguing, then that is one you. Until you present a case, any case, regarding not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, then you will be ignored for the boring and obtuse Troll that you are.
Click to expand...

never attack in anger. would you like a rain check?
 
DGomez said:
It was not.
Click to expand...

To the two of you...


Thank you for clarifying.
Click to expand...

No problem... though it was already clear.


Please be more precise in the future. It will help to avoid misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

If you want to be heard, then I suggest that you don't give advice in the manner in which you are.
You are not my teacher or parent, and I have been an adult for quite some time.

So is gay marriage.
Click to expand...

This thread is about gay marriage/civil unions and not incest...
If that is not already understood, then I am not sure that I can help you, or emdash.


Which is the legalization. Gay marriage is not the precedent. Your argument is for it to BECOME the precedent. Which leads to the question of why gay marriage should be legalized and other forms of coupling shouldn't.
Click to expand...

Why should gay marriage be legal and incest not? Are you kidding me?
If you want to argue why gay marriage should be allowed and, since incest is also illegal, incest too...
Then go ahead an make a point regarding such. It is tremedously dumb, but go ahead.

If you want to make an argument that incest is analogous to incest, and thus both should remain illegal,
Then I would ask you to make a case.

Regarding your question, why should gay marriage be legal and incest should not,
Well, common sense tells us that two non-related men marrying is vastly different than a brother and sister marrying.

Actually a man marrying a non-related women is more analogous to a brother
marrying a sister than is two non-related, or related men, marrying each other.


But incest is another type of couple that is ALSO illegal. So you must present an argument on why gay marriage should be the only thing picked out of the bin of illegal marriages.
Click to expand...

I don't need to present any such argument. That is ridiculous.
All I need to do is show that it is just as logical to allow homosexual marriage
As it is to allow heterosexual marriages, and I have done this alread. What I
am facing now has nothing to do with the issue. Your dual arguments are not in any way logically related to allowing gay marriage, or of denying it either.
 
emdash said:
is that the best you can do? turning the other cheek has never been so easy.



when you base your argument on "errant absolutes" that leaves the opposition with nothing to work with.



I already made rational arguments in that really long thread that got closed. I thought we had made some progress, but then I've always been an incurable optimist.



I could just as easily say that making a blanket statement and then getting mad when it is refuted is so elementary that it is beyond stupid, but I would never be so rude.



the point, bodhisattva, is that sweeping generalizations are useless wastes of time, and no more welcome in an intelligent debate than a grammar nazi.



never attack in anger. would you like a rain check?
Click to expand...

Anger? Okee dokee...

No semblance of an argument... noted. Try again.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Anger? Okee dokee...

No semblance of an argument... noted. Try again.
Click to expand...

at least I didn't post a crappy one that got shot down by an obtuse troll.

I've already given you my argument in detail over 30 pages of a thread, less than a month ago. as far as I'm concerned I have yet to see you refute it. your persistence in ignoring it, however? noted.
 
emdash said:
at least I didn't post a crappy one that got shot down by an obtuse troll.

I've already given you my argument in detail over 30 pages of a thread, less than a month ago. as far as I'm concerned I have yet to see you refute it. your persistence in ignoring it, however? noted.
Click to expand...

You didn't shoot down anything... it appears that we can add delusional to your resume.

Why don't you link that part, since I don't remember where it is and I didn't find it after searching twenty pages of this 24 page thread.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You didn't shoot down anything... it appears that we can add delusional to your resume.
Why don't you link that part, since I don't remember where it is and I didn't find it after searching twenty pages of this 24 page thread.
Click to expand...

my pleasure.

Bodhisattva said:
Like I said before, there is not one logical, rational or reasonable argument that would deny homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) the right to marry whomever they wanted to marry....
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
It is only a sweeping generalization if it is untrue. Care to test it? ;)
Click to expand...

emdash said:
a pair of siblings in west virginia wants to get married. allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent.
Click to expand...

conclusion: it is untrue, therefore it is a sweeping generalization, by your own criterion. a sweeping generalization is not an argument; that's what I meant when I said it had been "shot down."

again I observe your continued avoidance of my real argument, which I stated in full, in favor of this bickering. I'm a little surprised that you're so hostile towards me now. I really thought we had something special. I'd even hoped that one day I might call you bodi. I suppose I must inure myself to disappointment.
 
emdash said:
my pleasure.







conclusion: it is untrue, therefore it is a sweeping generalization, by your own criterion. a sweeping generalization is not an argument; that's what I meant when I said it had been "shot down."

again I observe your continued avoidance of my real argument, which I stated in full, in favor of this bickering. I'm a little surprised that you're so hostile towards me now. I really thought we had something special. I'd even hoped that one day I might call you bodi. I suppose I must inure myself to disappointment.
Click to expand...


Hell, you can call me Bodi... a little disagreement strengthens a relationship as long as we compromise, understand one another, and move on with greater insight. And I understand your point, I just don't think that it is relevant enough to dismiss the premise of the argument. It just sounds too nit-picky and you aren't letting up. That is fine... I just get in a slam damn mood once in a while.

To be honest, I have no freaking idea what you argument actually is, either I don't remember it or I never saw it. You say I saw it, so I must not remember it. That is why I would like the link so that we can move on from this little fracas...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Hell, you can call me Bodi... a little disagreement strengthens a relationship as long as we compromise, understand one another, and move on with greater insight. And I understand your point, I just don't think that it is relevant enough to dismiss the premise of the argument. It just sounds too nit-picky and you aren't letting up. That is fine... I just get in a slam damn mood once in a while.

To be honest, I have no freaking idea what you argument actually is, either I don't remember it or I never saw it. You say I saw it, so I must not remember it. That is why I would like the link so that we can move on from this little fracas...
Click to expand...

I know you dislike nitpicky arguments and semantic games as much as I do, but as I've explained to you before I've gotten in the habit of paying very close attention to language when arguing gay marriage for two reasons:
1. gay marriage supporters have a propensity to use semantics to their advantage when coming up with disingenuous emotional appeals. close attention to semantics and vocabulary are necessary to combat this.
2. both sides like to refer to the dictionary and specific wording in the constitution, making each word used in a debate count a LOT. if an argument misuses language, the debate cannot or should not proceed until all misunderstandings are sorted out.

it's true that I'm not letting up and rarely do, perhaps a character flaw but it sometimes pays to be meticulous.

our previous conversation is buried somewhere in
this beast, towards the beginning of the end. even captain courtesy says I'm not a bigot so I must have gotten something right. you're welcome to think I'm slow or delusional but be prepared to back it up with evidence or I'll get a martyr complex and be unbearable.
 
emdash said:
I know you dislike nitpicky arguments and semantic games as much as I do, but as I've explained to you before I've gotten in the habit of paying very close attention to language when arguing gay marriage for two reasons:
1. gay marriage supporters have a propensity to use semantics to their advantage when coming up with disingenuous emotional appeals. close attention to semantics and vocabulary are necessary to combat this.
2. both sides like to refer to the dictionary and specific wording in the constitution, making each word used in a debate count a LOT. if an argument misuses language, the debate cannot or should not proceed until all misunderstandings are sorted out.

it's true that I'm not letting up and rarely do, perhaps a character flaw but it sometimes pays to be meticulous.

our previous conversation is buried somewhere in
this beast, towards the beginning of the end. even captain courtesy says I'm not a bigot so I must have gotten something right. you're welcome to think I'm slow or delusional but be prepared to back it up with evidence or I'll get a martyr complex and be unbearable.
Click to expand...


174 pages! Argh... even starting at the back this is taking a while...

Well, yeah... we didn't agree on gender discrimination.
I thought your 'cigarette" analogy backed my point and you didn't like the 'mexican' analogy at all.

It appears that I didn't really ignore you, or you I, as much as CC shut down the thread.



Regarding you being a bigot, I said:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
I didn't call you a bigot, did I? You are debating a term, not being intolerant of people for no reason. This is a debate, and others in this thread ARE bigots, IMO... but you don't come across as one. I wondered for a bit, but not recently... Dang, I have been called a bigot when nothing can be further from the truth, so If I gave you that impression, or if I mistated myself, then I apologize to you for being rude
Click to expand...



And you said:

Originally Posted by emdash
I forgive you
Click to expand...



This seems top be the crux of the disagreement.


Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Are you agreeing that the state is discriminating against certain people that want to get married, but are being denied the ability to do so then?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
the state offers benefits for couples composed of one man and one woman. the state does not offer the same benefits to different types of groups. that is discrimination in action. that being said, there is not a specific group of people designated by the state to receive fewer rights than everyone else. in this sense, the use of the word "discrimination" here is misleading, because the connotation suggests racism and other types of bigotry that are not necessarily taking place
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Those denied same sex marriages are the people designated by the state to receive fewer rights than everyone else. Racism and sexism are not the only types of discrimination. Age, Race, Sex, Orientation, Religion, Etc...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
everyone is denied same sex marriages. similarly, everyone is allowed marriages. some
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
The fact that everyone is allowed to marry, in the man/woman marriage is irrelevant to this issue. I wish that people, and you, would stop saying this as if it holds any bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand, and that is legalizing same sex marriage and if same sex marriage effects you, us, in any way...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
I will reply to #1714 asap and explain
Click to expand...

We don't resolve anything and from what I can tell, you still don't have a logical argument denying homosexuals the right to marry a person of the same sex. You are saying what is, and playing semantic games regarding their "right" to marry, just not to marry a person of the same sex. I remember us getting close to a compromise, or understanding... but damn that Captain Courtesy! He shut it down.

And here I am being a jerk to you... well, I guess the honey moon is over. ;)
 
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
If a gender is being discriminated against, then it is discrimination? How is this not obvious?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
there are only two genders. that I'm aware of.

Uncle Sam: it is now illegal for women to smoke cigarettes.
Uncle Sam: oh yeah, and men can't either.
Bodhisattva: you're so sexist uncle sam, waaa. ()
Uncle Sam: which sex am I discriminating against?
Bodhisattva: both!!1

ok well that is quite humorous if I do say so myself but you get the idea. that's how I'm seeing your argument atm, please set me straight. (no pun intended, oh man I'm on a roll.)
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
I guess that I am not sure how, if it is discrimination to one or both genders, it is not simply "gender discrimination" and that you don't agree...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
if it is gender Discrimination (big d), it should be obvious which gender is being treated like crap and which gender is not, since there are only 2. otherwise it is only gender discrimination (little d).
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Big D little d, is there a difference?
I have never heard that it was ok to discriminate with a little d as long as you weren't using the big D...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
I will reply to #1714 asap and explain
Click to expand...


If one gender is being discriminated against, then what is your point about "two genders"?
 
You never get to say why you think that the mexican analogy doesn't work. Here is your big chance... :lol:


Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
If a gender is being discriminated against, then it is discrimination? How is this not obvious?
Can't a Mexican discriminate against a white guy and a black guy at the same time?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
your racist mexican analogy doesn't work, because it involves more than two races. there are only two genders.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
And I know people that are racists towards EVERY SINGLE RACE other than their own...
so the analogy works just fine when modified in that way...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by emdash
I will reply to #1714 asap and explain why your racist mexican analogy is even worse now that you've modified it.
Click to expand...
 
Give us marriage, give gay couples a civil union if it's going to cause a hissy. What's wrong with that?
Purrs,
Pookie
 
Pookie said:
Give us marriage, give gay couples a civil union if it's going to cause a hissy. What's wrong with that?
Purrs,
Pookie
Click to expand...

What is your REASONING regarding being in favor of discriminating against Homosexual Marriage?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I remember us getting close to a compromise, or understanding... but damn that Captain Courtesy! He shut it down.
Click to expand...

That's right, blame me for you two not being able to settle an argument. :mrgreen:

It was either shut the thread down, or watch it shut DP down. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom