View Poll Results: Is homosexuality wrong and/or unnatural?

Voters
277. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's wrong and unnatural

    22 7.94%
  • It's not wrong, just unnatural

    16 5.78%
  • It's neither wrong nor unnatural

    107 38.63%
  • Don't know/care

    16 5.78%
  • Punish/restrict Christians for being against it

    12 4.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 77 of 162 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987127 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 1617

Thread: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

  1. #761
    Sage
    RamFel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,097
    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Yeah thin air is so much better.
    Hey, now THAT was funny!
    We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939

  2. #762
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Since you don't speak for the state again I disagree and stand by the numbers.
    The state speaks for the state. The reasons why the state sponsors marriage is: 1) To assist in the positive rearing of children; 2) To assist in creating a financially and interactively stable society and; 3) To promote the health of the population. All of these things are attained by both traditional marriage and SSM with no differences between them. This is why you are incorrect and why your numbers are irrelevant.

    That's good because they are smaller.
    Nope. They are not.

    "I know I am but what are you" Please.
    When you just stick to your inaccuracies no matter what is said, there is really little else to say other that to repeat that you are wrong... which you are.

    Then you reject the dictionary definition. OK that makes sense.

    You can reject it all you want, this does not change the facts.
    Problem is you have no facts on this issue. Name NAMES, BD. You asked, so I said to do it.

    And you were wrong.

    If you are not interested OK. Much like you talking about the wealth of information you have posted about gay marraige and tell others to look it up. I am telling you the same thing and you only have to go a few pages back rather than search the entire forum.

    If you are not willing to do this simple deed, how do you expect others to do it for you?
    I CONSTANTLY repost the information that I have posted in the past. I am asking for clarification. You don't want to give it... fine. This particular issue is done.

    This does not change the fact that it is not conclusive or any kind of fact in and of itself.
    So? It's what I observe.

    I was interpreting the Bible, not the Torah or God as you tried to suggest. I did in fact interpret what the Bible Old and New Testament says correctly.
    You quoted comments from the OT.. which is the Torah. I demonstrated what it's ACCURATE interpretation is. It was originally written in ancient Hebrew, so THOSE words are what are accurate translations/interpretations. You interpretted it wrong. I have now corrected that.

    Since yours does not include anything from the NT, it has little bearing on Christians.
    The NT is irrelevant to me, but YOU quoted passages from the OT ONLY in order to justify your position. I have now corrected those interoretations... so now you are moving the goal posts and making the NT your central argument. Tell us, BD... why would you quote Leviticus and then, when shown you are wrong, THEN switch to the NT? Seems like you couldn't prove your position the way you thought, so you had to switch gears.

    Only if "if" now means "we.
    I will ask again. In this statement "If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on", are you referring to people in general?
    Really?

    Romans 1:26–27 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3
    NT. Has nothing to do wth my religious beliefs and nothing to do with what you originally quoted.

    Marraige:

    Genesis 2:24 24 tTherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.


    This passage does not indicate the gender of one's wife.

    1 Corinthians 7:2–16 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 uThe husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 vDo not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, wso that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    6 Now as a concession, xnot a command, I say this.1 7 yI wish that all were zas I myself am. But aeach has his own gift from God, bone of one kind and one of another.

    8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that cit is good for them to remain single das I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, ethey should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    10 To the married fI give this charge (not I, but the Lord): gthe wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, hshe should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and gthe husband should not divorce his wife.

    12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you2 jto peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
    Again. The NT has nothing to do with my religion and nothing to do with the your original quotes that you made from Leviticus. How are you going to justify your position on homosexuality and religion, BD, now that I have take Leviticus away from you?

    I have shown they are crystal clear.
    No, you have been shown that your interpretations of your original quotes were completely false.

    They had no word for "sexual orientation" so that is a given. Of course reading the sections with the NT brings clarity.
    And again, the NT is not relevant to the beginings of this discussion. You quoted Leviticus. I showed the correct interpretations.

    Nothing wrong yet.
    Already demonstrated.

    My example was for clarification, nothing more. You choose to ignore it for whatever reason. Global or not it remains logical and you can't ignore that without being intellectual dishonest.
    NOT global and only individual and you cannot ignore that without being intellectually dishonest.

    In some cases.
    Nope... it's what I did.

    So, as I have shown, religious tenets are NOT clear. MY religion accepts homosexuality based on accurate intepretations of Leviticus. Now, if you want to go along with what the NT says, that is YOUR religion, and certainly is you right to do so. It's your belief and there is no argument around that. But basing it on Leviticus? Can't do that.

    Now, if you'd like, I can show you why the Christian church chose to interpret/translate Leviticus in the way that it did, and why, even with the information that I posted, Christianity has not and probably will not print the accurate translations.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 06-01-11 at 05:49 AM.
    "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"

  3. #763
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    What most folks don’t understand or appreciate, is that the Hebrew language is built on stem and root words. This allows many words to have multiple meanings. If you speak Hebrew, you come to realize that every time you read Torah, you notice new nuances in the passages. This is its brilliance. Torah is not static as it seems to be in English translations but rather, the Hebrew words flow in many different directions like water rivulets down a hill.
    I've been doing some internet research on this for a bit, trying to figure out how Leviticus came about and what the actual translations are. Fascinating stuff. Do you know what the ACTUAL, word for word translation, from ancient Hebrew, of Leviticus 18:22 is?

    Here: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is ritually unclean."

    What this means is that if a male is going to have homosexual relations with another male, they must NOT do it in a bed where a woman sleeps. This is consistent with much Judaic law, where there is a lot of separation of things... milk and meat, can't have two crops in the same field, etc...

    Now, this is the DIRECT, literal translation. Though some accept this, the interpretation that I gave in #733 is more widely accepted since it contains context to Hebrew society and the section of the Torah where it is written.
    "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"

  4. #764
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    You're really a comic, aren't you? I don't really know that God really said all that about gays. So you're right! So maybe God really created gays, huh? And maybe he approves of gay sex, do you think? Do you have the biblical passage? Chapter and verse?
    I already demonstrated that one of the most quoted anti-gay passages in the Bible is not anti-gay at all. I suppose this means that you will have to rethink all of your arguments... unless you want to hold onto a position that does not agree with what God had written.

    My point here is that I was trying to show what God wouldn’t do. But since I’m so stupid, and can’t prove what God says or doesn’t say. Maybe you can show me in the bible what God does say, or where God approves. Can you do that? Yes? No?
    Yup. Already done. Let's see if you listen to the word of God, or if you hold onto your un-Godlike position because of your bias. I BET I know which direction you go.

    I seriously doubt that God approves of bad behavior.
    Go ahead and prove this.

    Natural: existing in, or formed by nature.
    Excellent. Now see... that wasn't so hard. Homosexuality exists in nature. You lose.

    There, I defined it for you. I just looked at that definition over, under, around and through. It doesn’t say that gay is natural as far as I can see. Or does it? Can you find that “Gay sex is natural” in that definition?
    Exist in nature. Homosexuality exists in nature. Like I said... you lose.

    Gender and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive?
    Sure. One can be one gender and be either sexual orientation. One is not dependent on the other. Simple concept.

    Facts: natural sex creates babies, and unnatural sex does not. Stop trying to over-intellectualize it.
    Natural sex. Hmmm... since we know, from your definition, that natural is something that exists in nature, we therefore know that homosexual sex (whatever that is) is natural. We, therefore, know that not all natural sex (sex that exists in nature) creates babies. This very simple logic. Also, if it exists in nature, it cannot be "unnatural sex" by the definition you provided. Like I said. You lose.

    Oh, and the three points I was trying to make about the father, the couple, and the dude? The only reason you think that it's stupid is because you ignored the point I was trying to make. That in general, people don’t want gay children, and normally, dudes don’t want to be insulted. Because as natural as you think being gay is, it’s considered an insult to be called gay. An insult for something that you think is natural. Why is that?
    You had no point. That's the point. I refuted it quite completely as there was nothing logical about it.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 06-01-11 at 05:50 AM.
    "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"

  5. #765
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    You don't have to be a mind reader or diviner. It's a tactic he uses repeatedly.
    Mac... that is the CORRECT definition of natural. If it exists in nature, it is natural. A naturalistic fallacy would be claiming that something that exists in nature is good and something that does not exist in nature is bad. CT did not commit this fallacy.

    Now, if you want to say that you cannot compare human behavior with animal behavior, when we are discussing specifics, you are correct. But this is a general definition, so, no... you are wrong.
    "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"

  6. #766
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    No offense Critical, but I figure if you had a REAL argument, you wouldn't have to base your entire case on a definition in a common every day dictionary.

    Tsk tsk tsk.
    You just say that because the definition you posted just sunk your entire argument.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk.
    "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"

  7. #767
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    So maybe God really created gays, huh? And maybe he approves of gay sex, do you think? Do you have the biblical passage? Chapter and verse?
    Well, he did that for the Leviticus verse, the one most often trotted out by biblical literalists to condemn homosexuality, and he did it using the original Hebrew semantics. I'm only really interested in biblical literalism if it deals with the original scriptures, in context, and taken from the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Ancient Greek. If you wish to pronounce on the literal word of God, you need to show that the version of the Bible you are quoting has properly translated the context and meaning of the original.


    I seriously doubt that God approves of bad behavior.
    Define 'bad behaviour' in the original texts.
    Natural: existing in, or formed by nature.
    Fine.
    There, I defined it for you. I just looked at that definition over, under, around and through. It doesn’t say that gay is natural as far as I can see. Or does it? Can you find that “Gay sex is natural” in that definition?
    By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural.
    Gender and sexual orientation are mutually exclusive? Facts: natural sex creates babies, and unnatural sex does not. Stop trying to over-intellectualize it.
    Prove that sex is ONLY natural to the extent that it produces babies. If you can, then ALL heterosexual and homosexual sex which does not produce babies is 'unnatural'. You must therefore be arguing that contraception, foreplay and oral sex is 'unnatural'. Perhaps that is what you are arguing.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  8. #768
    Sage
    RamFel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,097
    You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

    When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

    The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

    It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

    The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.
    We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939

  9. #769
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
    You’re making the same mistake that CaptainCourtesy made. You’re trying to close this discussion down once and for all by using a dictionary. “Existing in, or formed by nature”. That’s apparently good enough for you. And you state with finality that “By that definition it is clear that homosexuality is natural”. Case closed. Begone ramfel.

    When a straight couple has sex, generally speaking, a baby is eventually born. The female is designed to produce an egg, and the male is designed to fertilize it. They complement each other. That kind of sex is “natural”. This birthing ability means that the primary purpose of sex is to produce a child. You can use sex for other purposes (to bond, show love, have fun, and so on) but the first and most important responsibility is to make a child.

    The definition “Existing in, or formed by nature” is too broad. You can’t take that definition and use it to prove that homosexuality is natural. There are other considerations.

    It’s a fact that two gay men do not sexually complement each other. Each man can fertilize an egg, but neither man is producing that egg. All Heterosexual sex doesn’t always create babies, because straight couples don’t always want babies. But heterosexual couples “at least have the potential” to make babies, if they want to. They have nature on their side. Their sex, even if they don’t want babies, is natural because of this potential ability. Gay couples don’t have this potential.

    The facts are clear. You simply can’t prove that gay sex is natural, dictionary, or no dictionary.
    Is this English? I can't get past all the &ldquo: bits.

  10. #770
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The state speaks for the state. The reasons why the state sponsors marriage is: 1) To assist in the positive rearing of children; 2) To assist in creating a financially and interactively stable society and; 3) To promote the health of the population. All of these things are attained by both traditional marriage and SSM with no differences between them. This is why you are incorrect and why your numbers are irrelevant.



    Nope. They are not.



    When you just stick to your inaccuracies no matter what is said, there is really little else to say other that to repeat that you are wrong... which you are.



    Problem is you have no facts on this issue. Name NAMES, BD. You asked, so I said to do it.



    I CONSTANTLY repost the information that I have posted in the past. I am asking for clarification. You don't want to give it... fine. This particular issue is done.



    So? It's what I observe.



    You quoted comments from the OT.. which is the Torah. I demonstrated what it's ACCURATE interpretation is. It was originally written in ancient Hebrew, so THOSE words are what are accurate translations/interpretations. You interpretted it wrong. I have now corrected that.



    The NT is irrelevant to me, but YOU quoted passages from the OT ONLY in order to justify your position. I have now corrected those interoretations... so now you are moving the goal posts and making the NT your central argument. Tell us, BD... why would you quote Leviticus and then, when shown you are wrong, THEN switch to the NT? Seems like you couldn't prove your position the way you thought, so you had to switch gears.



    I will ask again. In this statement "If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on", are you referring to people in general?


    NT. Has nothing to do wth my religious beliefs and nothing to do with what you originally quoted.



    This passage does not indicate the gender of one's wife.



    Again. The NT has nothing to do with my religion and nothing to do with the your original quotes that you made from Leviticus. How are you going to justify your position on homosexuality and religion, BD, now that I have take Leviticus away from you?



    No, you have been shown that your interpretations of your original quotes were completely false.



    And again, the NT is not relevant to the beginings of this discussion. You quoted Leviticus. I showed the correct interpretations.



    Already demonstrated.



    NOT global and only individual and you cannot ignore that without being intellectually dishonest.



    Nope... it's what I did.

    So, as I have shown, religious tenets are NOT clear. MY religion accepts homosexuality based on accurate intepretations of Leviticus. Now, if you want to go along with what the NT says, that is YOUR religion, and certainly is you right to do so. It's your belief and there is no argument around that. But basing it on Leviticus? Can't do that.

    Now, if you'd like, I can show you why the Christian church chose to interpret/translate Leviticus in the way that it did, and why, even with the information that I posted, Christianity has not and probably will not print the accurate translations.
    Does your religion allow homosexual intercourse?
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

Posting Permissions

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