Yes!!!!
Great news.
Read another article where in the state of Mass they are going to try to reverse the courts ruling and let the people vote on deciding the issue on same sex marriages.
From: somewhere in the great indoors Insane since: Sep 2002
posted 07-07-2006 18:38
jade:
What do you have against other people having happy/secure lives? How does their choice of who to love and build a life with effect you, and why should you (or any of us) have a say in the choices they make about their personal lives?
If you and the others like you, who are so dead set against homosexuals having the same rights as the rest of us get your way, what will society have gained, other than a large group of people who are not given the same respect and legal rights as everyone else?
Important note: this vote was not a decision against gay marriage. The decision simply stated that a banning of gay marriage did not contradict the state's constitution.
quote:
...and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. "
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 07-08-2006 05:38
Me thinks you're nothing but a muckraker Mr. DL-44.
___________________________________________________________________________
You'll never have to think outside the box if you don't get in the damn box in the first place.
From: Out on the Sea of Madness... Insane since: Dec 2003
posted 07-08-2006 17:28
Since my guild just went through the whole "gays shouldn't get married" debate on our boards, I figured I'd repost my most appropriate response on that thread here, since it does apply as well. The first paragraph is in response to someone saying that gays were trying to be covert in getting the marriage agenda passed:
quote:Actually, they aren't being covert about it at all. They want a legal union to be available to them. The "traditional" term used is marriage, whether or not you associate any religious connotations to it. A civil union presided upon by a justice of the courts is still called a marriage. No church or religious doctrine is involved.
Gays what the right to a civil union, that legal piece of paper that traditionally signifies what is called marriage. Everyone who has gotten legally married is required to have one of those little pieces of paper in order to be recognized as legally married by the state. Whether or not you have that paper signed in the presence of a clerk of the courts, a pastor or a priest, it is still required that you have that document in order that the marriage be legal. Hence, the state is in the business of legislating marriage at some level. That takes it out of the hands of religion and puts it into the hands of the courts.
Marriage is the commonly used word to describe this occurance. It has been disassociated from religious connotations for quite some time now, since this state of being can be achieved without the participation of any church. Now, if the courts stopped issuing or requiring marriage certificates and allowing only religious institutions to determine if someone was married or not, then there would be a hodge-podge of rules and people might end up being considered as married in one denomination, while another doesn't accept the marriage as legal until it is performed in their faith. As it is now, the baseline of acceptance is by the states, the religious institutions have the right to accept or not accept any marriage as valid, but they don't control the benefits derived from the state of being married, the states do.
That little piece of paper - the marriage certificate - is what gives your significant other the legal ability to many things, including inherit, have power of attorney, make medical decisions and be at your bedside, etc. without having to have special provisions laid out otherwise.
Marriage is the union of two people that love each other. It shouldn't matter what gender they are. In fact, with the examples of straight marriage out there, I'm surprised anyone wants to get married in the first place. Gays aren't "ruining" marriage. Heterosexuals are doing a fine job of that all on their own.
Another thought that came to me as I was rereading this - Gays aren't beating down the doors to get married in churches afaik. They simply want legal unions (as I already mentioned, what is traditionally called marriage whether is it performed before a judge or a religious official) to be available to them as it is to everyone else.
Jade, ask youself a question and answer honestly. WWJD? Perhaps you think he would use the corrupt judicial and legaslative systems to force others to behave as he wills, but then that would negate the concept of free-will, wouldn't it?
You have to let people make their own decisions and lead their own lives, for better or worse, regardles of your emotional knee-jerk responses and the war-crys of self-proclaimed church leaders. To ask the government to act on your behalf to force others to comply with your beliefs is to me about as anti-Chrisitian, as you can get. The message and philosophy of Christ was about love, not hate and force. This ignorance has been the cause, or at least the excuse, for most of the conflicts throughout human history.
That aside, as you know I used to be against gay marriage for the same reason, because it did not jive with my faith and what I was raised to believe, then I came to understand something called "freedom," how fragile it is, and how to actually work it must be all inclusive. Live and let live.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 07-08-2006 20:13
Jade, WS is probabaly right. Same Sex marriage is most likely going to succeed in America. The only thing is that it hasn't yet. The government of America is supposed to be by the people of America, and since most people in America don't want same sex marriages yet, then there aren't going to be any laws passed. I hope that will continue to be the case, but because of television propaganda, those kinds of things are going to start happening. We need to face the fact that our society is going down the crapper. Science may be having break throughs, but when divorce is 50% or so, and we have teen suicide, teen sex, drugs and alcohol rampant, the only thing we can do is try to stop it. Sure we need to pray, but we also have to take an active role as Christians to try and help each other. The only problem is finding a way to go to others with counseling instead of waiting for them to come to us. How is that accomplished without offending someone or stripping them of their rights? I think this whole country is a tangled mess of politics.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote:
If gays are being married it cheapens the whole concept of marriage! Marriage is about the sacred union between a man who works 60 hours a week in the mines and his battered, submissive wife who makes him sandwiches and babies
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 07-10-2006 03:24
Perhaps, but remember that this government is an embodiment of its people, or at least is supposed to be. The government isn't there to be an advocate for the minorities, but there to allow equality.
Besides, looking at the other side of the glass...how do I say this?
If gay couples tell the government what to do, how are they any differen't from the "religious right"? The government is supposed to be for the will of the people, right? But if the will of the people is that marriage is to be defined one way, why should the government be forced to ratify something against its will?
I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't get married, but I find it hypocritical to me that they want to force their opinion and will on others.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 07-10-2006 04:50
What they are trying to force is equal rights. They are trying to force the government that same thing that others are able to enjoy.
You could use your same arguement for other equal rights issues such as slavery, segragation or women's sufferage. In these cases women and blacks were telling the government what to do.
This government is not designed to do what the majority want to have done. That is why this country was not developed as a pure democracy. It was developed as a democratic republic to protect the rights of the few from the will of the many.
With this issue you will have problems saying there is a consensu as the most recent GALLUP poll I have seen shows that 47% of americans are opposed to a ban on gay marrige, 50% approve the ban of gay marriage, and 3% don't have an opinion. 50% can hardly be defined as the will of the people.
I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't get married, but I find it hypocritical to me that they want to force their opinion and will on others.
Ok, explain this to me Gideon:
In what way does the marriage of two men, or of two women, force their opinion on YOU?
THEY are the ones who will get married. Nobody will be forcing you to have any particular opinion of it, and it will in no way affect your life. Nobody will force you to marry another man.
So please explain to me exactly where the hyopcrisy is when gays fight for the right to marry each other? Explain to me the corrolation between fighting for your personal rights, and fighting to limit someone else's personal rights.
quote: WarMage said:
This government is not designed to do what the majority want to have done. That is why this country was not developed as a pure democracy. It was developed as a democratic republic to protect the rights of the few from the will of the many.
Precisely. (of course, it was also designed that way to protect the aristocratic rulers who formed it, and their wealth,...but that's a different topic altogether )
quote: WarMage said:
50% can hardly be defined as the will of the people.
However, it is more than enough to elect a president...but that is also a different topic altogether
Now, stepping back, I highly suggest that anyone opposed to gay marriage read the list I quoted above. Beneath the sarcasm are some very legitimate points that need to be understood and addressed by anyone who wants to argue for the banning of gay marriage.
From: Out on the Sea of Madness... Insane since: Dec 2003
posted 07-10-2006 06:16
quote: DL-44 said:
However, it is more than enough to elect a president...but that is also a different topic altogether
Heh, I was going to come say something about this.
If the government is run by the will of the people, Gideon, then explain how the candidate that won the popular vote (aka - he got the most votes cast by the people of the country) lost to the other candidate? The electoral college deciding who to elect, despite the will of their constituancies - now that's a crime.
Politics, at any level above your local small town/village/city, is rife with corruption. It's all about the deals you make and and with whom you make them, not about what is the best action to take. That's why there is so much pork in the budget. *feh*
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 07-11-2006 07:21
I haven't blown a fuse. I'm just thinking. If that looks like a blown fuse then I have more problems than I thought I did.
Anyway, DL, I never said that it forces their will on me. And it doesn't directly. It does force their will on the government. You can fight for the right to have your own opinion, but when you start forcing others to accept your opinion...how are you different from those you fight?
Fighting for equality is a just cause. And I think that if someone wants to marry someone else, they should have the ability to do so, it is not up to me or anyone else to dictate someone else's life.
But that same idea goes both ways. Something my Pastor was talking about last Sunday was standing up for what you believe in. And I agree that if you don't take a stand on some issues, then you will start falling for anything. If America doesn't define what it thinks is moral or immoral, then do we have a backbone at all? It is up to the people to decide. Even if we are a representative democracy, it is still the will of the people that decide what happens. If you get enough to agree with you then I have no objections, because that is now the morality of America. But we as a people shouldn't allow something to happen inside our borders that is against our moral code.
quote: DL-44 said:
Explain to me the corrolation between fighting for your personal rights, and
fighting to limit someone else's personal rights.
Okay, how about legal drinking age? Do adults the age of 21 have more of a right to drink alcohol than those of age 20? I don't think so, but the American government does. That is the morality of the people at work. Although the same sex marriage issue is more important and gray than drinking age, I think the same rules apply.
[side note1] I do think that it is pretty crummy that the President who had the least support of the people was elected. But I think that the two leading candidates were both awful. One was selfish and the other stupid. That is all I will say on that subject though, I would like to not distract from the main subject.[/side note1]
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 07-11-2006 08:15
quote:Okay, how about legal drinking age? Do adults the age of 21 have more of a right to drink alcohol than those of age 20? I don't think so, but the American government does. That is the morality of the people at work. Although the same sex marriage issue is more important and gray than drinking age, I think the same rules apply.
Errr...that is not limiting someone's personal rights. Because they are allowed to drink alcohol, they just have to reach the age of 21.
Same goes for the legal age of getting married.
What we are talking about here is having personal rights at all. Hetrosexuals can get married under the law.
Homosexuals for the most part cannot (it is currently a contested matter).
quote:But that same idea goes both ways. Something my Pastor was talking about last Sunday was standing up for what you believe in. And I agree that if you don't take a stand on some issues, then you will start falling for anything. If America doesn't define what it thinks is moral or immoral, then do we have a backbone at all? It is up to the people to decide. Even if we are a representative democracy, it is still the will of the people that decide what happens. If you get enough to agree with you then I have no objections, because that is now the morality of America. But we as a people shouldn't allow something to happen inside our borders that is against our moral code.
Right, the slaughter of Native Americans and grabbing their land for your use is perfectly ok. Hell, just add in some genocide while you are at it. Sounds fun to me!
Oh, and while you are at it, keep African Americans in slavery, too. And women don't need to be able to vote (and neither do African Americans and almost extinct Native Americans).
I'm sure we can add some more to that list.
Gid, do you actually think before posting?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Gideon: Oh, then it must be a misundertanding of the verb 'to think' on my side as there is 2 verbs for that in French, one means to think about something in a hectic random way without a single ounce of logic, the other implies rationnality and sound reasoning. I always assume the later. Too bad.
Anyway, while you are at preventing gays and lesbian to marry, you and the fellowship of the morale could as well lobby to prevent them from voting, having a job for which heterosexuals applied, to be in the vincinity of children, ... they could be gathered in some sort of reserves, those that are in the wild could wear distinctive garb to make sure the good morale people don't mix with them. Hell, that would remind the good old time.
Sorry....I truly forgot how far out of your way you go to try to bend logic to work for you gideon. I haven't the strength for one of those conversations again...
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 07-12-2006 21:08
Okay, sure. Let's get those concentration camps back up and running. Then I can put everyone who is different from me in there and shoot them. That is what I do, because that is the kind of person I am. I just hate anyone who is different from me. I want to kill them all and make the whole world just for boring old me.
I love it when people say that I hate homosexuals or Native Americans (which I am one) or the French. It just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. I don't hate anyone.
Besides, I think that Homosexuals should have the right to marry. I think that if they want to do it they should be able to.
My argument was that there are Americans that still don't want that to be a law yet. If that is true, then some homosexuals may be forcing their ideas on others by trying to force America as a whole to recognize their unions. I know that I would recognize a union between two homosexuals, but I don't think my dad would. And America isn't a land but a people, and what the people recognize should be what the government recognizes.
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
My argument was that there are Americans that still don't want that to be a law yet.
And if you look hard enough, you will be able to find americans who will oppose every single law in existence. Does this mean all laws should be repealed, because there are americans who do not want them to be laws? Clearly not.
A simple moment's thought will show you how flawed your argument is.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 07-19-2006 01:50
I guess my question to you then is: is America a land with rules decided by majority or minority? I thought it was majority, since it is a democratic republic. I could be wrong though.
A second question is how small do you go to protect a minority's rights? How big does the group have to be, how much support must they get to have their way in the courts? Can my pig-loving uncle marry a pig if he is the only one who thinks it is okay? Can a 50 year old man marry a 14 year old girl if they both consent, but none else do? Who is right? Who decides what right is?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote:...Can my pig-loving uncle marry a pig if he is the only one who thinks it is okay? Can a 50 year old man marry a 14 year old girl if they both consent, but none else do? Who is right? Who decides what right is?...
Is it really that hopeless? Are people really that damned?
I propose - let us stop with this thread, or we will march into another huge nascar ellipse, again... just ask yourself how much can you keep turning left? And I don't think anyone should waste another breath that has been repeated trillion of times in explanation of why two humans getting married is in no way comparable with bestiality.
ohh fuck...i guess people have tendencies to mistake themselves for machines, thus resulting in loss of their logistic...
I guess my question to you then is: is America a land with rules decided by majority or minority? I thought it was majority, since it is a democratic republic. I could be wrong though.
yeah. try reading what has already been posted on the matter. If that doesn't answer your question, research the terms that have been presented.
quote: Gideon said:
... is America a land with rules decided by majority or minority? I thought it was majority, since it is a democratic republic. ...
I was under the impression it is neither.
Don't we have both a House of Representatives and a Senate in Congress so that the ideas of both large and small groups can be heard? It seems to me that the whole idea behind democracy as created in the U.S. was to deminish (if not eliminate) any one group, no matter how large or small, from telling everyone else how they should live.
From: 100101010011 <-- right about here Insane since: Mar 2000
posted 07-19-2006 19:02
Historically this nation has always been able to put aside the majority opinion when civil rights are on the line. Women's sufferage, racial equity were both minority opinions at the outset. And while the "majority" of the nation is against gay marraige the majority also don't really care. I can't find the numbers right now but last I saw only about 25% of americans consider the issue "Very Important" the rest have an opinion but don't really care. Note the lack of success in pushing a consitiutional ammendment.
Heck do a poll asking Americans whether health insurance should be free and I bet you'll get around 80% saying that free health insurance would be great but I don't see you arguing that we should all have universal health care.
quote:
My argument was that there are Americans that still don't want that to be a law yet. If that is true, then some homosexuals may be forcing their ideas on others by trying to force America as a whole to recognize their unions.
The gay couples I know (and I live in San Francisco, I know quite a few) couldn't give two shits whether your dad "recognizes" their marraige. They simply want the same legal rights and benefits that your dad recieved when he married his soulmate.
Also what pisses me off about this debate is that the major opposition to it seems to come from religious organizations who somehow feel their institution of marraige is somehow being diluted. If you don't what your religious commitment diluted you never should have seen it codified in law in a country that has a very clear distiction between the seperation of church and state.
Also what pisses me off about this debate is that the major opposition to it seems to come from religious organizations who somehow feel their institution of marraige is somehow being diluted. If you don't what your religious commitment diluted you never should have seen it codified in law in a country that has a very clear distiction between the seperation of church and state.
A sem-important note on that issue: Marriage in the american colonies was for several decades a purely civic issue, preformed by an appointee of the courts. The church did not get involved until significantly further down the road.
In addition, Marriage has existed in society in one for or another since before the judeo-christian god was written about, and has existed with and without religion in all human societies.
The religous aspect should have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I'm surprised that Jade hasn't replied. I almost feel like this topic isn't complete without one of jade's trademark mass-produced conservative rebuttals that feel like they came out of a white house press release.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 07-20-2006 06:02
quote: hyperbole said:
Don't we have both a House of Representatives and a Senate in Congress so that
the ideas of both large and small groups can be heard? It seems to me that the
whole idea behind democracy as created in the U.S. was to deminish (if not
eliminate) any one group, no matter how large or small, from telling everyone
else how they should live
Thank you. That actually helps alot. And no put downs, thanks.
quote: bitdamaged said:
The gay couples I know (and I live in San Francisco, I know quite a few)
couldn't give two shits whether your dad "recognizes" their marraige. They
simply want the same legal rights and benefits that your dad recieved when he
married his soulmate.
If that is true then do they have to ruffle everyone's feathers by calling it marriage? Do you think they would be satisfied with a civil union that way they could get government benefits? Or does the term "marriage" mean so much that it has to be fought over by different groups of people?
(and btw, there is no such thing as separation of Church and State, only recognitions and abolishions apply)
And WS, I have the RIGHT to cast one of my eyes wherever I desire. So if I have a thing for pigs then leave me alone...
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
From: 100101010011 <-- right about here Insane since: Mar 2000
posted 07-20-2006 07:55
quote:
If that is true then do they have to ruffle everyone's feathers by calling it marriage? Do you think they would be satisfied with a civil union that way they could get government benefits?
I'm not sure they'd really care. I think it's your side of the argument that does. If you were to give them the same rights given to straight couples and call it "abaczabazoo" they'd be fine with that, of course in private they would call it marriage and eventually reclaim the word and in which case this argument is just semantics and moot.
If you're really just arguing over the word then I'll bow out gracefully but I don't think that's the case.
What do you have against other people having happy/secure lives? How does their choice of who to love and build a life with effect you, and why should you (or any of us) have a say in the choices they make about their personal lives?
A life of a homosexual is not so and secure or very gay. Look around you.... they are on the defense 24/7. They are a mostly depressed and unhappy persons. They suffer from depressions, alcoholism and mental disorders more because they see themselves as repressed in comparison to the rest of us normal persons in the human race. They are bitter, angry because the world is not gay oriented like them. If it were up to them everyone would be created gay...TO BE HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR BECAUSE SINCE I LAST LOOKED THEIR PRIVATES WERE THE SAME..!!! I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. But must of you have jumped on the gay friendly...leave them alone ..let them have what they want... bandwagon. The sheer mockery of a union be it civil or religious or sacramental is a farcey joke....silly..silly. I wish I could give them pacifiers to calm them down... Most of the civilized world do not want to allow gay unions last I read. Most of you are in the small minority... Though you want to strive more a more secularized world...it aint going to happen. If so there will be a moral civil war...The Christian groups are strong.. They will never let it happen. Power comes with strength in consolidated numbers, and the Christian faiths world over will do whatever it takes to just keep us from destroying ourselves.
If you and the others like you, who are so dead set against homosexuals having the same rights as the rest of us get your way, what will society have gained, other than a large group of people who are not given the same respect and legal rights as everyone else?Rights?? You call two men (one with makeup) putting down roots with a nice little house, picket fence and two adopted girl and boy toddlers a nice happy normal couple to have a right to practice a loving union. Please I want to stop hearing regurgitating nonsense over and over. Lets stop the insanity. What is the world coming to?
I see you try to use the name of Christ when it suits to get a point across. Jump on the Christianity bandwagon and say Christ was loving...He would want them to love..love.. love. He preached it. So let them love contrary to the law of God. Its something that you only use his name to justify your view of contridiciton.
Look at our Christian theological view of Genesis so you can understand where Christians are coming from in regard to the view of human sexuality.
In the story of Genesis we have a beautiful Paradise in which God creates a part of who he is in Adam, human man, a beautiful anatomy which imitates what is an extension of what God is..Adam was the reflection of God, but Adam could not see it...He could not share the love of God... Sure there were animals, but they were not like him. Though he had dominion and the freedom of wills over the earth and its inhabitants, he could not see the love of God reflected back to him in the eyes of animals. God saw how alone Adam was and created another essence of which was to be a part of Adam's manhood. When Adam wakes up from a deep sleep, who does he find, a created being like him but different. Finally, Adam sees the beauty of God reflected back to him in a spiritual union.. He sees love in Eve. In the entire friendship with God, they need no one. The love of God sustains them. Male and Female. Here sexual union is not necessary.. Only the spiritual beatific union. In the fall of Creation, Man sees himself as becoming a God, a pride of how great and superior he has become apart from God...so now the sin of pride will bring his ruin... After the fall he no longer looks at Eve with love, but with lust. Eve covers herself in shame not because she feels shame of her own self, but she sees how Adam is now looking at her differently, only with sexual desire not of God. ( You know how when men look and women in girly magazines) This is when animal instinctual desire without the love of God comes. Now man wants to satisfy himself with lustful desires and many other desires contrary to the love of God. Here enters many counterfeit forms of love that are a replacement for what the real love God feels like. Man doesn't know of any other form of love then sexual love. To them sex is love. But they are deceived and they deceive themselves...and its a cycle of ongoing relationships that are not fulfilled or fulfilling ...like homosexual encounters as misguided love. Sure they think its love but its a delusion of what real love is suppose to be like in its commitments. So man continues his search for a satisfying love which apart from God he can never attain.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 07-25-2006 22:07
You and your kind have always lost, Jade.
Examine your history.
Blacks secured their rights, so did my people, so did women, and so too will homosexuals.
A moral civil war...please, don't make me laugh.
As always, you have totally avoided the issue. Instead, you blather about how homosexuals supposedly live their existances and then somehow wish to impart that because of their identical plumbing, that somehow makes them unnatural.
Just as laughable.
The issue here is Equal Rights.
Stop attempting to confuse the issue.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
posted 07-07-2006 18:17
)
