Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 29, 2014, 07:44:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 42395 times)
Tre
Expert
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16453


"What you don't have is a career."


WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2008, 11:42:50 AM »

Homosexuals choose to be homosexual and there is no science that proves otherwise.

This isn't a "Christian" issue.  Check the numbers.  Voters overwhelming reject homosexual marriage whenever it's put on the ballot.

So, the rule of bigotry should be allowed?  Puh-leese, this is AMERICA. 

Why do you need expensive scientific research to tell you how - physiologically - people 'become' gay? 

Are all the gays (who state that they were born the way they are) liars? 

Why should I believe you and not them? 

As far as I know, you're the liar. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2008, 12:09:18 PM »

So, the rule of bigotry should be allowed?  Puh-leese, this is AMERICA. 

Why do you need expensive scientific research to tell you how - physiologically - people 'become' gay? 

Are all the gays (who state that they were born the way they are) liars? 

Why should I believe you and not them? 

As far as I know, you're the liar. 

Opposing government endorsement of a lifestyle choice isn't bigotry.  And I agree, this is America, where people are free to do whatever the heck they want as consenting adults.  Just don't expect the government to legitimatize your behavior. 

Why do we need science?  Oh sure, let's just let people like you say homosexuality is genetic.  Works for me. 

Why should I believe you instead of the people who started as heterosexuals, chose to become homosexual, and then chose to become heterosexual again, like Anne Heche?

And don't forget that the homosexual lobby includes bisexuals under their umbrella.  Is bisexuality genetic too?
Report to moderator   Logged
calmus
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3868

Time is luck.


« Reply #27 on: May 16, 2008, 12:13:57 PM »


Hahaha... nice to see getbig's biggest douchebag bigot in good form here. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5786


« Reply #28 on: May 16, 2008, 12:39:53 PM »

They enjoy a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. 

Using your logic, laws banning polygamy should be unconstitutional. 

What do you think will happen when a homosexual marriage meets the Defense of Marriage Act? 

I have not expressed an opinion on polygamy.  By my logic, the fundamental right to marriage should be extended to the velvet crowd. 

My logic?

I suppose a marriage btn a man and a bull moose is not such a bad thing.

We have to let americans be americans. 

We're free and lots of people have died for guaranteeing us that sort of freedom.
Report to moderator   Logged
youandme
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8562

GET IT


« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2008, 12:46:57 PM »



We have to let americans be americans. 




With that said we are bound to the code of dogma

What type of effect does this have on society?

In my opinion it opens up the flood gates (no offense Tre, hehe)

Creating anomie (Emile Durkeheim, society values diminishing)

Very sad.

This should be fought, and it will be.
Report to moderator   Logged
Deedee
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 5074


They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.


« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2008, 12:56:54 PM »

What??  lol.  You smoking the ganja today?  My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it. 

Deedee quit making stuff up.  When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed?  Quote me. 

No, I have never adopted an unwanted child.  I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment.  How many kids do you have? 

And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child?  Good grief woman.  I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.   

And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?   



You must be joking.



Report to moderator   Logged
Colossus_500
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4005


Psalm 139


« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2008, 12:58:40 PM »

The men in black strike again.  A 4 to 3 decision.  So in the two states where this is legal (CA and MA) and the one state where it was almost legal (HI) it was the result of a handful of judges overruling the will of the people. 

At least one of the California Supreme Court justices gets it:

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.


That's all there is to say about it.  Seven people overruled the vote of the people.  What's the point in voting if judges can do this.  Rest assured, this will be a HOT HOT HOT topic in the general election.  Now, it is on record that the judges could care less about what people think, and we know for a fact that a liberal-minded White House and Congress wants more legislation from the bench.  This is why they are stalling with the judicial nominees that President Bush selected. 

Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2008, 01:03:07 PM »

That's all there is to say about it.  Seven people overruled the vote of the people.  What's the point in voting if judges can do this.  Rest assured, this will be a HOT HOT HOT topic in the general election.  Now, it is on record that the judges could care less about what people think, and we know for a fact that a liberal-minded White House and Congress wants more legislation from the bench.  This is why they are stalling with the judicial nominees that President Bush selected. 



It was actually only 4 people.  It was a 4 to 3 decision.  Sounds like there will be a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Colossus_500
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4005


Psalm 139


« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2008, 01:09:12 PM »

It was actually only 4 people.  It was a 4 to 3 decision.  Sounds like there will be a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California.   
Yes indeed. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Colossus_500
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4005


Psalm 139


« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2008, 01:12:35 PM »

A Disappointing Decision in California
source: aclj.org

By a vote of 4-3, the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage — a ban that had the overwhelming approval of California voters.

The decision is a disappointing one and represents another example of an activist judiciary that overreached by taking this issue out of the hands of the state legislature where it belongs. We’re disappointed that the California high court failed to uphold what an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand — that the institution of marriage is limited to one man and one woman.  This decision guarantees one thing:  the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the essence of the majority decision is summed up in this quote:  "Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Justices who dissented understood the fact that this issue rests with the voters and the state legislature.   Consider this conclusion in a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Justice Ming W. Chin:   "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves."

More from the dissent:

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."

"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."
Report to moderator   Logged
Deedee
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 5074


They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm.


« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2008, 01:14:04 PM »

What??  lol.  You smoking the ganja today?  My concern is judges legislating from the bench and trampling on the will of the people to use the government to force a lifestyle choice on people who have already voted against it. 

Deedee quit making stuff up.  When have I ever said abortion should be outlawed?  Quote me. 

No, I have never adopted an unwanted child.  I have my hands full with four of my own at the moment.  How many kids do you have? 

And where did I say I didn't want to pay for anyone else to adopt an unwanted child?  Good grief woman.  I don't recall ever even discussing that subject.   

And why are you focusing on me and not the issues?   

Actually, i don't smoke anything.  I suppose from this time on, we won't see any more of your trying to keep people from getting birth control.  Smiley

Report to moderator   Logged
Tre
Expert
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16453


"What you don't have is a career."


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2008, 01:21:13 PM »

Opposing government endorsement of a lifestyle choice isn't bigotry.  And I agree, this is America, where people are free to do whatever the heck they want as consenting adults.  Just don't expect the government to legitimatize your behavior. 

Why do we need science?  Oh sure, let's just let people like you say homosexuality is genetic.  Works for me. 

Why should I believe you instead of the people who started as heterosexuals, chose to become homosexual, and then chose to become heterosexual again, like Anne Heche?

And don't forget that the homosexual lobby includes bisexuals under their umbrella.  Is bisexuality genetic too?


If life has taught you anything, it should be that there are few absolutes and that the only constant is change. 

Some people are 0% homosexual, others are 100% homosexual, and a majority of the world's population falls somewhere in-between.  Along those same lines, people can be 'more homosexual' on some days than they are on others.

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Colossus_500
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4005


Psalm 139


« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2008, 01:38:30 PM »

Rep. Istook: Pretzel Logic Behind Gay Marriage
Friday, May 16, 2008 9:49 AM
By: Ernest Istook
source: newsmax.com 

The law was just a plaything to California’s Supreme Court, and the justices twisted logic into a pretzel as they legalized same-sex marriage by judicial fiat.

The court also exposed the danger created by wishy-washy lawmakers who push “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” as a supposed middle-ground compromise. That actually is a deadly policy of appeasement. It was the very existence of such laws that the justices used to justify this outrageous decision.

By trying to appease homosexual rights activists, those who have refused to stand up for traditional marriage helped to create this court ruling. They are the Neville Chamberlains of the cultural wars.

In essence, California’s highest court yesterday decreed that society cannot have a “separate but equal” matchmaking plan for same-sex couples.

The moment California or any other state adopts civil unions, this decision makes clear, it’s on the slippery slope that makes same-sex marriage inevitable.

This ruling also further disenfranchises citizens and voters. The court not only usurped legislative power, it ignored the clear will of the 61 percent of California voters who in 2000 placed into law this language: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

A lone justice, Marvin Baxter, wrote a clear dissent describing how radical the ruling is and what he called the “legal jujitsu” used by the majority to rationalize its decision. Two other justices dissented, but not as forcefully as Justice Baxter.

The high court ruled that the existence of a “domestic partners” statute compelled it to overturn California’s marriage law and permit same-sex marriages. Otherwise, the court said, it would be a denial of equal protection if same-sex couples could get advantages similar to marriage but not actually be married as opposite-sex couples can.

The lesson? Lawmakers across the country who have promoted domestic partnerships as a compromise now are exposed as enablers of the full same-sex marriage agenda. They should be held accountable accordingly.

And places that have adopted such civil union laws should repeal them right away, lest they invite a blitzkrieg of more court decisions from activist judges, mimicking the California edict.

As the majority wrote for California’s Supreme Court: “California . . . in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.

“Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship . . . but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a ‘marriage’ whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a ‘domestic partnership.’”

But Justice Baxter correctly noted that California’s high court made a three-way power shift that violates American principles of constitutional law:

# It usurped the state legislature’s authority to make laws, violating separation of powers.

# It usurped the people’s authority to make laws via initiative and referendum.

# Because the state constitution prohibits legislators from repealing laws passed by popular vote, the court gave the lawmakers a new power to repeal such laws indirectly.

Justice Baxter said it well. He wrote in his dissent: “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid.

"California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

“The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

"In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute. But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.

“Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

“In doing so, the majority holds, in effect, that the Legislature has done indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly. Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute . . . Yet the majority suggests that, by enacting other statutes which do provide substantial rights to gays and lesbians — including domestic partnership rights which, under [Family Code] section 308.5, the Legislature could not call ‘marriage’ — the Legislature has given ‘explicit official recognition’ (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 68, 69) to a California right of equal treatment which, because it includes the right to marry, thereby invalidates section 308.5.

“I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference.”

California’s high court noted that other states are looking at this equal-protection argument as a basis for moving all the way to full-blown same-sex marriage in places where civil unions or domestic partnerships have been established.

Those who support traditional values — and an orderly democratic process that lets the people and their elected officials make decisions about marriage — should recognize the dangers inherent in this California decision. Any law that mimics marriage by another name needs re-examining and probably repeal as well, lest it become full-blown same-sex marriage.

California voters probably will vote this fall on changing their statutory marriage protection into stronger constitutional protection.

Voters there and in other states would be wise to elevate this matter into an election issue in every other state as well, because it is elected officials who created this opportunity for wayward judicial activism by trying to placate a radical agenda rather than standing up against it..

Those elected officials should not be permitted now to blame it all on the judges, wringing their hands and trying to deny their complicity.

It’s time to hold accountable those lawmakers who have opened the door for this court ruling by trying to appease homosexual rights activists with laws that allow civil unions. You cannot have peace at any price with those who seek to conquer and vanquish our values.

Ernest Istook calls himself a "recovering Congressman" from Oklahoma. He is now a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5786


« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2008, 01:48:27 PM »

With that said we are bound to the code of dogma

What type of effect does this have on society?

In my opinion it opens up the flood gates (no offense Tre, hehe)

Creating anomie (Emile Durkeheim, society values diminishing)

Very sad.

This should be fought, and it will be.
I was joking. 

The only thing this decision threatens is the worldview of people bigoted, for whatever reason, against gay people.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2008, 01:48:35 PM »

A Disappointing Decision in California
source: aclj.org

By a vote of 4-3, the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage — a ban that had the overwhelming approval of California voters.

The decision is a disappointing one and represents another example of an activist judiciary that overreached by taking this issue out of the hands of the state legislature where it belongs. We’re disappointed that the California high court failed to uphold what an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand — that the institution of marriage is limited to one man and one woman.  This decision guarantees one thing:  the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the essence of the majority decision is summed up in this quote:  "Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Justices who dissented understood the fact that this issue rests with the voters and the state legislature.   Consider this conclusion in a dissent written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter and joined by Justice Ming W. Chin:   "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves."

More from the dissent:

"The majority … simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice. The California Constitution says nothing about the rights of same-sex couples to marry. On the contrary, as the majority concedes, our original Constitution, effective from the moment of statehood, evidenced an assumption that marriage was between partners of the opposite sex."

"If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority."

Word.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2008, 01:52:36 PM »

If life has taught you anything, it should be that there are few absolutes and that the only constant is change. 

Some people are 0% homosexual, others are 100% homosexual, and a majority of the world's population falls somewhere in-between.  Along those same lines, people can be 'more homosexual' on some days than they are on others.

 

Life has taught me there are absolutes, there is change, there is black, white, and gray. 

lol at your homosexual analysis.  Sorry, not trying to be rude, but c'mon dude.  A percentage? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #41 on: May 16, 2008, 01:55:02 PM »

Actually, i don't smoke anything.  I suppose from this time on, we won't see any more of your trying to keep people from getting birth control.  Smiley



Drunk maybe?  I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  You don't usually come on here and just flat out make stuff up.  But I guess I was wrong.   

Birth control??  lol.  Wrong thread. 
Report to moderator   Logged
youandme
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8562

GET IT


« Reply #42 on: May 16, 2008, 02:11:21 PM »

I was joking. 

The only thing this decision threatens is the worldview of people bigoted, for whatever reason, against gay people.

Yeah I know, but it threatens more than that.

People being bigoted, thats casuality of going forward with this marriage 'thing'

This is not just change, it's fundamental chaos at the roots, principles and morals our country was based on.

They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41290


« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2008, 02:27:22 PM »


They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.

IMO, it's about legitimizing the lifestyle. 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20653


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2008, 03:52:46 PM »

I really don't care.

it doesn't matter to me.  GAS, UNEMPLOYMENT, TAXES & A STRONG DOLLAR matter to me. 

I've done nothing to day but invite my friends and work associates to move to California so they can legally come out of the closet.

They are still denying they are gay.

Not that there is anything wring with that........ Grin

I hope they make marriage with animals legal next.  That way, some tards on Getbig can move to California too.
Report to moderator   Logged
calmus
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3868

Time is luck.


« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2008, 04:10:00 PM »



I hope they make marriage with animals legal next.  That way, some tards on Getbig can move to California too.

Not cool, outing BB like that.
Report to moderator   Logged

War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6494


« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2008, 06:02:02 PM »

Yeah I know, but it threatens more than that.

People being bigoted, thats casuality of going forward with this marriage 'thing'

This is not just change, it's fundamental chaos at the roots, principles and morals our country was based on.

They should be happy that society has accepted gay culture, leave it at that. What is the real reason they want to be married? What does marriage mean to a gay couple? Rights? Love? Togetherness? It seems like more of a crusade against fundamentals rather than legal obligations. Maybe I missed the boat.




Well put.    Whats next if we dont draw a line in the sand.??   
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16849



« Reply #47 on: May 17, 2008, 07:38:40 AM »

Hmm, should I get married now?  I can, you know.  Grin


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/16/notes051608.DTL

Court approves evil gay agenda

 . . . Think of it. Thousands of new weddings, a million new rehearsal dinner reservations, countless fresh registrations at regional Pottery Barns and Crate and Barrels, endless DJs replaying old Elton John and Celine Dion and Shrek soundtrack tunes. The sagging and desperate California economy is positively grinning at the idea, a grin which is right now going beautifully with the thousands of people already signing up for their ceremonies at city halls across the state.

Which means the only ones left still scowling, still bitter and miserable and unhappy about it all, are the ones who never understood much about love and progress in the first place. What a shame. They're gonna miss one hell of a reception.
Report to moderator   Logged
JBGRAY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2021



« Reply #48 on: May 17, 2008, 07:58:18 AM »

And we slide ever closer to an "anything goes" society.  Speaking out against this or saying anything negative or critical of anything within the gay community is akin to speaking of Israel in this country:  you cannot openly speak of such things without being strongly condemned. 

Chalk another one up for the all-powerful Gay lobby.  Opposing sex marriages are just a lifestyle choice now aren't they?  Having a wife and children is the equivalent of an S&M marriage from the Fulsom Street Parade, isn't it?  And the Pink Hand continues to influence............... ..

Then again, what else can we expect from a state that houses an institution that spews forth garbage and filth across all mediums?
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16849



« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2008, 08:06:31 AM »

And we slide ever closer to an "anything goes" society.  Speaking out against this or saying anything negative or critical of anything within the gay community is akin to speaking of Israel in this country:  you cannot openly speak of such things without being strongly condemned. 

Chalk another one up for the all-powerful Gay lobby.  Opposing sex marriages are just a lifestyle choice now aren't they?  Having a wife and children is the equivalent of an S&M marriage from the Fulsom Street Parade, isn't it?  And the Pink Hand continues to influence............... ..

Then again, what else can we expect from a state that houses an institution that spews forth garbage and filth across all mediums?

Yep!

Free the slaves.
Women and blacks can vote.
Gays and lesbians can marry.

Deal with it!  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!