| Author | Post |
|---|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 06:29 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Dover panel rejects gay marriage resolution
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — The Dover Human Relations Commission on Wednesday night overwhelmingly rejected a resolution in support of legalizing same-sex marriage, with some commissioners questioning the wisdom of even considering a proposal so divisive.
Only the resolution’s author, Commission Chairman Samuel B. Hoff, voted in favor of it. Nine commissioners opposed it while three abstained from voting.
Following that decision, the commission defeated a motion to consider rewording the resolution and putting it to a referendum. Only five commissioners favored that idea.
The vote came a month after a majority of speakers in a public hearing before the commission urged that the resolution be withdrawn or rejected.
"I feel like the public spoke," Commissioner Katrina Brumble said.
Many of the speakers in the hearing cited religious beliefs as a basis for their opposition. And Commissioner Catherine M. Gregory said Wednesday she was loath to insult them by voting for the resolution or insult gays and lesbians by voting against it.
"I refuse to vote on something that slaps one party or another," she said. "We’re in a no-win situation."
A member of the commission for only a few months, Commissioner Gregory said she studied the body’s bylaws and found nothing calling for the passage of such resolutions. The commission is charged with hearing individual complaints of alleged discrimination and trying to promote harmony among various groups in the city.
"We’re causing a rift in the community," Commissioner Gregory said. "I can’t believe we’re doing it."
Commissioner Hoff defended the resolution, saying failure to support equal rights among everyone would be adverse to the role of the commission. "I don’t think there’s ever a bad time to advocate equality," he said.
After the vote was final, he predicted the message of the resolution ultimately will prevail. "We will see gay marriage in the state of Delaware in the lifetime of every person in this room," he said.
The resolution called on City Council "to take a stand in support of gay marriage as a human right, and to advocate for passage of a law permitting gay marriage in Dover and throughout the state of Delaware."
Existing state law defines marriage as union of a man and a woman.
The commission’s decision came not long after the state legislature’s approval of long-sought protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters such as employment, housing and insurance.
Both the Senate and the House on Wednesday passed Senate Bill 121 to provide that protection. Gov. Jack A. Markell has said he will sign the measure.
Staff writer Bruce Pringle can be reached at 741-8233 or bpringle@newszap.com.
|
trailer park trash
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 141 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:21 pm |
|
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/obama-invites-gay-rights-advocates-to-white-house/
Ok ney sayers
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16th, 2009 09:37 pm |
|
| http://www.acon.org.au/about-acon/Newsroom/Media-Releases/2009/18
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16th, 2009 09:35 pm |
|
| http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,COL,4562d94e2,480db5ae2,0.html
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16th, 2009 12:45 am |
|
Good point Bixby
Common law union , same as Civil union
I don't think just because having a marriage license will make what is considered a sin ( two men two women ) change the facts of it being a sin.
In some states cohabitation is against the law , but it is for man and woman
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/7_states.htm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/cohabitation#state-local-provisions-regarding-cohabitation
Just think of the fines they could collect
Back to the issue here .
These couple already are doing every thing that married ( men and women ) do what the hell is the big deal . Just to say i was there and fought for equal rights.
These are not rights they are fighting for ( why buy the milk when the cow is free? )
The only thing that needs to be can't really be change un less employers who have and hold the pension and retirement funds are willing to change their rules .
Last edited on Tue Jun 16th, 2009 12:53 am by oop!
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 10:26 pm |
|
meadowdweller wrote: Duncan Idaho wrote: Ooop, you wrote = "The Christian communities teach it's not right or moral as the teaching of their Bible but in that same Bible it teaches them to be tolerant of others."
Poor example. It teaches tolerance but not of what they considered sin. Forgive if they repent of their sins. Love the sinner but not the sin. You are trying to make a long stretch there. It's not only a religious viewpoint you are dealing with here but one of tradition which goes back thousands of years. Traditional values and mores are as difficult to overcome as religious teaching. What the gay community is doing in subtle and not-so-subtle ways is to teach that religion is wrong and should be rejected and/or that the religious teachings are saying something that the gays deem is correct but not the religious teaching itself. Ex: "the Bible teaches tolerance." Back to the point, yes, but not tolerance of what they consider sin. Good luck.
SUCH STEREOTYPES!......"Christian communities" Gay communities" "the gays" what about "the whites" or "those Muslims" or "them Irish".....can you enlighten me on what they all believe is "right"?!
I feel the reason our country is great is that we evolve, the times change and we educate ourselves and eventually give equal rights. And like the civil rights movement or womens rights theres always those who find something Biblical or immoral or "what will this lead to next".
Questions:
The Bible forbids sex with a menstruating woman....why don't you go fight for that?
Traditional values and mores?...how about bringing back submissive women, stonings and hangings?
What about a hermaphrodite? Should this person be allowed to marry? Did this person make a decision to be this way or born this way? Is this person sinning?
And finally why people are so protective of marriage, this "Holy Matrimony" only works half the time, a person could go to Vegas get drunk, marry a prostitute...yet a committed gay couple with children cannot marry!?
You are another one with poor examples attempting to make an absurd stretch to further your beliefs. How can you call these identifiers as "stereotypes?" They are not at all stereotypes. How else can you identify: Muslims, or Irish, or blacks or whites except by identifying them according to either physical appearance, religeous beleifs, or ethnicity? There are differences, so how would you classify the differences? The manner in which you identify hot from cold, high from low, urban and suburban applies as well.
Why would anyone fight for having sex with menstruating womer? How did that get into the discussion? Although there are some who may practice it, it is not an issue germain to this topic.
Submissive women, stonings, and hangings are not traditional values and mores. In some societies they are legal edicts based on some theocratic government rules, such as in Islam, who do believe that women should be submissive and that stonings should be a legal remedy for what in their belief system is considered a sin. Hanging is the ultimate sentence in many countries, even here in America. These are all, of course, undesirable, but are improperly identified by you as "traditional values and mores.
You bring up an interesting point about hermaphrodites. That is a good topic for diuscussion and I have no particular answer for that.
Being protective about marriage is a good approach. You are wrong about it working half the time but the example you cite about the drunk and the prostitute is far from typical and no preacher or justice in his right mind would allow such a marriage to continue. It is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Many of today's younger people who marry may very well wind up in a divorce situation. That's not a traditional marriage because they lack the "values and mores" which make a marriage binding and secure.
A committed gay couple should have every right to enjoin in a union whereby they can live together as a loving unit. No problem there except that it is not a marriage any more than up is to down, left is to right, or red is to green. Your desire to name it for what it is not is understandable but incorrect. The ultimate purpose for marriage, procreation, cannot be accomplished and is not in the realm of normalcy to be fruitful and to multiply.
You can try to substitute by adoption but you cannot perform the ultimate survival of our specie. To procreate. You must rely on someone else's procreation but still you cannot ensure our survival but only be a surrogate.
Now before you do headstands and flips, unless you already have, I am not anti gay at ll. It's not for me but I have no objection to gay unions or mingling. If it suits you, then go for it, but you can't call it marriage. It would be like taking some chrome accessories from a Caddilac and putting it on a Chevy. It is still a Chevy and never the twain shall meet.
Last edited on Tue Jun 16th, 2009 12:37 pm by Bixby
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
Many couple make commitments with out the ceremonial paper called a marriage license.
Though many believe that it is a the final act to prove undying love and commitment. It really isn't.
|
meadowdweller
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
Duncan Idaho wrote: Ooop, you wrote = "The Christian communities teach it's not right or moral as the teaching of their Bible but in that same Bible it teaches them to be tolerant of others."
Poor example. It teaches tolerance but not of what they considered sin. Forgive if they repent of their sins. Love the sinner but not the sin. You are trying to make a long stretch there. It's not only a religious viewpoint you are dealing with here but one of tradition which goes back thousands of years. Traditional values and mores are as difficult to overcome as religious teaching. What the gay community is doing in subtle and not-so-subtle ways is to teach that religion is wrong and should be rejected and/or that the religious teachings are saying something that the gays deem is correct but not the religious teaching itself. Ex: "the Bible teaches tolerance." Back to the point, yes, but not tolerance of what they consider sin. Good luck.
SUCH STEREOTYPES!......"Christian communities" Gay communities" "the gays" what about "the whites" or "those Muslims" or "them Irish".....can you enlighten me on what they all believe is "right"?!
I feel the reason our country is great is that we evolve, the times change and we educate ourselves and eventually give equal rights. And like the civil rights movement or womens rights theres always those who find something Biblical or immoral or "what will this lead to next".
Questions:
The Bible forbids sex with a menstruating woman....why don't you go fight for that?
Traditional values and mores?...how about bringing back submissive women, stonings and hangings?
What about a hermaphrodite? Should this person be allowed to marry? Did this person make a decision to be this way or born this way? Is this person sinning?
And finally why people are so protective of marriage, this "Holy Matrimony" only works half the time, a person could go to Vegas get drunk, marry a prostitute...yet a committed gay couple with children cannot marry!?
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 02:45 pm |
|
Well religion has been going in the a different direction since In the Begining ( no pun intended )
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 557 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 12:52 pm |
|
oop! wrote: DI
You do understand I wasn't saying it was right , just what is being taught and what others thought .
What is being taught about tolerance must be in context, and aparently the gay community takes it out of context. People's thoughts are a mish-mash of different things. Some are right, some are wrong, and a whole lot of inbetween. The debate rages on and will for some time to come until the gays somehow attempt to turn history, culture, tradition, and religion in a different direction.
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 04:51 pm |
|
DI
You do understand I wasn't saying it was right , just what is being taught and what others thought .
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:48 pm |
|
Ooop, you wrote = "The Christian communities teach it's not right or moral as the teaching of their Bible but in that same Bible it teaches them to be tolerant of others."
Poor example. It teaches tolerance but not of what they considered sin. Forgive if they repent of their sins. Love the sinner but not the sin. You are trying to make a long stretch there. It's not only a religious viewpoint you are dealing with here but one of tradition which goes back thousands of years. Traditional values and mores are as difficult to overcome as religious teaching. What the gay community is doing in subtle and not-so-subtle ways is to teach that religion is wrong and should be rejected and/or that the religious teachings are saying something that the gays deem is correct but not the religious teaching itself. Ex: "the Bible teaches tolerance." Back to the point, yes, but not tolerance of what they consider sin. Good luck.
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
Not being married never stopped these people in time , it was all in the way they presented them selves some publicly others not .
What will a panel do ?
Being the state needs extra income and Delaware's congress really doesn't have a hold on morality ( this is not to say the members are none moral ) Just that this will eventually come to a vote and I believe that most will vote yes ( not because reason one would believe ( right or wrong giving the right to gays and lesbians as in the past given the right for mixed marriages) as we've crossed the huddles the religions in the marriage. The vote would be yes if it were prove to generate more income and salaries have to be paid what better way then open a gate and have a flood of money they close it .
If there is a will there is a way , if something is meant to be.
The state will weigh the need for future growth and the need for income to achieve this .
Now the Gay and Lesbians communities are only saying give us the right to let decide to marry or not .
The Christian communities teach it's not right or moral as the teaching of their Bible but in that same Bible it teaches them to be tolerant of others.
Taking a vote on gay marriages and letting the chips fall and lay would be the best thing .
On other hand if Delaware was a common law state ( adding into the books with the acceptance of common law include same sex couple relationships ) and order that companies must treat them as just that when it comes to retirement , SS and life and health insurance , there may be no need of giving permission for same sex marriage after three years of living together give them a certificate that would entitle them to the same benefits as what is now considered a legal married couple. If it works out no need to revisit the the Gay marriage issue.
Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:37 pm by oop!
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:21 am |
|
It was Boys town until the Libs took over.
oop! wrote:
meadowdweller wrote: oop! wrote: I know I'm stepping into the past a little but some gays are really flamboyant these days The days of Rock Hudson and Raymond Burr are gone , these men the world knew as men of men on the big screen but also knew their little secret . and the days of Jerry Lewis are gone the flamer of flamers but he had a little secret.........he was straight!
Touchy touchy about Jerry I see!
There was a time when words like "let freedom ring " or " God Bless us all" were words that were heard around the world
Now you have these petty little cracks from people of all races and cred that were said in a non thinking moment and you want to tire and feather them.
Let he who is with out fault cast the first stone.
|
meadowdweller
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 12:07 am |
|
LET FREEDOM RING
GOD BLESS US ALL
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 01:26 pm |
|
meadowdweller wrote: oop! wrote: I know I'm stepping into the past a little but some gays are really flamboyant these days The days of Rock Hudson and Raymond Burr are gone , these men the world knew as men of men on the big screen but also knew their little secret . and the days of Jerry Lewis are gone the flamer of flamers but he had a little secret.........he was straight!
Touchy touchy about Jerry I see!
There was a time when words like "let freedom ring " or " God Bless us all" were words that were heard around the world
Now you have these petty little cracks from people of all races and cred that were said in a non thinking moment and you want to tar and feather them.
Let he who is with out fault cast the first stone.
Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 03:37 am by oop!
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 12:16 pm |
|
chloe wrote: oop! What's up with the picture of Hugh Beaumont?
Ward Cleaver ( father teaching his children respect and morals and understanding of others)
|
meadowdweller
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 09:47 am |
|
oop! wrote: I know I'm stepping into the past a little but some gays are really flamboyant these days The days of Rock Hudson and Raymond Burr are gone , these men the world knew as men of men on the big screen but also knew their little secret . and the days of Jerry Lewis are gone the flamer of flamers but he had a little secret.........he was straight!
|
chloe
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 05:52 am |
|
| oop! What's up with the picture of Hugh Beaumont?
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 03:11 pm |
|
meadowdweller wrote:
No probably the reason was fear of name-calling, fired from your job, kicked out of your house, harassment, beat up or even killed
You are being tough on today's kids but one thing for sure is they RESPECT gay people much more than in the past!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This goes to my other point here
Delaware is not really a right to work state , if a employer doesn't like the color of your shoes on any given day they can fire you.
I know I'm stepping into the past a little but some gays are really flamboyant these days The days of Rock Hudson and Raymond Burr are gone , these men the world knew as men of men on the big screen but also knew their little secret . No biggy they did not want to mess with their careers . Now days it's who cares with Hollywood . If you are right for the job then you should have it.
I haven't seen any work applications asking if one if they are gay on not on them so unless the person who loses the job because they are a little over the top in their actions to prove they are gay just to prove a point at their job then maybe they should not have that job or should never applied for it .
Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 03:55 pm by oop!
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 02:52 pm |
|
Well there are ways of getting around some things with insurance company and they are legal
But it's only in case of Death by having all the policies put in your partners name , I would like to see companies give the retirement that was paid into such the rail road and a lot of the big ones who have family members that are or not related to thier employee and there is proof that the said person was the soul care taker living in the same home be able to reap some of the retirement that just sits there when a employee dies before it can be used , keeping people off the welfare system , saving stress or burdens on the family . Heck even using the retirement fund that's not going to be used ( because the employee dies ) it could be used to play for final cost. Why should it be lost money ?
I've known several people who worked in the Auto industries and Amtrac that have died after thirty or forty years on the job and died and not one family member got their retirement fund though most made arrangement through insurance companies that paid for final cost to be paid. Thousand a pond thousand dollars that rightfully should have going in to people who cared for and worked along with the deceased to have a good life after retirement and never had the chance be cause of a rule not a government law.
A life partner could be a husband , wife ,sister, brother, daughter , son , neice nephew, uncle or aunt and care giver or sex partner or not and many have been denied because of piece of paper. I think it's the private sector that needs to change their perception first.
Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 03:39 pm by oop!
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2354 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 12:23 pm |
|
Ooop, you bring up an interesting point. You advocate FORCING insurance companies to insure certain cqtegories of people. This is a private enterprise and we have gone too far in government taking control of private business. However, insurance companies may be ENCOURAGED to make these insurance decisions to where it is profitable for all. So when a few companies take the risk of insuring certain categories of the insured and their business increases as a result, I bet that there will be others who will follow suit. Of course, there will be others who will not. That's the free market.
Meado, I think that you can insert a qualifier in your statement that the younger people of today respect gay and lesbian people more than in the past. I venture to say that respect for the person may have always been present but the rub is that there may not be respect for the lifestyle. It's the old "love the sinner but not the sin." Especially since for many thousands of years the lifestyle has been considered to be anathema unto the point of death. In the Muslim world, being gay is punishable by death, sometimes by stoning and sometimes by beheading.
Fortunately, in this country the tolerance level is much, much higher although there will always be the extreme view of those who will use hatred for one group or another, not necessarily gays, to kill. It was that way from the beginning. Cain slew Able and it went on from there.
|
meadowdweller
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 05:10 am |
|
oop! wrote: won't matter how far back you will find gays and lesbians have always been there. They just kept it behind closed doors for a reason :
RESPECT
No probably the reason was fear of name-calling, fired from your job, kicked out of your house, harassment, beat up or even killed
You are being tough on today's kids but one thing for sure is they RESPECT gay people much more than in the past!
|
oop!
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1020 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 01:40 am |
|
Power of attorney
Last Will and Testament
Delaware should be a common law state
Force companies to change their rules on giving retirement benefits and medical to same sex couples
How many of them will let their employees to add family on their insurance medical or other wise
I'm not for gay marriage but on the other hand if these couples spend and share their lives together they should share the befits they both worked for.
Your new generation needs to take a step back in time , won't matter how far back you will find gays and lesbians have always been there. They just kept it behind closed doors for a reason :
RESPECT
For others and them selves, What you do in your home does not need to always be seen on the streets.
For instance in at a well known beach in Delaware three drunk girls 2 undressing the other one in front of little kids who family just took them there for a day of fun.
Or what about the loud music that every other word starts with a F or calling a woman a B or say the word S M D do you get my drift ?
How about the boys and men who must have their butt cheeks and under wear showing or keep grabbing them self evey 5 second
If this is what the new genration has to offer thank God I am from the 40s and 50s
Last edited on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 02:54 pm by oop!
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 09:24 pm |
|
| Wow! I suspect that the guy doesn't post here but rather sent a letter to the editor at the DSN. I would like them to print your reply so he can see what you mean. Lotsa luck.
|
Chyenne Arsenault
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
| You DO NOT represent the children of Dover. You understand that right now. You are NOT the new generation. I am. If you represent us then you better have went around and asked everyone of us our opinions. So far, you haven't come to me. You want to represent us, then start with me. ask my opinion and then represent that. just because it's different doesnt mean its wrong. thinking like that is what got us in this screwed up world in the first place. people like you. you dont know us. you dont understand us. i'm a better representation than you are. you have 11 grandchildren. thats great. you DO NOT represent them. they have their own minds and will forever have their own minds. you do not know every little thing about them so get over it. Morals and Values aren't always right and true. get that straight right now. i have morals too and those morals are being respectful, trying, not giving up, do'nt think your better than someone else, and family. FAMILY IS NOT BLOOD!!!! family is people who care about you. if family was blood then a lot of us would have the worst family ever. so you think about that. and before you call yourself a representative of the children of Dover than you better go around and ask our opinion. Start with me. Send me a message and reply to this. i dare you. You won't because you're afraid of what you'll find out. DO NOT think you're a representative of anyone other than yourself. I hold true to being respectful unless someone like you comes along and doesn't deserve it.
|
Chyenne Arsenault
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 08:31 pm |
|
| You DO NOT represent the children of Dover. You understand that right now. You are NOT the new generation. I am. If you represent us then you better have went around and asked everyone of us our opinions. So far, you haven't come to me. You want to represent us, then start with me. ask my opinion and then represent that. just because it's different doesnt mean its wrong. thinking like that is what got us in this screwed up world in the first place. people like you. you dont know us. you dont understand us. i'm a better representation than you are. you have 11 grandchildren. thats great. you DO NOT represent them. they have their own minds and will forever have their own minds. you do not know every little thing about them so get over it. Morals and Values aren't always right and true. get that straight right now. i have morals too and those morals are being respectful, trying, not giving up, do'nt think your better than someone else, and family. FAMILY IS NOT BLOOD!!!! family is people who care about you. if family was blood then a lot of us would have the worst family ever. so you think about that. and before you call yourself a representative of the children of Dover than you better go around and ask our opinion. Start with me. Send me a message and reply to this. i dare you. You won't because you're afraid of what you'll find out. DO NOT think you're a representative of anyone other than yourself. I hold true to being respectful unless someone like you comes along and doesn't deserve it.
|
Chyenne Arsenault
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
| You DO NOT represent the children of Dover. You understand that right now. You are NOT the new generation. I am. If you represent us then you better have went around and asked everyone of us our opinions. So far, you haven't come to me. You want to represent us, then start with me. ask my opinion and then represent that. just because it's different doesnt mean its wrong. thinking like that is what got us in this screwed up world in the first place. people like you. you dont know us. you dont understand us. i'm a better representation than you are. you have 11 grandchildren. thats great. you DO NOT represent them. they have their own minds and will forever have their own minds. you do not know every little thing about them so get over it. Morals and Values aren't always right and true. get that straight right now. i have morals too and those morals are being respectful, trying, not giving up, do'nt think your better than someone else, and family. FAMILY IS NOT BLOOD!!!! family is people who care about you. if family was blood then a lot of us would have the worst family ever. so you think about that. and before you call yourself a representative of the children of Dover than you better go around and ask our opinion. Start with me. Send me a message and reply to this. i dare you. You won't because you're afraid of what you'll find out. DO NOT think you're a representative of anyone other than yourself. I hold true to being respectful unless someone like you comes along and doesn't deserve it.
|
Chyenne Arsenault
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 08:26 pm |
|
| You DO NOT represent the children of Dover. You understand that right now. You are NOT the new generation. I am. If you represent us then you better have went around and asked everyone of us our opinions. So far, you haven't come to me. You want to represent us, then start with me. ask my opinion and then represent that. just because it's different doesnt mean its wrong. thinking like that is what got us in this screwed up world in the first place. people like you. you dont know us. you dont understand us. i'm a better representation than you are. you have 11 grandchildren. thats great. you DO NOT represent them. they have their own minds and will forever have their own minds. you do not know every little thing about them so get over it. Morals and Values aren't always right and true. get that straight right now. i have morals too and those morals are being respectful, trying, not giving up, do'nt think your better than someone else, and family. FAMILY IS NOT BLOOD!!!! family is people who care about you. if family was blood then a lot of us would have the worst family ever. so you think about that. and before you call yourself a representative of the children of Dover than you better go around and ask our opinion. Start with me. Send me a message and reply to this. i dare you. You won't because you're afraid of what you'll find out. DO NOT think you're a representative of anyone other than yourself. I hold true to being respectful unless someone like you comes along and doesn't deserve it.
|
Chyenne Arsenault
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
| You DO NOT represent the children of Dover. Understand that right now. You DO NOT know what we want or who we are. Have you ever asked us what we want or how we feel? No you have not. If you have, well then you havent asked me huh? Unless you go around and asked the youth their opinion, every single one of us, then no you do not represent us. I better represent the youth than you do. I am the youth, i know what i want, i'm more in tune with the youth than you ever will be. You have 11 grandchildren. Great. You don't represent them either. They have their own mind. Do our representatives go around and ask everyone personally what they want? No. Then they don't know and end up doing something wrong. So don't ever think you represent us. Your values and principles are important to you. I understand that. Just because that's what you believe in does not make it true or right. Morals are something i hold near and dear but we have two different outlooks on it. To me morals means respectful, try, do not give up on anything just because you don't want to, and family. Family is not blood. Family is people who care about you. If family was blood then i wouldn't have one. Homosexuals should NOT be shunned. Just because we found love in someone other than the opposite gender does not mean anything. You're saying that love means nothing. That love shouldn't be embraced. You think about that. Would you rather have two straight people sitting there making out and having sex or two gay people holding hands? Just because it's different DOES NOT mean it's wrong. So don't even try to brainwash people into thinking different is wrong. That kind of thinking is what got us into this dead end society and materialistic world. People like you have screwed us over. The people of the future. The new generation. Which i am a part of. So if you want to represent us then start by asking me my opinion.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:21 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
Editor’s note: the following letter to the editor was presented orally at a recent meeting of the Dover Human Relations Commission:
As a father of five and grandfather of 11, I stand before you representing the children of Dover and the common sense parental teachings that have been passed from one generation to another for over five thousand years.
This meeting is about a struggle between two opposing forces that wish to win the hearts of children. One camp believes in moral absolutes and wishes to pass to its posterity a code of conduct, validated through thousands of years of human interactions, that states homosexual behavior isn’t normal while the other camp wishes to instill a current day philosophy of relativism. Dr. Hoff’s views are in this camp.
The ancient Greek philosophers generally concluded that there are three principal faculties in man: namely, the intellect, the spirit and the appetite. The appetite they said was what man desired at the moment such as food or sexual release.
Plato acknowledged an ideal republic was impossible for mortal men because he saw something self-destructive in appetite-driven, egotistical human behavior. By egotistical human behavior I mean the ethical belief that self-interest is the just and proper motive for all human conduct.
For six millennia, every human society has had homosexuals among them. Our American culture reflects many great ideas passed down to us from these past civilizations, but the idea that homosexual behavior should be embraced is not one of them.
As adults, we often find our personal lives mired in the appetite of self-gratification that the Greeks spoke about; however, most of us sense in the deepest chambers of our souls that what we are doing is wrong. Therefore, though we struggle with our weaknesses, we steadfastly resolve in our hearts that at the very least we will be true to our children and strive to teach them the moral principles that we were taught in our youth and which we instinctively know are true.
While Dr. Hoff’s motives might be genuine, make no mistake about it, the endgame for the majority of the homosexual community is to first, legitimize their deviant behavior, secondly, to indoctrinate every school-aged child, beginning incredibly in kindergarten, that the homosexual lifestyle is normal and, finally, one will see increased political pressure to lower the age of consent for anal-intercourse.
Homosexual behavior is not natural and the public outcry during the somewhat recent Catholic church scandal of priests preying on boys in their trust is a heart breaking example.
A yes vote for Dr. Hoff’s proposal will be a vote against the safety and welfare of our children and an affront to thousands of years of common sense parental instruction. Instead, please, leave the innocent children alone and vote no.
Michael Greenstreet
camden
|
What a Crock
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 01:29 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Oh, really?
Let's say that any of your examples one of the people is sick and in the hospital. In every case, their familial relationship will get them in to see the ill person, because they are already related. If a couple is living together, be they straight or gay, they have no right to see their beloved. A straight couple has recourse, a gay one right now does not.
However, in some cases below, one CAN get them on your insurance if they are dependent on you, so your "point" is even weaker.
I am quite certain that any hospital would accept a notarized statement that lists who you wish to have visit you while you are in that facility, and as was stated before every family member is not always a welcome visitor, so you could even state who you do not want to visit you in the document.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a couple of friends wanting to use the government to get benefits for which they, "are not entitled to", and should never be.
Dependents? Was I discussing dependents? I was talking about couples, and when it comes to gays and lesbians, you might say A COUPLE OF WHAT !!!!!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 11:14 am |
|
Oh, really?
Let's say that any of your examples one of the people is sick and in the hospital. In every case, their familial relationship will get them in to see the ill person, because they are already related. If a couple is living together, be they straight or gay, they have no right to see their beloved. A straight couple has recourse, a gay one right now does not.
However, in some cases below, one CAN get them on your insurance if they are dependent on you, so your "point" is even weaker.
|
What a Crock
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 09:51 pm |
|
To get the benefits that you list why not also include the following as those "couples" who live together and share expenses and allowing them to join together in a "marriage" contract, what about their rights:
two sisters
two brothers
a sister and brother
a mother and son
a father and son
a mother and daughter
a father and daughter
cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents,
and so forth
We don't want to leave anybody out of getting these benefits now do we?
Last edited on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 10:06 pm by What a Crock
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 09:39 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinion by clicking on "Reply."
On May 27th I attended, as did many other concerned citizens, a meeting held by the Dover Human Relations Commision. The suppossed reason for the meeting was to allow citizens to voice their concerns regarding an future proposal to be presented to the Dover City Council.
The Chairman of the Human Relations Committee, Dr. Hoff, whom if I understand correctly is a Professor of History and Political Science at Delaware State University.
I’am having trouble trying to understand why Dr. Hoff, considering his credentials, would decide to introduce a resolution for the City of Dover that violates not only the State Constitution, but State Law. Would that not only make their resolution impotent but questionable in a legal aspect?
Can it be that Dr. Hoff is aware that Delaware is the only State that does not have a provision in it’s constitution to provide a referendum for the citizens to request or have a ballot vote on an issue?
It could therefore be construed that one could manipulate a pending Legislative vote by using their position of authoritive knowledge and respect.
Perhaps it is just me, but I believe my first inclination would be to say "Wake up Delaware citizens". You are lacking an important item in your constitution, without which you are subservient to your elected officials. They work for you, not the other way around!!!
All I ever hear is how everyone is fed up with the way our government is conducting themselves and bankrupting our Nation.
But I don’t see them getting involved and taking an active role in what may be the most defining historical time of our Nation.
The people who are trying to steal away your freedoms are counting on you to become apathetic, complacent and do nothing but wait for someone to fix things for you.
You need to get off your butts, get out of the recliner, turn off the TV and join with the Patriots who are struggling with an uphill battle.
Our organization was responsible for the Dover Tax Day Tea Party. Over 400 people responded and stood in the chilling rain for over two hours to show their dissatisfaction of our governments actions. It was very impressive and inspiring, but it cannot end there. To have any effect "peaceful assemblies" must reflect the constant vigilance and efforts of an active group of "Patriotic Concerned Citizens"
In a time of frustration, anger and anguish the people cried out for assistance, for direction. A few of us stood up and formed an organization for us, "We the People", to take an active role in the decesion making process of "Our Government".
Now we need to know, What are YOU going to do? If you decide to sit at home and play it safe you are going to get what you didn’t bargain for. We, the 912 Delaware Patriots do not intend to give up Our Freedoms, Our Nation, Our Constitution with-out a fight.
God Bless the United States of America and the Republic it stands for. God’s gift to mankind.
Russ Murphy
Chairman, 912 Delaware Patriots
Milford
|
Rationale
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 10:56 pm |
|
I wasn't going to get into this, but he goes.
It is my understanding that this whole gay marriage business came about because some gay guy wasn't allowed to visit his gay sex partner in the hospital, who was dying of aids, because he wasn't part of his family. Why does it have to be only family that is allowed to visit someone in the hospital? There are some people in my family who I don't want to see, ever, and especially not in the hospital. How would a hospital know that? I say that there is a need for a document stating who a patient wants to see when they are in a hospital. This should never have come to causing the legalization of gay marriages.
If God wanted the sexes to intermingle, or marry, he would have given everyone penises and vaginas.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
Copied below is a guest commentary submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
By The Rev. Jeffrey Collins
The Dover Human Relations Commission has proposed a resolution supporting gay marriage in Dover and statewide and has invited discussion from the public. While the gay community regards marriage as a right, marriage is a sacred institution, recognized by the state, but not defined by it. As such, the legalization of gay marriages has not only legal, but also religious ramifications.
It seems to be assumed that being gay is an in-born or genetic condition which a person cannot control. This has never been proven. All such research has been shown to be skewed and has been discredited. Studies done on identical twins did not produce any conclusive indications of genetic predisposition. This leaves us to conclude that the gay lifestyle is a behavioural choice, not the inevitable result of genetics.
If this is so, we are left to question whether this behavior is legally or morally acceptable to society. From the legal standpoint, we would have to determine whether it is harmful to those who practice it, or to others. Obviously, sexual predators of any kind - whether homosexual or heterosexual - would be considered harmful to others and this type of behavior should remain illegal. But if we are talking about people who simply choose the gay lifestyle and are not offending anyone with their choice, this would not appear to be harmful to others. At the same time, if this is being promoted to the children of people who have moral objections to it, this could be offensive (but let us look at that when we deal with the question of morality). As to harm caused to an individual who is gay, studies have shown that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. Compare that to a smoker who is expected to lose 13.5 years of life. We do not outlaw smoking, but we do limit its side-effects on non-smokers and we discourage the use of tobacco products, especially for children. Perhaps this should also guide our legal stance on gay issues.
Moral considerations are equally important since acceptance or rejection of the gay lifestyle would also have a direct affect on religious liberty. If we make it illegal to speak against same-sex relationships, we are at the same time outlawing direct teachings from both the Bible and the Koran. At that point we violate the First Amendment which expressly prohibits the United States Congress from "making laws respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion or infringe the freedom of speech.
From the Judeo-Christian standpoint, gay marriage and hate crime laws which prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual practices put those who believe in the Bible in a predicament. Such people believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Since it clearly teaches that homosexuality is wrong (see Rom. 1:21-31, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Lev. 18:22), they are forced to either discount the Bible or disobey the law. They must choose either to obey man or obey God. As the Bible says (James 4:4): "friendship with the world is hatred toward God." While the pro-homosexual culture often attacks Christians as being hateful or bigoted because of their beliefs, those beliefs are based in their trust in God, and in the Bible as God's Holy Word. To say that the Word of God and its teachings are evil comes dangerously close to the only unforgiveable sin: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (see Mt. 12:24-32). While homosexuality, like all other sins, can be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot (this is when we say that God is evil and our ways are right). The Christian faith does not condemn people for homosexuality. On the contrary, it was for the forgiveness of our sins (all sins) that Jesus gave His life. If we claim that we are without sin, we make God out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives (1 Jn. 1:10). Please realize that to ask a Christian to embrace sin as an "alternate lifestyle" is to ask him or her to reject Christ. Those who support the gay lifestyle and, at the same time, seek to embrace Jesus inevitably have to 'throw away' portions of Scripture to support their views. Does God need to be enlightened by our post-modern sensibilities? Somehow, I don't think so. This controversy is nothing new. We just think it is different because it applies to us.
In Iran, religious views have been forced into law. Since 1979 over 4000 homosexuals have been executed. That's not the answer. But neither is forcing people to deny their God.
I would encourage those on both sides of this issue to be compassionate and understanding. None of us is perfect. We're just trying to do the best we can according to our best understanding.
Editor’s note: Rev. Collins is pastor of the Christ Memorial Baptist Church in Dover.
|
I am not making this up !!!!!!
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 03:56 pm |
|
Jennifer9999 wrote: No. I came here to discuss the topic of gay marriage. Which seems to have gotten lost among these posts. Goodbye.
You should be saying goodbye, because you certainly cannot defend your behavior. There is no defense for the offensive.
|
Mamamia
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 03:51 pm |
|
Jennifer9999 wrote: No. I came here to discuss the topic of gay marriage. Which seems to have gotten lost among these posts. Goodbye.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice other than what is considered to be normal behavior.
|
Jennifer9999
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 03:40 pm |
|
No. I came here to discuss the topic of gay marriage. Which seems to have gotten lost among these posts. Goodbye.
|
Mamamia
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 02:43 pm |
|
Here is a picture of a lesbian couple. Do they deserve our respect?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickmonk/3336233775/in/photostream/
Last edited on Fri May 29th, 2009 02:44 pm by Mamamia
|
Mamamia
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 02:40 pm |
|
Jennifer9999 wrote: Wow. No, I am not ashamed of how I live my life. I'm also not going to detail my sex life to strangers (or friends for that matter). THere is such a notion of privacy.
You chose to be less than private by coming on here to discuss your lifestyle. You opened this can of worms now you are trying to wiggle out of discussing it. Go slither back to the closet.
|
Jennifer9999
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 02:33 pm |
|
Wow. No, I am not ashamed of how I live my life. I'm also not going to detail my sex life to strangers (or friends for that matter). THere is such a notion of privacy.
|
I am not making this up !!!!!!
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:36 pm |
|
mishl wrote:
You surely can't perform in the missionary position like a man and a woman.
You think heterosexual couples only do it that way? Man, what a boring sex life you must have.
No, I am stating that it is not possible for gays and lesbians to do it that way.
|
mishl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:32 pm |
|
You surely can't perform in the missionary position like a man and a woman.
You think heterosexual couples only do it that way? Man, what a boring sex life you must have.
|
I am not making this up !!!!!!
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:31 pm |
|
| I know two sisters who live together in an apartment, they would lilke to file a joint tax return and cannot. They can't get married to get around the system like some gays can in several states now.
|
I am not making this up !!!!!!
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:21 pm |
|
Jennifer9999 wrote: I will not answer those questions on a public forum.
Why not, Are you ashamed of what you do?Last edited on Fri May 29th, 2009 01:21 pm by I am not making this up !!!!!!
|
Jennifer9999
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:15 pm |
|
| I will not answer those questions on a public forum.
|
I am not making this up !!!!!!
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
Jennifer9999 wrote: Yes I am her natural mother.
Mendavor- What you think and what God thinks are two different things. The problem is with you, not God. God loves all, regardless. But once again, you are taking a human rights issue and making it religious.
Two Cents- Marriage provides legal rights to couples. That is all we are asking for. The right to see our spouse in the hospital. The right to receive social security and pensions when the unfortunate happens, the right to file joint tax returns, the protection that if one spouse leaves, the other will not be left without a home or child support, the right to adopt each other's child, the right to check off "married" on forms. I was commenting on an earlier post where the writer stated "The reason certain “benefits” are given is not to reward one group of people over all others. It is not to idealize love. It is to compensate for the high cost and sacrifice realized by families. "
I suppose the problem is with the word "marriage". Most of us do not care if it's called marriage or not, we are looking for our rights. We will call our unions marriage if we want to anyway.
Call me naive, if you will, but other than the monetary benefits that you have mentioned why do gays and lesbians choose to marry. Do you have some kind of sexual relations? If so, what are they? You surely can't perform in the missionary position like a man and a woman. I don't get it. I can understand people of the same sex caring for each other deeply, such as having a very close friendship, but I don't understand the need to live together as a couple and to go so far as to sign a marriage contract. Just because you don't want to have a normal relationship with the opposite sex doesn't give you the right to expect benefits from the government. If you are the natural mother of your child, where is the father, why isn't he paying support and were you ever married to him? When did you decide that you no longer were attracted to men, was it when you found out you might be able to marry a woman (your friend) and get the same benefits without the sex. You sound like you want to be open and talk about this issue, so please explain.
|
Jennifer9999
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 11:59 am |
|
Yes I am her natural mother.
Mendavor- What you think and what God thinks are two different things. The problem is with you, not God. God loves all, regardless. But once again, you are taking a human rights issue and making it religious.
Two Cents- Marriage provides legal rights to couples. That is all we are asking for. The right to see our spouse in the hospital. The right to receive social security and pensions when the unfortunate happens, the right to file joint tax returns, the protection that if one spouse leaves, the other will not be left without a home or child support, the right to adopt each other's child, the right to check off "married" on forms. I was commenting on an earlier post where the writer stated "The reason certain “benefits” are given is not to reward one group of people over all others. It is not to idealize love. It is to compensate for the high cost and sacrifice realized by families. "
I suppose the problem is with the word "marriage". Most of us do not care if it's called marriage or not, we are looking for our rights. We will call our unions marriage if we want to anyway.
|
Current time is 12:50 am | Page: 1 2   |
|