Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Gay colors?

Old 27th Mar 2017, 11:49
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The ol' slippery slope argument eh Keg? Next thing you'll be doing a Barnyardi and mentioning sheep ;-)

Seriously, if polygamists want to mount a case they're quite free to. But that's not the subject of this discussion. It's about monogamous marriage between adult homo sapiens sapiens. Introducing anything further is for the express reason of muddying the waters.

Traditional marriage already has "rights" with respect to who you can marry - with few exceptions we're free to marry the adult of the opposite sex of our choosing, regardless of colour, creed or social standing.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 12:00
  #442 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by theheadmaster View Post
I don't see the inconsistency at all. This discussion is not about polygamy.
No. Not about polygamy per se. Everyone knows that were we arguing for the 'right' to marry multiple people that the Aussie public would put the kibosh on that in an instant. So the pro SSM try to limit the discussion to preclude polygamy as part of the discussion even though the rights you champion are equally able to be claimed by polygamists and GSA people who wish to have their relationships recognised in law.

You are the one who has kept banging on about providing gay people with the 'right' to get married. It's a point that you and others have raised multiple times. It's important for me and probably the rest of Australia to understand where this 'rights' issue can lead to. If you're going to argue that principle I can't work out why you won't jump in with both feet and actually fully defend the principle you're espousing.

Like I said, it's intellectually dishonest to espouse SSM on the basis of 'rights' but to not discuss whether this 'right' to be married be extended to other relationships.

Not sure how it's illogical framer. Gay people want the 'right' to 'marry whom they love'. Why can't Mormons and Muslims 'marry whom they love' even if it's multiple people. It's the exact same principle.

To show how it's not illogical, ACT Greens convenor doesn't like the Greens and Australian Marriage Equality restricting the definition of marriage to two people:

Simon Copland, who is political editor of the gay magazine FUSE, ... said: “I am now seeing major queer organisations and queer activists develop exclusive habits, excluding those who they think don’t fit the mainstream gay and lesbian model. For example, after some publicity around the issue, marriage advocates from Australian Marriage Equality and the Greens recently (came) out strongly against the idea of polyamorous marriage. “The institutional queer movement has become dominated by upper- to middle-class wealthy queer activists . . . ensuring a select few get equal access to heteropatriarchal systems.”
UK Greens in the wake of same sex marriage in the UK

Former Green party leader Natalie Bennett has revealed she is open to the idea of legalising three-way marriages... She replied: 'At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people... We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation on this issue.'
From 2013 the Polyamorous Action Lobby (PAL).
PAL recently started a petition which reads:

The House of Representatives For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that's why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.
Illogical? The only illogical thing is to NOT be able to see polyamory as an extension to the 'rights' principle being espoused to justify SSM.


Originally Posted by reivilo View Post
Bisexual persons can indeed fall in love with people from both sexes. However just like gay or straight people, falling in love usually occurs only to one other person at the same time. Therefore a bisexual person will normally be just in either a relationship with someone of the opposite or from the same sex, but not with both at the same time.
By the way, this is the most common misconception about bisexuals, so I dont blame you for being a bit ignorant about it.
reivilo, who are you to define who a bisexual may fall in love with? What if they want to marry both people? It may only happen to 1 in 100 bisexual people but I still don't get why you would want to prevent them to right to marry whomever they choose? Who are you to prevent them from the same 'right' that heterosexual people (and presumably in the future) gay people have?

It's not a 'slippery slope' le Pingouin. It's actually the exact same principle. I'm stunned that people on this thread have used virtually the exact same words to promote same sex marriage that I'm now using now to 'promote' polygamous marriages can't draw the parallel- and see the irony. Perhaps it's a wilful distortion because the SSM advocates understand the implications as to how the Aussie public is likely to view SSM if they comprehend the full extent of the 'rights' argument.
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 12:28
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem that I see with your approach Keg, is that from where I stand, it appears that you try to use logical argument to support a view that you have already formed. My view is that you can use a rights based approach, or a utilitarian ethics based approach, and 'discover' the answer. I genuinely meant it when I stated I had not turned my mind to the polygamy question. I am happy to apply a utilitarian approach to rights and accept what answer emerges. Either way. I have not pre-determined an answer that I have to twist an argument to achieve. As I stated, my personal observation of polygamy was associated with the denial of rights for women. That may be a universal consequence of polygamy, or it may not. Let the discussion occur if it really is an issue. I am not afraid of the answer either way.

Regarding the rights being denied on either side of the same sex marriage debate, I don't agree with the arguments that state that current marriages and families will have their rights denied by allowing same sex couples to marry. This disagreement is not just uninformed opinion, but the result of formal research on the subject. So, on balance, the question of SSM is that of denial of rights not allowing it, with no associated denial of rights by allowing it. Polygamy is a more complex issue. My concern is not so much about how allowing it would affect the status of my marriage, but what rights would be affected by those within the polygamous marriage.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 12:29
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 55
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Illogical? The only illogical thing is to NOT be able to see polyamory as an extension to the 'rights' principle being espoused to justify SSM.
I think the word 'equal' is important if the rights thing is going to be discussed as a principle.
Equal rights.
All Australian adults have equal rights regarding
1/ choosing their religion
2/ practicing Polygamy
3/ choosing whether or not to have children
4/ driving while drunk
5/ getting married..............hang on......

All I'm saying is that the argument of equal rights can probably be applied to SSM quite successfully but it can't be applied to Polygamy because equal rights already exist on that matter. If they wanted to push for Polygamy the argument would have to be something else.
framer is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 12:48
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Keg, the only people who think it's a logical extension are the opponents. Maybe that says something.

As I said, the traditional version of marriage is already rights based, making your argument moot.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 12:49
  #446 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Headmaster. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Whilst I acknowledge that you haven't previously considered the polygamy issue and haven't fully yet, it appears that you're quite open to viewing it as on a 'needs' basis? The logical conclusion to your position seems to me that that if some people want their polygamous relationships recognised and called marriage then what harm is done? Either way, I still see it as an extension of the same rights principle.

framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. If 'equal rights' in the context of SSM are important for people to 'marry the person whom they love' then why should it be prohibited for polygamous relationships? The only change to that sentence is the word 'person' to 'people'.

Le Pingouin, yeah. It says that SSM proponents are scared about what happens if the 'rights' genie of the polygamous people gets out of the bottle. Hence the denial of the principle.

In using polygamy as an example I've used the same principle that many people have used to argue for SSM- that of 'equal rights'. I've used the same language and in some cases the exact same words. Use of phrases such as 'who are you to deny someone the right to marry whom they like' have been prevalent in this topic and levelled at those of us who disagree with SSM. Like I said a number of pages ago. I'd have a lot more respect for those arguing 'rights' if they were at least firm in their defence of the principle. That they're not, well, maybe that too says something.

So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument. I've been told that I'm in the minority (not unusual with that one). I've been told SSM isn't about polygamy- I get why the SSM lobby don't want to include the issue of polygamy. So far though no one has taken on the rights issue. Headmaster has indicated that he'd consider it and I don't want to put words into his or her mouth to confirm that's the case.
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 13:07
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 55
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage.
I think I see where we view this part of the discussion differently.
I think that equal rights do currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. It doesn't matter if you're the Prime Minister, a rubbish collector, gay, straight, male, female, Christian or Hindu.......you can't do it. Ie equal.
Australians also enjoy equal rights regarding running a red light.
If someone wants to push for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage they will have to use an argument other than 'equal rights' ( same for those with a penchant for running red lights) .
So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument.
I've given you the reason why I think the same argument can't be applied but you couldn't see my logic.
I've tried again above .
Cheers
framer is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 13:07
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg View Post
Headmaster. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Whilst I acknowledge that you haven't previously considered the polygamy issue and haven't fully yet, it appears that you're quite open to viewing it as on a 'needs' basis? The logical conclusion to your position seems to me that that if some people want their polygamous relationships recognised and called marriage then what harm is done? Either way, I still see it as an extension of the same rights principle.

framer, equal rights (as in the legal kind) don't currently exist in Australia for polygamous relationships to be recognised as marriage. If 'equal rights' in the context of SSM are important for people to 'marry the person whom they love' then why should it be prohibited for polygamous relationships? The only change to that sentence is the word 'person' to 'people'.

Le Pingouin, yeah. It says that SSM proponents are scared about what happens if the 'rights' genie of the polygamous people gets out of the bottle. Hence the denial of the principle.

In using polygamy as an example I've used the same principle that many people have used to argue for SSM- that of 'equal rights'. I've used the same language and in some cases the exact same words. Use of phrases such as 'who are you to deny someone the right to marry whom they like' have been prevalent in this topic and levelled at those of us who disagree with SSM. Like I said a number of pages ago. I'd have a lot more respect for those arguing 'rights' if they were at least firm in their defence of the principle. That they're not, well, maybe that too says something.

So far no one has told me why the 'rights' argument doesn't also apply to polygamous marriage also. I've been told I'm wrong with no supporting argument. I've been told that I'm in the minority (not unusual with that one). I've been told SSM isn't about polygamy- I get why the SSM lobby don't want to include the issue of polygamy. So far though no one has taken on the rights issue. Headmaster has indicated that he'd consider it and I don't want to put words into his or her mouth to confirm that's the case.
It really does look like you are trying to distract the argument with the 'slippery slope' argument. I don't think SSM proponents are ignoring the issue because they don't like the answer, I just think it is not an issue they are concerned about. I really think that the polygamy argument is a distraction, not because I am scared of tghe outcome, I just don't see the relevance to the discussion.

To be clear, on polygamy, my concern is about the dental of rights for those in the relationship, and open to discoverying any other rights that may be denied by allowing it. If no rights are denied, if women (or men) are not subjugated by the arrangement, then I don't have any prejudice against it. It would not change the nature or commitment I have to my own marriage. It is not something that I would contemplate for myself. Would I argue for it? If there was a portion of the population that had been marginalised, attacked, mistreated and abused because they have not had their needs accepted and needed support? Yes. If not, probably no.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 13:11
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 406
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg View Post
Fair enough jonkster. Don't engage then. I put it out there that you can't demand 'equal rights' and not demand polygamy under the same principle. I reckon that's being intellectually dishonest. In short, it's crap. Twice now I've pointed that out. Twice you've not explained how you and others can reconcile promoting SSM on the basis of rights can but stop short of extending that principle to polygamous relationships or even somone who is bi who wants to marry somone of the same sex as well as somone of the opposite sex.

If you can't see my facetious use of the word 'bigoted' and see the principle behind my use of it in the context I have then by all means disengage.
OK if you say your use of bigot and full of crap was hyperbole and not meant to be offensive then I am sorry I reacted as I did. Fair enough.

How I read your argument above: you say that if I am arguing for the extension of legal recognition (ie marriage) to cover same sex relationships to give homosexuals equality, then I must also argue that there should be extensions of those laws to cover any form of relationship (your example is polygamy but I have heard other even less socially accepted forms of relationships used in similar arguments) to prevent discrimination. Otherwise I am being intellectually dishonest in claiming I want to stop discrimination.


or more simply put: if making the legal definition of marriage looser would make it less discriminatory, I should want it to be it as loose as possible so as to avoid as much discrimination as possible and give more rights to people.

If however I don't want to make it as loose as possible and want to only extend it 'a bit', I am guilty of shallow and contradictory thinking (or as you put it, my argument "is full of crap" and can be discarded).

Am I understanding your position correctly? (if not tell me)

Let's assume I have got the gist of what you are saying.

I know some here do not want to use analogies however I think they can be used to find general principles, providing you don't get too bogged down in the analogy as to miss the point.

Suppose (as an analogy) we went back to a time in Britain when marriages could only be performed by the Church of England, the Quakers, or under Jewish law. Any other form of marriage was not recognised. Any children born from relationships which were not married by those 3 religious groups could legally be considered as illegitimate.

That is a definition of marriage that existed into the 1800s in Britain.

Was it discriminatory? I would say so. Bad luck if you were Roman Catholic. But it is a clear definition and was how it was defined in law at one time.

My ancestor Jonkystre was outraged by this and would write long missives with his quill on parchment and nail it to trees saying "we shouldst loosen that definition because it discriminates against ye Catholics and ye Bretheren and people of no faith etc and infringes on their ryghts"


Ol' Kegge however, my ancestor's nemesis would write beneath Jonkystre's rants:
"If ye want to stop discrimination ye bygit, why should you stop at letting Catholics marry in their own churches? Why not also allow polygamy etc - to stop Mormons from being discriminated against? If you want to let Catholics marry to stop unfairness, then you should want also polygamy or you arguments are fyll of crappe ye bygit!"

The argument Ol' Kegge uses is identical to the one you use against me is it not? (if it is please correct me). There was a definition of marriage, it was restrictive, some wanted it loosened, why, if those people were thinking consistently and rationally, didn't they also want it loosened to cover polygamy?

So... Yes I do want to broaden the legal definition to give rights to more people.

I *do not* however say it should be made as loose as possible.

I believe our laws should broadly reflect society's views of what is just and fair.

I believe there is a broad belief in society that people who want to enter into same sex monogamous relationships are not a threat to society, that they have been unfairly discriminated against and should be able to have their relationships treated equally under the law, just like heterosexual relationships are. I do not see society arguing broadly for polygamy (or other stuff) in the same way.

If society's values change, so should the laws. Just in the same way Britain changed their laws in the later part of the 1800s to reflect a broader definition of who could marry.

That is why I say I want SSM as it gives rights to people - so is my argument intellectually dishonest or full of crap?
jonkster is online now  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 15:31
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective View Post
Actually I didn't 'cut and paste'... I have been studying U.S. history and government for 40 years or more and have read many books on the subject as well as being very conversant with the Civil War and Lincoln and that entire period and the revolution and attitudes to slavery.
You seem to have missed my point.
Abolishing slavery was about equality. Lincoln did not hold a plebiscite, because it was OBVIOUS it was about equality. The Civil War was not fought on the basis of slavery, that fact is obvious from just about any history book but rather on the subject of a State's right to determination without undue interference from a federal entity which the Southern States felt they had joined and could leave just as easily. Slavery was invoked by Lincoln (whom I admire by the way, so this isn't a comment on him) to turn the war into something worth fighting for, freedom and equality. These are different times and a different society. With the exception of what happened at Eureka which had a positive overall implications, we haven't tended to be a polity that picks up a gun every time we disagree with something.
The comparison was about equality. We are not a democracy and neither is the United States, we are 'representative democracies', we elect representatives to make the decisions for us, we expect them to conduct vigorous debate and concentrate the study and knowledge of the topic at hand to come up with the best solution. We do not elect them to ask us every time something is too difficult and we expect them to not have to debate at all when the subject is a matter of equality under the law. That is all SSM is, it's about equal rights to marriage by same sex couples.
I was not showing contempt for human suffering at all, I was drawing an analogy, I can post the dictionary definition if you like (since you think I cut and paste everything) or you can look it up.
Slavery was disgusting, vile and inhuman and so was the resulting inequality that it enforced. We are supposed to have learned from those historical mistakes and recognise inequality in all its forms, not just the ones we find comfortable.
Let's not forget, the bible was often held up as evidence for the righteousness of slavery as well. These are all facts, not contempt. I show contempt for a book that was written in such a way that it promotes inequality and discrimination and in such a way that it was able to be used to justify slavery, the KKK's actions and the fight against civil rights and now gay marriage.
I'll ask what I asked at the beginning of this unbelievably long thread again, what the hell has this got to do with aviation and why is this thread still going...
I hate to interrupt this lively discussion, but...

It's great you know some American history but you seem to have an enormous blind spot in your Civil War and pre-Civil War history during your 40 years of study re societal norms at that time and how religion/the Bible played a role in the question of slavery, it's acceptance/rejection, and the notion of Equality.

The Abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement, both during Colonial times (the pacifist Quakers and Mennonites had already outlawed slavery for example) but especially during the Second Great Awakening during the 1830's when the radical anti-slavery elements were born was largely founded, organized, and grew due to Bible-based religious beliefs and fervor, and evangelical Methodists, Presbyterians, etc were at the forefront of the movement. The idea that the Civil War, which really began in the Kansas Territory (Bleeding Kansas) years before the election of Lincoln and attack on Ft. Sumpter, was about slavery wasn't something Lincoln pulled out of his hat, he tapped-into an existing societal movement and changes. A large portion of society in the North and some in the South already viewed slavery as a "sin", hypocritical of the philosophy the country was founded on, and that belief was largely spread to the populace through churches and religious-based writings.

The frontier war begun in the Kansas Territory during the late 1950's pitting already-organized Abolitionist Northerners who went there to settle and oppose pro-slavery elements from the South doing the same to decide via popular vote within the Territory whether Kansas was to be a free or slave state set the stage for the larger war to trigger with the election of Lincoln.

Intellectual honesty or a real knowledge of U.S. history would force one to acknowledge the major and core role the Bible and religious beliefs historically played in the Abolitionist, anti-slavery movement in the U.S. and the eventual rejection of slavery by society at large.

In U.S. history at least, the Bible had far less to do with "promoting" slavery (as you keep insisting with your repeated references to Kluckers etc) as it did with giving birth, growing, and giving traction to the forces that eventually eliminated it due to the view of it's "sinfulness" based on Bible scriptures. Yes, this flies in the face of the Hollywood cliche' of a bible-toting slaveholder, but those are historical facts and most Hollywood-types never made it past high school. The supposed religious "justifications" for slavery (citing Old Testament verses containing references to slaves, for example) were in response to the ever-growing wave (and half-century plus years worth) of Bible-based, anti-slavery notions of Equality. During the Civil War there was no national anthem, but the most popular patriotic song and closest thing there was for the North was The Battle Hymn of the Republic. The 2nd best-selling book of the 19th century (after the Bible) in the U.S. was the very religious abolitionist Harriett Beecher Stowe's anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in 1852. Lincoln reportedly commented that she (Stowe) was the one who "started the (Civil) war".

It's self-contradictory to cite U.S. history and link slavery to your discussion yet cite contempt for a book that was largely responsible for changing societal beliefs that brought about the end of slavery in the U.S. Referring to slavery as "vile, disgusting, and inhuman" as you have here in 2017 was already being done so in early 1800's by the Abolitionists, and they were using the Bible to fuel that fervent belief of this "sinfulness". For that element, the push for equality to buck the system for change, the call to action, and work to have it eradicated (even through violence by some) was based on Biblical tenets.

That being said, I have no opinion on LBGT-etcs, Ozzie SSM, or Qantas paint jobs. I don't even go to church, but I do know my U.S. history and the role religious movements have played. You can't separate the U.S. Civil war from the Abolitionist movement, and you can't separate the Abolitionist movement from Bible-based religion and movements and their increasing conflict with slavery in the decades leading up to the civil war.

You may have contempt for the Bible (not that I care either way) but if you're basing that contempt on it supposedly being "pro-slavery" as if it was the justification that held that institution together for as long as it did in the U.S. (ignoring it's economic basis for it's continued existence by the landed, influential few in the Democrat South) while ignoring the Bible as a main source for the changing attitudes in society that did away with slavery to the point of a Civil War based on notions of Equality that make it intolerable, then you're doing so out of convenience to serve your own purpose or a belief in modern cliche's, not from a knowledge of historical facts.

Last edited by PukinDog; 27th Mar 2017 at 16:50.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 15:33
  #451 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Labor has had a conscience vote on this issue since 2012 and this will continue for the life of this parliament.
By that you mean that if they oppose the party line they are automatically expelled. Some conscience vote.

The Libs and the Nats allow party members to CROSS the floor without expulsion.
601 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 16:07
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cans
Posts: 125
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 601 View Post
By that you mean that if they oppose the party line they are automatically expelled. Some conscience vote.

The Libs and the Nats allow party members to CROSS the floor without expulsion.
unless they are in cabinet, then the punishment is off to the back bench
hillbillybob is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 18:14
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now 11 letters and counting

In an attempt to come up to speed on which barrows are currently being pushed, I thought I'd research the latest acronym currently in vogue in the coffee shops of the downtrodden.

I thought LBGT would cover it, but then Q made an appearance, but now this:

LGBTTIQQ2SA

Apparently though it still lacks at least 50 sexual identities.

I propose another letter to the acronym train. C-Car lover.

I love my car. Why can't I marry it?

LGBTTIQQ2SAC anybody?
IsDon is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 20:08
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 601 View Post
By that you mean that if they oppose the party line they are automatically expelled. Some conscience vote.
The Coalition will kick anyone off the front bench who votes for marriage equality. You demanded references (with five exclamation marks no less) and yet when provided with them still pretend it's not true.

Here is the Labor party platform on same sex marriage:
the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party. This resolution is rescinded upon the commencement of the 46th parliament.
There, just as I said, a conscience vote on this issue from 2012 until the end of this parliament.

I have no doubt you'll still pretend this isn't true either.

.
obira is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 23:26
  #455 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,081
Received 36 Likes on 22 Posts


....
....
....


.................
tail wheel is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.