02-13-05, 04:29 PM #41
Source: Washington Post
Title: "Marriage in the March of Time"
Date: February 12, 2005
Washington Post columnist Colbert I. King considers the historical debate about marriage in the United States.
There's really no telling what the 29 black intellectuals who met 100 years ago in Niagara Falls would think of America today. Of course, the same might be said of Americans in the year 2105 who look back to see how we lived out our lives a century before. There's good reason, however, to believe that the 29 men, led by W.E.B. Du Bois, then a professor at Atlanta University, would hardly recognize this as the same country ....
.... The breadth of legally sanctioned segregation and discrimination 100 years ago remains a historical shame. But what will Americans 100 years down the road think when they examine our era? ....
.... Consider this: As early as 1664, Maryland earned the distinction of becoming the first colony to ban marriages between blacks and whites ....
.... It remained that way for generations, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that state laws setting forth who can marry whom violate "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" -- marriage -- and the "principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment" ....
.... Now fast-forward past today to 100 years from now. How will future generations view our present-day fight against allowing monogamous couples with life commitments to each other to marry? What will they think of our rush to enact state laws prohibiting same-sex life partners from joining the same institution shared by different-sex couples? How will they regard our assertion that there is a public interest in promoting discrimination in the marriage statute? ....
The present is more shameful a statement regarding homosexuals than homophobia in the past. Prior to about 1990, discrimination against homosexuals was largely a latent presumption in American society. However, the last fifteen years or so have seen a number of laws proposed by homophobic bigots that are intended to discriminate specifically. Take the recent gender-discrimination law passed by Oregon voters. There, the procedural reality was that there was no device to prevent gay marriage. Perceiving and characterizing this lack of prohibition a suspension of democracy, conservatives drafted and pushed and won a measure to specifically insert that gender-discriminatory prohibition.
Laws intended to discriminate in such a way are generally a bad idea, and have a history of eventually losing in court. Furthermore, in gender issues, which do not inherently demand strict scrutiny by the courts, intention to discriminate is one thing that will invite a tougher examination (see Legal Information Institute).
So not only is it statistically inadvisable to push such discriminatory laws--for all the victories they win in preliminary rounds, such causes fail when it comes to the ultimate decision--it is also legalistically myopic.
This celebration of discrimination and "negative-irrational-emotion-that-we-should-not-call-hatred-lest-we-offend-the-haters" is a disgusting testament to American privilege.
As one blogger put it:
... people find homosexuality itself objectionable; that the idea of two men together is disgusting. Frankly, the idea of most hetrosexual couples together isn't the prettiest sight either; but we should acknowledge that relationships are about far more than sex; they are about companionship, friendship and love. To simplify all homosexual relationships to sex is a hasty and incorrect generalization.
And, frankly, that's just giving too much attention to sex.
Apparently the temperance of tradition and faith, while it prescribes adultery for even looking at someone else in a sexual manner, has no objection to obsessing over what other people think about sex.
It's all the same: sexual intercourse is at the heart of this argument because it's the only thing the conservative cause has going for it. Any responsible examination of the issue shows this conservative restriction to be folly.
King, Colbert I. "Marriage in the March of Time". Washington Post. February 12, 2005; page A19. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb11.html
Outlyer.org. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal. February 25, 2004. See http://www.outlyer.org/archives/000102.html
See Also -
Legal Information Institute. "About Equal Protection". Cornell University. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html
02-15-05, 09:18 PM #42
<i>"It's all the same: sexual intercourse is at the heart of this argument because it's the only thing the conservative cause has going for it. Any responsible examination of the issue shows this conservative restriction to be folly."</i>
Well, it just doesn't look right for some reason. It is a hot political topic, and it's building steam.
02-16-05, 01:49 AM #43Originally Posted by Bowser
02-16-05, 02:34 PM #44
Title: "Lesbian seeks right to see child"
Date: February 16, 2005
Ah, the grim face of normalcy.
On Tuesday, lawyers for both sides of a custody dispute argued before the State Supreme Court. At issue is whether Page Britain, the biological mother of a child, can prevent her lesbian partner of several years from seeing the child in the wake of their separation.
Carvin's attorney, Patricia Novotny, asked justices to "view this woman through this child's eyes" and send the case back to King County Superior Court, allowing Carvin to prove that she should be considered one of the girl's parents.
But Britain's attorney, Brian Krikorian, urged the court not to undermine biological parents' rights to decide who should and shouldn't be part of their children's lives.
Carvin and Britain had been together for about six years when Britain was artificially inseminated. She had a baby in May 1995, and Britain worked to support the three of them.
Carvin stayed home to feed, bathe, play with and otherwise care for the child.
When the girl was 5, Britain and Carvin broke up. Carvin continued seeing the girl for about a year until Britain, who disagreed with Carvin's parenting style, decided Carvin should no longer be in the picture.
Chief Justice Gerry Alexander called it "a bit of an overstatement" to say that the lower court's ruling would allow virtually any adult to claim parental rights. He asked Krikorian, "This isn't going to cover the Sunday School teacher, the Little League coach or your next-door neighbor, is it?"
Krikorian agreed it wouldn't but argued that any adult who'd lived with a child's family might be able to remain in the child's life even if that's not what the biological parents wanted.
Justice Jim Johnson was skeptical of the idea that biological parents couldn't simply decide that someone they once trusted with their child should no longer be around. "Is that consent irrevocable?" he asked Novotny.
Novotny said the situation was different for Carvin, who is asking to be declared a parent. Parental rights can be taken away only if the parent is found to be unfit, which is not an issue in the case. Novotny said the girl calls Carvin "Mama" and refers to Britain as "Mommy."
"Families have changed over the last 20 or 30 years," Stone said. "The law needs to expand and adapt to recognize and protect the real families that we have in our society today" ....
.... "Both of these cases, and others, are part of moving the law forward to reflect social reality," Stone said.
Krikorian, however, contends that "the face of the American family is changing in a whole host of ways that has nothing to do with sexual orientation."
In court documents, he called the relationship between Carvin, Britain and the girl "no more extraordinary than that of a live-in heterosexual boyfriend, girlfriend" or platonic roommates who simply help each other with child care.
Johnson, Tracy. "Lesbian seeks right to see child". SeattlePI.com. February 16, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...itation16.html
03-24-05, 03:31 PM #45
Meet today, same as yesterday, what about tomorrow?
Over in Reston, Virginia, where the Bible still rules, vandals have repeatedly burned a banner at a Unitarian Universalist Church. See The Connection Newspapers for an article.
Up in Washington State, an annual ritual may be seeing its final enactment. For 29 years, the legislature has considered and rejected a civil rights bill that would include sexual orientation in the state's nondiscrimination policy.
Seattle Rep. Ed Murray (D), who is gay, believes this is the year the bill will pass. According to Rep. Sen. Darlene Fairley (D-Lake Forest Park), the bill is one or two votes shy of a majority in the Senate. She intends to pass the bill out of committee this week.
"Some have asked, is this a necessity? Let me assure you, from the school yard to the boardrooms, discrimination is real for gays and lesbians in Washington state," Murray told the Senate panel. "I appeal to you as a gay man, as a native son of this state, as your colleague, to pass this bill."
Opponents included the Christian Coalition, Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and private citizens.
"Tens of thousands if not millions of Christians hold that homosexuality is a reprehensible lifestyle," said Randy Leskovar, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel in West Seattle. "So when we're saying it is a lifestyle that must be accepted ... you're going to have to allow something you think is reprehensible to be looked on as being OK."
"I have seen gay children abused, humiliated, spit on, called 'fag' and 'sissy,' beaten up - I don't know anyone who would choose that lifestyle," said Sen. Brian Weinstein, D-Mercer Island.
"Maybe you don't represent all the people," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, after noting that most of the committee members seemed to support the bill.
"When the homosexual community tried to make this a civil rights issue, I have a real problem with that," said Hutcherson, who is black. "Homosexuals have not had to go through what I had to go through growing up in Alabama."
Vernon Johnson, a Western Washington University professor who is also black, said he supports the bill because he opposes discrimination in all forms.
"I have experienced discrimination and I know firsthand the pain it causes," said Johnson. "I think what we are talking about is the pain of discrimination."
Carol Waymack, a Seattle doctor, told senators she simply wants her lesbian daughter to have the same opportunities as her straight son ....
.... "I'm looking at how I'm going to invest $75 million," said Clayton Lewis, chief operating officer of HouseValues, an Internet real estate company that went public last December. As a gay man, Lewis said, "knowing I have the same chance, the same opportunity to succeed, is critical to me.
An opinion column at Northern Star Online makes the point:
Recent victories in the gay community seem to have only increased existing homophobia lately.
Rather than being accepted as they should be, those who are gay are merely tolerated by the majority of the population. Its rather sad that we have not yet reached the point where they can be accepted as regular members of society. Instead, they continue to stand out as "strange."
And why must they be called "gay" rights? Gay people are not special cases deserving of special rights. They are human beings and thus deserve the same rights anyone else under normal circumstances would get.
What is it that makes the gay lifestyle prone to such widespread ridicule, anyway? Heterosexuals behave in so-called "questionable" ways on a regular basis, and yet we are free to live our lives the way we want to. Why is that? And is it right?
Northern Star Online
These are just a few. Which of my standard points should I reiterate here? Perhaps my disagreement with Paster Leskovar? Should I make a point out of the minor disgust I feel at vandals making repeated futile gestures? Maybe dance and shout in support of the Zanker article?
In the meantime, keep an eye on our legislature up here. We'll see where the wind takes us.
I'm a bit weary this afternoon, so I'm making the conscious choice to leave the above links as sufficient citation.
04-13-05, 04:57 PM #46
The Latest Greatest
Sports Illustated, the American icon for pop-culture athletics, has conducted a poll regarding homosexuals and sports. The general trend suggests that sports fans would rather not care. The numbers are generally positive for gays, but a couple of key points are the split over an open discussion of homosexuality and sports in American culture (48-52 against), support for an athlete's privacy in general (67-34 in favor), and a strong result concerning a deliberately-increased focus on homosexuality in sports by SI (19-43% against).
No, the numbers don't always add up to 100, since there appears to be unlisted "I don't know" options, and rounding occasionally pushes a total over the line.
Additionally, the survey suggests that there is a partisan split on the idea of an open discussion about homosexuality and sports (55% Dems say yes, 65% GOP says no), only 27% of respondents said greater acceptance of gays and lesbians would be bad for the country, 61% know a gay person, and 22% of those surveyed said they are "uncomfortable" around homosexuals.
37% don't want homosexuals as little league coaches, 33% don't want gay locker room attendants, but only 21% said they didn't want gay coaches and trainers in college, 19% said no to gay coaches and trainers in sports, and the numbers only go down from there for referees, umpires, and club owners.
SI is also pushing a couple of related links worth mentioning:
Poll: SI.com. "Homosexuality and Sports Survey". April 12, 2005. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ded/index.html
Analysis: Wertheim, L. Jon. "Gays in Sports: A Poll" SI.com. April 18, 2005. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...fith_poll0418/
Related: Smith, Gary. "The Shadow Boxer". SI.com. April 18, 2005. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../griffith0418/
For all we hear about what a danger homosexuals are to children, I thought I'd bring this link in from southern Florida:
A mother is under arrest, accused of selling a 12-year-old daughter into prostitution and trading a 14-year-old daughter for a car ....
.... The youngest girl and her mother were living out of their car, and the prostitution was for food and an occasional shower at the men's homes, according to a report by Okeechobee County Sheriff's Office Detective K.J. Ammons.
The youngest daughter is three months pregnant, the report said, and the girl was 11 when her mother first forced her to have sex with a man. She charged $20 for the sex.
The older daughter refused to be used as a prostitute and was sold for a car, deputies contend.
"She was sold to a man for a Mercury Cougar," Ammons said. "But he never gave the mother the vehicle."
Ammons said the car has an estimated value of $500 to $1,000. That 23-year-old man has since been arrested. He was charged with sexual performance by a child and was booked into the county jail with bail set at $100,000.
Remember, you need a license to have a dog. Perhaps it's time we gave children the same protection.
On the legislative front:
Lawmakers in Connecticut are scheduled to vote today on a bill that would institute the "separate-but-equal" institution of civil union for homosexuals.____________________
In Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski announced he will push for a civil unions bill in 2005.
The government of Tasmania has backed a motion calling on the House of Assembly to not support gay marriage.
Israeli Housing Minister Izaac Herzog has announced that same-sex couples with children are entitled to benefits in Israel. This is in step with recent trends including court decisions and the sentiments of Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who recently opted to not appeal a ruling that gave inheritance rights to same-sex couples.
Canada's Parliament yesterday voted to refuse a Conservative proposal to maintain an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage.
A recent poll by the Canadian Broadcasting Company suggests that 52% of Canadians oppose same-sex marriage.
Associated Press. "Mom accused of selling sex with daughter, trading another for car". Sun-Sentinel.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,4323534.story
Gillespie, Noreen. "Opponents, supporters converge on Capitol for vote". NewsDay.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...,6407669.story
Cain, Brad. "Oregon governor pushing for civil unions". SeattleTimes.com. April 13, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...lunions13.html
Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "Tasmanian Govt rules out support for same-sex marriage". ABC News Online. April 13, 2005. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...4/s1344702.htm
Sinai, Ruth. "Herzog: Same sex couples with kids entitled to benefits". Haaretz.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/564197.html
Hebert, Chantal. "A pyrrhic victory for Liberals on same sex?" TheStar.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350116795
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "Canadians deeply split on same-sex marriage, poll suggests". April 10, 2005. See http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ge-050410.html
04-14-05, 05:19 AM #47
Rudolph Denounces Abortion, Homosexuals, In Written Statement
Guilty pleas "deprived the government of its goal"
Eric Rudolph entered guilty pleas for charges related to four bombings in the southeastern United States.
The Associated Press carries the full text of a written statement, which his attorneys distributed to the press.
Along with abortion, another assault upon the integrity of American society is the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior, and as such I have complete sympathy and understanding for those who are suffering from this condition. Practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own private lives, homosexuality is not a threat to society. Those, consenting adults practicing this behavior in privacy should not be hassled by a society which respects the sanctity of private sexual life. But when the attempt is made to drag this practice out of the closet and into the public square in an "in your face" attempt to force society to accept and recognize this behavior as being just as legitimate and normal as the natural man/woman relationship, every effort should be made, including force if necessary, to halt this effort.
This effort is commonly known as the homosexual agenda. Whether it is gay marriage, homosexual adoption, hate crimes laws including gays, or the attempt to introduce a homosexual normalizing curriculum into our schools, all of these efforts should be ruthlessly opposed. The existence of our culture depends upon it. It is the duty of the state to promote the public welfare and this includes holding up values and model behaviors which tend to create a healthy society capable of reproducing itself by the natural means of the family unit. This model behavior which lies at the heart of a healthy society is the marriage between a man and a woman. To place the homosexual relationship along side of the model and pronounce it to be just as legitimate a lifestyle choice is a direct assault upon the long term health and integrity of civilization and a vital threat to the very foundation of society - and this foundation is the family hearth.
Any conscientious individual afflicted with homosexuality should acknowledge that a healthy society requires a model of sexual behavior to be held up and maintained without assault. Like other humans suffering from various disabilities homosexuals should not attempt to infect the rest of society with their particular illness.
If people wonder why certain rhetoric about homosexuals irritates others to such a degree, let this be the testament: it's the rhetoric of terrorists.
I'll let someone else take up abortion and religion in the appropriate forum. Although I can hardly wait for the TV movie-of-the-week version; the scene with the 911 operator hanging up on him should be funny.
Associated Press. "Full text of Eric Rudolph's written statement ...." MaconTelegraph.com. April 13, 2005. See http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/...h/11386671.htm
04-14-05, 07:34 AM #48
Wow! Is this like a thread for promoting Tiassa's aggenda or something???? ...LOL!!
04-14-05, 01:21 PM #49
Originally Posted by Avatar
Yes, about 1% of the adult population is believed to be asexual.
04-14-05, 08:17 PM #50
Damn, asexuals are lucky bastards!
04-14-05, 08:35 PM #51
Asexual as in celibac or eunuch?
04-14-05, 08:45 PM #52
The definition of importance here is devoid of sexuality. When I think of asexual, it means someone with no sexual desire at all. Like my neutered cat. He's never had it, he doesn't want it, and he doesn't feel as though he has missed a thing. I'd love to be able to be like that. To never again feel the urge to put up with a girls stupidity because she has a nice rack. Or to feel bad because I really like girls personality, but I can have no romantic interest in her because she is homely.
But I'm stuck with sexual desire. At the mercy of my lower brains need to reproduce. At the whim of my DNA molecules need to intermingle with a woman's in order for us to make offspring.
04-15-05, 01:48 AM #53Originally Posted by Baron Max
04-15-05, 07:45 AM #54
Originally Posted by SpyMoose
04-15-05, 03:24 PM #55Originally Posted by Baron Max
But I don't think you're blind to the line you walk. There are certain people who will take you seriously, and there are plenty of people to worry about the people who will take you seriously .... You know, it's kind of like Seinfeld in that sense. I wouldn't ban it or anything, but Jerry is too bright a guy to not know what he was risking in putting that comedy formula before the American consumer.
You know there are stupid people out there. And you know there are plenty of hand-wringing liberals to worry about the stupid people.
Keep that disclaimer of yours close at hand.
04-15-05, 10:56 PM #56Originally Posted by tiassa
04-15-05, 11:11 PM #57
Actually, I do worry about the resource-allocation effect. When those liberals, myself included some days, are worrying about necessarily accommodating the low end of the gene pool, we're not worrying about more useful endeavors.
I mean, in any discussion there's a persistent buzz from the low end, and in American social politics, the phenomenal rise of right-wing talk radio at the end of the last century has amplified that murmur to a rumble, but done nothing to clarify the problem.
The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular, quoth FRATER PERDURABO, and laughed.
But those disciples nearest to him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow.
Those next to them laughed, seeing the Universal Joke.
Below these certain disciples wept.
Then certain laughed.
Others next wept.
Others next laughed.
Next others wept.
Next others laughed.
Last came those that wept because they could not see the Joke, and those that laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke, and thought it safe to act like FRATER PERDURABO.
But though FRATER PERDURABO laughed openly, He also at the same time wept secretly; and in Himself He neither laughed nor wept.
Nor did He mean what He said.
Perdurabo, Psalm 14 (The Fourteenth Lie)
06-01-05, 12:09 AM #58
Holy Spelunkers, Batman!
Alabama, Homosexuality, and Incest
The irony of me coupling homosexuality and incest should not be lost, for what could possibly cause me to put these two issues together with the intent of treating them as legitimately comparable items? After all, I've spent how many words railing against such language. For instance, my opposition to the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit stems largely from the man's poor regard for sexual consent, but that's for a different time.
Nonetheless, the same amicus brief (click here for .PDF), in fact the same portion, provides our entertainment today.
William Pryor, as Attorney General of Alabama, filed an amicus brief, signing Alabama on with South Carolina and Utah opposing the petitioners in Lawrence v. Texas, which is famously regarded as the end of anti-sodomy laws for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
It should be noted ... that the Texas statute in question does not criminalize petitioners' sexual orientation, which may or may not be a matter of choice and thus may arguably be protected from state discrimination .... Rather, the Texas anti-sodomy statute criminalizes petitioners' sexual activity, which is indisputably a matter of choice. Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that "protects the chocie of one's partner" and "whether and how to connect sexually" must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be "willing").
Pryor et al., 25 (.pdf 33)
Rather, let us focus in on the idea that sanctioning homosexual activity must logically extend to activities like, in this case, incest.
So we have it clear:
Atty. Gen. Alabama -> allow homosexual activity = allow incest (argument against)
Do we see the factors? The Attorney General of Alabama expressed that sanctioning homosexual activity must necessarily lead to the sanctioning of incest.
Seriously. This is beautiful. Go back and read through it again if you need. Some folks must suspect what is coming next.
To go in reverse order, for effect, from the Code of Alabama (1975):
30-1-19 (d): No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
30-1-19 (e): The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
No surprises there, right?
But what about this?
30-1-3: The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate.
Looks like Mr. Pryor was wrong: incestuous marriage is already sanctioned.
(Marital dissolution and annulment are not covered in the available record of Section 30.)
And while I'm not a lawyer, I checked in at DivorceInfo.com to look up Alabama's terms of annulment. While there's not much, and no cited codes, the Alabama FAQ includes the following:
How does annulment work?
Annulment is available but rarely used. Because it's rarely used, expect it to be more expensive than a divorce. Grounds for an annulment include lack of capacity to marry (either underage or already married and not divorced), fraud, duress, or (depending on the judge) failure to consummate the marriage. Even though the 30 day waiting period applicable to divorce does not apply to annulments, annulments sometimes take more time because they may require a court appearance.
Do I need to go on?
Do you see it yet?
Welcome to "middle America" ....
Pryor, William H., et al. "Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae In Support of Respondent". February 18, 2003. See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...ami.states.pdf (Note: .pdf download)
DivorceInfo.com. "Alabama Divorce FAQs - Miscellaneous". See http://www.divorceinfo.com/alfaqsmis....htm#Annulment
06-01-05, 02:30 AM #59
At least their marriages are ... valid.
Update Alabama: Felons In Love
Maybe it's a fair trade for some, but what do the personal ads look like?
The tale of Alabama incest gets even weirder.
I, uh ... well ... without, uh, further ado, I guess ....
(Christ on a freakin' pony!)
Yeah, without any further ado, I give you ... um .... CousinCouples.com.
Or, if that link is just too creepy, we can get it straight from Alabama:
13A-13-3(a): A person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately ....
13A-13-3(b): A person shall not be convicted of incest or of an attempt to commit incest upon the uncorroborated testimony of the person with whom the offense is alleged to have been committed.
13A-13-3(c): Incest is a Class C felony
So, it's a felony, your partner cannot bust you without corroboration, but if you manage to get married, anyway, it's legal?
The folks over at CousinCouples are in luck: Alabama's incest law does not include cousins, although it does cover aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces.
So, uh, Middle America ... any comment?
Seriously, I used to think this all was a joke, a cultural slam. I guess that's just the elitist in me. If people fear for the family because permitting homosexuals to do their thing must necessarily require that incestuous couples be treated the same, what the hell is up with recognizing the marriages?
Maybe they could make a tourist industry out of it. How often do we hear the phrase, "If only you were my cousin"?
My state's no better. I can't find a protection of incestuous marriages, but our incest laws are perhaps even more lax. Depends on how narrowly the state defines "ancestor".
Maybe I'm just not liberal enough.
I don't feel like doing notes. The links are sufficient.
Last edited by Tiassa; 06-01-05 at 02:31 AM. Reason: Tags
06-01-05, 12:49 PM #60
Originally Posted by tiassa