|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
posted February 11, 2004 08:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Spoken like a true fascist Zero.
10. Straight guys can't dance.
Yep, you`ve got me there, but this doesn`t mean I`m bad person.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 11, 2004 09:29 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Feb 2004
|
Procreation As A Religion
Quote:
8. Don't tell me marriage is for the purposes of pro-creation. If that were the case, women known to be infertile should also be denied this right
Asmodean, members of the community, distinguished guests,
Please lend me a short moment of your time. First of all, when I speak it is only for myself and nobody else. Secondly, this is only what I believe to be true. My ideas and opinions are neither being forced nor implied on anyone here.
I believe "marriage" involves the act of creation. Creation can take place whether the man or woman are in love or not. When applying the act of creation to one's "marriage" I believe it sets the couple apart from other friendships and relationships.
There are many different kinds of ways to love a person. There is only one way to have a child. Men do not have children. Women have children. Once a man and woman have a child their reltionship is changed forever. I do not believe this to be the case with "civil unions" or in heterosexual couples who are prevented from having their own children, in which case, who have the right to "foster" a child.
Fostering a child is most certainly not the same as creating a child. The responsibility is the very same, however there is no instinctual propogation of one's genes, characteristics, habits, etc. This is how we all have to come exist. This is the answer in continuing to exist.
Do homosexual couples and heterosexual couples have the right to choose to take on all the responsibilities of a parent?
Yes they do.
Do homosexual and heterosexual couples have the right to legally be supported by the government through the use of binding contracts?
Yes they do.
Is this relationship between homosexual and heterosexual couples ,who cannot procreate, a vital relationship when considering carrying on the existence one's own self?
No it is not.
When arguing about the difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" I strongly oppose any couple whom cannot procreate be they heterosexual or homosexual using the term, "marriage", as their binding agreement. There is no further existence involved in those couples. I believe "marriage" to be many things, both spiritually and responsibly, but also the binding agreement that two people enter into that continues the existence of human beings. "Civil Unions" are identical to a marriage except for one absolutely unwavering fact of life. They are doomed to outlive themselves and become an extinct race of humans.
Science may remedy this complex yet simple disagreement with one's own existence, in which case that would force the couple involved to admit freely, that God does not exist and accept science as their savior. Science, being that which allows them to continue to exist, not God. The question now is, of all the couples whom cannot procreate for whatever reason, can they come to terms and accept this new idealogy or will they live in an ongoing facade where they say they believe in God while they let science play the God. I refuse to live in such contradiction!
So my thoughts are: It is all a question of existence. To what end would you want to exist? Can you live with yourself knowing that when you die everything you are will die with you?
That is my logic, whether you all disagree or not I stand by what I believe firmly. My beliefs identify me for who I am. Let this be a moment when people say, "His words show him for who he really is." Let this also be a reminder that I am an individual with my own set of beliefs.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 07:08 PM |
|
|
some feelings and a few thoughts
Disclaimer: Much like Consis's post above, my post is a collection of emotional reactions, personal opinions, and the like. While these aren't reasoned debate posts, and shouldn't be treated as such, I think they are nonetheless important to the discussion at hand. After all, a pivotal part of the issue of same-sex marriage is the definition of marriage itself.
1) Marriage used to be solely for the purposes of procreation and inheritance. This has been touched upon in another thread, but perhaps needs restating. The paradigm was responsible for, among other things, an emphasis on female virginity and chastity, and the social marginalization of "illegitimate" children. A lot of female repression was based on male fears that a wife's child may not be biologically his. A woman who had sex without being married, and eventually a woman who was even alone with a non-relative male, was "spoiled;" girls were married very young; women were hidden away and protected so as to keep the legitimacy of their children safe; while men could fool around with prostitutes (male and female) as much as they pleased. Call me crazy, but I don't want that mindset to make a comeback. I believe society has changed, and the definition of marriage needs to change with it.
2) Consis's post seems to imply that adult humans are incapable of loving "strange" children as much as their biological offspring. I repectfully but vehemently object. The love a person feels for a child placed in their arms is based on the adult's own capacity, not whether the kid came from his wife's womb or a plane from India. The parental instinct varied by individual and is by no means tied to one's reproductive capabilities. There are biological parents who neglect their kids (just look at how many men just abandon their pregnant girlfriends); there are adoptive parents who worship their children. I've seen several parents who have adopted, and the idea that they love their kids less than if those children were biological is absolutely ridiculous, borderline offensive.
3) What of those who are fertile but choose not to have children? As a person capable of procreation but unwilling to do so, am I therefore disqualified from having a "marriage"?
For the record, I don't think our species is in any danger of dying out due to lack of reproduction.
4)Quote:
Can you live with yourself knowing that when you die everything you are will die with you?
This statement contradicts everything I hold dear of the self. When people die, their legacies are the memories their survivors keep of them and the work they've done for the world -- NOT their children! Children, in case you had forgotten, are their own people. Yes, you can see some of yourself in your kids. You can also see some of yourself in your brothers and sisters, in your friends, in perfect strangers. Think of the great people of history. Who are their descendants living today? Who knows? Who cares? We remember those men and women for what they did, who they were.
Quote:
My beliefs identify me for who I am. Let this be a moment when people say, "His words show him for who he really is." Let this also be a reminder that I am an individual with my own set of beliefs.
Bingo. Your beliefs, your willingness to stand up for them, your words, the impression you make on others -- these are what you will leave behind on this world when you die. Your children get to be their own individuals.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 25, 2004 07:06 PM |
|
|
Consis --
(Regarding your above posts) Your ability to disagree with others in the respectful manner you do, and to identify and recognize your beliefs and thoughts as your own and not necessarily the basis for public policy, sets a fine example for us all. I think that making the distinction between one's own beliefs and the rights of others is something many of us struggle with.
Let's hope I do as well in the following:
Quote:
Fostering a child is most certainly not the same as creating a child. The responsibility is the very same, however there is no instinctual propogation of one's genes, characteristics, habits, etc. This is how we all have to come exist. This is the answer in continuing to exist.
I come from a social structure in which historically all the children in the community are the responsibility of the whole tribe. In many tribal settings to this day, children are referred to as sons and daughters or nieces and nephews by many or most the individuals in the community. The children likewise refer to many adults, relatives or not, as aunties and uncles; and frequently as other dads and moms. The propagation of the community is in itself the legacy. In such cultural settings an adoption ceremony closes any genetic gap that might have existed. In the minds of the participants this blood-tie is an actual occurrence and not a legal fiction. This would suggest that your view, that the instinctual propagation of one's genes is specific to individuals, is culturally-determined and not necessarily true for other people.
Quote:
When arguing about the difference between "marriage" and "civil unions" I strongly oppose any couple whom cannot procreate be they heterosexual or homosexual using the term, "marriage", as their binding agreement. There is no further existence involved in those couples. I believe "marriage" to be many things, both spiritually and responsibly, but also the binding agreement that two people enter into that continues the existence of human beings. "Civil Unions" are identical to a marriage except for one absolutely unwavering fact of life. They are doomed to outlive themselves and become an extinct race of humans.
I married late. For many of the same reasons you set forth in your post, we are still trying to have a baby. I agree that the relationship between humans transforms when a child is produced. However, I may not be able to have more children (I have a son from a previous marriage). Your statements above suggest that therefore my right to be considered in a viable marriage is less than yours. I respectfully disagree that any couple who cannot or who choose not to bear children should have lesser marital rights than those who do.
Furthermore, if one parent can conceive, and artifical insemination or some other form of intervention is successfully used, then there is a legacy to the family. Whether or not the parents are of the same sex is rendered irrelevant.
The same can be said with adoptions. As the earlier part of my post on tribal communities would suggest, the bonding process between adults and children has little to do with any genetic connection, and more to do with the desire to nurture infants. This drive is strong in adults. When such bonding is socially encouraced in whatever settings (be they legal adoption or tribal investiture or whatever) an adult who bonds with a child experiences precisely the same chemical reactions and protective/nurturing instincts despite the lack of blood ties. If you google the scientific data on parent-child bonding and adoption you will find my statements are scientifially verified and accurate. If you know any individuals who either adopted children or were adopted themselves, they will further verify this is true. (I would, however, approach this topic with caution, as some of your beliefs about this could come across as highly offensive and hurtful to most individuals in an adoptive relationship with their parents/children).
Finally, about Civil Unions being doomed to outlive themselves to extinction due to the inability to bear children: This is also not supported by the scientific data. The fact is that homosexuality occurs cross-culturally at about the rate of 10.5% despite the social taboos that may or may not be present in any given culture. This phenomenon is not a "legacy," a "birth defect," or any other kind of genetically relevant occurrence. As far as I understand it, the data suggests that homosexuality occurs in children of heterosexual unions as often as it does in homosexual ones. Therefore, extinction is no more or less likely if Civil Unions are permitted or if they are not. Fact is, Homosexuals will continue to be born and live.
The only remaining question is how they are permitted to do so, and whether they have the same rights to happiness as others.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 26, 2004 06:42 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 28 Aug 2004
|
It's A New Age Of Science
Quote:
This would suggest that your view, that the instinctual propagation of one's genes is specific to individuals, is culturally-determined and not necessarily true for other people.
Bah, what's the point of me even bringing up the propogation of one's own species in a world like today? This will only apply to me as I pass my beliefs on to my own children etc. Regardless of how I believe this world to be it is most certainly an age where two people do not need to have sex to further their existence as a species. Why do I even bother! This is a pointless argument that I am having with myself!!!! HELLO SELF! SEX MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE BABIES WITHOUT IT NOW. Jeez what the heck. Where did all my morals go? Hello science, goodbye morality. And people wonder why I'm neither a christian nor an athiest. Well here I am once again cofused as ever rambling about a subject that simply is. It is therefore I am too. And now my argument against people using the term "marriage" in a civil union is clearly moot. This is great. Now my belief that strengthens my own marriage is meaningless because the basis of the definition is now a moot one. I don't even know what I'm saying. I'm just completely confused and I guess I'll live with it as I have no choice but to accept the gay marriage philosophy based on logic. That whole thing about feeling what's right loses because it was faith based and isn't supported by logic. Well this is just great.
Quote:
Finally, about Civil Unions being doomed to outlive themselves to extinction due to the inability to bear children: This is also not supported by the scientific data.
And here is the final blow to my own beliefs that stab with the dagger of logic into my faith-based heart. Goodbye conscience. Hello science.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 06:51 AM |
|
|
|
Oh Consis! I think you are taking all this way too hard man! LOL!!!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 26, 2004 07:08 AM |
|
|
To Be Or Not To Be
If I cannot define my own self before looking into the problems of others then what right do I have to meddle? More inward deliberation to come. You can be sure of that.
Acceptance is the phase that must be achieved. I am not there yet. I want to accept but my children must know that without the heterosexual man that is their father then they would not exist. A question of one's own existence is that which I believe we are debating here!
Am I or Am I not who I am? I am of my own thoughts and feelings therefore I must be who I am.
I take it hard because I don't like being confused. Gay marriages and civil unions confuse me! It is so deeply entrenched within my heart to want to be that knight in shining armor for the woman I love that I cannot possibly fathom any other direction of thought! Any woman today will easily tell the man that he is no longer a knight and to stop being so primitive. Look, I am primitive if it means giving my life to save the damsel in distress! Let this be a defining moment for me!
I will not accept any attack on my philosophy of masculine protection of the feminine gender. I do not care what people tell me. It is this intrinsic and instinctive behavior that has shaped my reputation today. It is this that people know me by who live next to me. They know I will protect their children as well as my own from gangsters and other such nonsense if I am able.
Is this far from the debate? I say no because that's where my arguments are stemming from. This is the man that I am. This is the man that chooses a woman for his mate. This is the man that is proud of his existence! Let me be who I am and I'll let you be who you are, but do not try and associate your thoughts and beliefs of homosexual bonding to mine. There is no relation!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 12:14 PM |
|
|
Let you be who you are????
I didn't realise you needed permission from someone to be the person you are.
(sorry for the interruption..just had to say that..)
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 06:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Regardless of how I believe this world to be it is most certainly an age where two two people do not need to have sex to further their existence as a species...SEX MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE BABIES WITHOUT IT NOW...Hello science, goodbye morality...That whole thing about feeling what's right loses because it was faith based and isn't supported by logic.
Woah, woah, woah. Hold up, Consis, you're going too fast for some of us!  Where's the connection?
So technology can help people concieve without sexual intercourse. Okay. How does that hurt the strength of your marriage? How does the love between others affect the relationship between you and your wife? Are your children less special because the method of their creation is not the only method out there?
Does your way of life have to be exclusive to be worthwhile?
I'd say "No!" Your heterosexual relationship, your children, your decisions are all valuable regardless of the issues of gay marriage and/or civil unions. Your children are no less wonderous just because there exist other kids concieved in different ways. Romana brings up a good point...you needn't look to others to define yourself. If your wife is a woman who wants the knight in shining armor, well lucky her! She found him.  Your armor is no less shiny because other women aren't looking for it. You have your mate; you have your domestic happiness. The motions of society to extend the right of that happiness to others does not affect your private sphere. As long as sex is fun and 90% of the population is heterosexual (both well-confirmed by biological fact ), your way of life will be valued and protected. We of the minority simply want society to recognise our way of life alongside yours. Legitimacy isn't a zero-sum game -- valuing our relationships will not devalue yours.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 09:03 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 26 Feb 2004
|
My Peers
Quote:
Does your way of life have to be exclusive to be worthwhile?
As you say. My way of life was once exclusive when there was once only one method of reproduction for human beings. That is not so now. Now sex is no longer exclusive to making children. Perhaps this is the root which confuses many heterosexual couples today including myself.
Quote:
Your heterosexual relationship, your children, your decisions are all valuable regardless of the issues of gay marriage and/or civil unions. Your children are no less wonderous just because there exist other kids concieved in different ways.
That helps. Maybe it helps more than you know because it came from a gay person such as yourself. I'm learning and I'm trying to reach the acceptance phase. It's very helpful to have someone with experience in this matter to offer their opinions.
Quote:
Romana brings up a good point...you needn't look to others to define yourself.
No. Remember your partisan prayer thread? That's how I think. I look to peers for a great deal of self definition. Part of how I define myself comes from the spontaneous thoughts that occur in my decision making process and the other part through traits absorbed from my peers. That's how I have come to be the person I am today.
Quote:
If your wife is a woman who wants the knight in shining armor, well lucky her! She found him. Your armor is no less shiny because other women aren't looking for it. You have your mate; you have your domestic happiness.
All I can say is thankyou. I'd give you a hug but I can't so simply put, thankyou.
Quote:
The motions of society to extend the right of that happiness to others does not affect your private sphere.
My private sphere is not "affected" as much as it is touched, inspired, and compelled by many things in society.
Quote:
We of the minority simply want society to recognise our way of life alongside yours.
Well, you have mine. I don't know what I could do from Oregon but if there ever came a time then I would be the first to volunteer for the duty.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 09:05 PM |
|
|
I second your comments Khaelo.
Consis, personally I'm partial to knights in shining armour myself, and have one of my own. I may be something of a feminist, but am of the generation that includes peoples' rights to take up the old values (knights and damsels) or the newer version. My feminism comes in where I think that it's a matter of choice whether a woman is a breadwinner or housewife; whether she chooses to be lead counsel or an administrative assistant or a doctor or a nurse, just like men choose between these same options. It's all a matter of choice. So in this respect, I stand by your statement and likewise will not accept any attacks on choosing such a lifestyle. We both -- we all -- have the right to make such choices.
Will our heterosexual unions, our personal feelings about our respective knights and damsels, be changed by the fact that others who do not have the same feelings nonetheless still are accorded the same legal rights as we have? THAT it the question my friend. We no more have the right to say they do not have the same status as we do, than they would to say we do not have that status. We would like it no more if others, who do not choose the life/love styles we have chosen, were to say we do not have the rights to choose, and had the powers to enforce it.
My feeling is that you have hit straight at the heart of this matter, but that you are thinking about it sort-of inside out. Your very feelings of being somehow threatened by others living differently underscores both the fantasy of your own fears that this might somehow affect you personally, and also that those same fears have blinded you to the fact that others already are personally, negatively affected by the status quo in exactly the same way you fear for yourself.
And those others can no more imagine or re-define themselves to change those feelings and beliefs about what a meaningful union is to them, than you possibly could. Try to keep in mind that what your choices and self-definition represent to them, is every bit as alien to them as their choices and definitions of self are to you. Yes, You Are Who You Are. And They Are Who They Are. It is the same thing.
<EDIT>
Consis, you and I were posting at the same time! So I wrote the above without benefit of seeing your response to Khaelo. I do hope I do not come across as too harsh. I think you are kind-hearted and engaged in a genuine inner struggle over this issue. I do not want my post to suggest othersise to you.
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
posted February 26, 2004 09:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'd say "No!" Your heterosexual relationship, your children, your decisions are all valuable regardless of the issues of gay marriage and/or civil unions. Your children are no less wonderous just because there exist other kids concieved in different ways. Romana brings up a good point...you needn't look to others to define yourself. If your wife is a woman who wants the knight in shining armor, well lucky her! She found him. Your armor is no less shiny because other women aren't looking for it. You have your mate; you have your domestic happiness. The motions of society to extend the right of that happiness to others does not affect your private sphere. As long as sex is fun and 90% of the population is heterosexual (both well-confirmed by biological fact ), your way of life will be valued and protected. We of the minority simply want society to recognise our way of life alongside yours. Legitimacy isn't a zero-sum game -- valuing our relationships will not devalue yours.
I'd just like to say "Bravo!" on a wonderful post, Khaelo.
I'm convinced. I'll no longer look down on people for what path they follow in life in accordance to their sexuality, even if my religion guides me to believe that it's wrong. The brilliant paragraph that I have quoted above has totally and completely convinced me that homosexuality, while a sin to me, cannot be discriminated against like it has been by both me and my Christian colleagues. Your post demonstrated a reasoning and point of view that I blindly believed homosexuals were unable to comprehend, yet alone take. I apologize for my bigotry, hopefully I'll grow out of it someday. I am still just a wee tyke, after all.
____________
>_>
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 10:32 PM |
|
|
<i>Addendum to earlier post: talking for sake of talking</i>
After writing my post, I left and thought about the issue some more. A lot of the opposition to gay marriage, both in this thread and in the media more generally, seems to be rooted in a sense that allowing alternative marriages will threaten the traditional set-up. Combining Consis's ideas with concepts from my political science class, I wonder: How much of this issue is bound up in the paradigms of competition?
{insert smilie I've been dying to use:  }
There seems to be a general attitude that in order to be good, one must be the best. This is by no means limited to American society, but I think it is exaggerated in the States because we base so much of our national identity on the ideals of democracy and capitalism, both competitive systems with winners and losers. If one doesn't win, one is left in the dust, and alternatives are typically antagonistic to one another. (Some forms of democracy encourage more cooperation, but not the American system.) I think some of this thinking has been carried over to marriage. Official legitimacy confirms for heterosexuals that their marriage is "best." If the system is competetive, it is a zero-sum game, and allowing other couples to marry would cause a loss of status for traditional matrimony.
I don't think things need to be that way. My parents did not love me less or consider me less unique when my brothers were born, even though I was no longer an only child. That seems a more harmonious paradigm to use for marriage than the competition one. Opposite-sex marriage and old-fashioned conception (older sibling) are not any less meaningful and valuable since same-sex marriage and scientific conception (younger sibling) have entered the picture. They are different, but both are part of the same family, both resulting in loving relationships and babies.
====
Cut rampant speculation and strange analogy. Responses to other posts, now:
Consis,
We're all in this to learn.  Your opinions have inspired me to take different tacts in approaching this issue.
Quote:
Remember your partisan prayer thread? That's how I think. I look to peers for a great deal of self definition. Part of how I define myself comes from the spontaneous thoughts that occur in my decision making process and the other part through traits absorbed from my peers. That's how I have come to be the person I am today.
Touche. Looking to others does help us define the self. The key here, I guess, is that while we may look at others, we can absorb their traits into our worldview without necessarily judging ourselves in relation to them. Sometimes, judging is appropriate, but sometimes it simply is not. Granted, that may be my high school's propaganda speaking -- in an all girl's school, they were keen on counteracting the shallow, image-centered, insecurity-fostering influence of advertising -- but I've found that pluralist philosophy to be helpful in more than beauty standards. It seems to reflect reality quite well. Of course, it may just be a self-fulfilling philosophy.
Quote:
My private sphere is not "affected" as much as it is touched, inspired, and compelled by many things in society.
Sorry...my wording was poor. By "affected," I probably should have said "wounded" or something like that. But, as you've noted, the private sphere is touched and inspired by changes in public society.
Peacemaker,
Everything you said about choice -- 
Can you tell I've found a new source of smilies, LoL? Yeah, they're rhetorically weak, but they're cute and fun...
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 10:48 PM |
|
|
argh, whatever...
My post won't edit for some reason. Please ignore the broken code (accidently used wrong type of brackets for italics...).
On a more positive note: Hi, Shadowcaster. Some people never grow out of bigotry, so it's not an age thing. Congrats on having the courage to examine your beliefs and the open-mindedness to change them.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 11:06 PM |
|
|
To Khaelo -- LOL!11 Love the little bowing guy. Thanks sis.
To Khaelo and Consis: I have also looked to others whom I admire for certain traits, those who I think set a better example for me than I might currently exhibit, and have aspired to emulate them. I have found this actually enhances my own sense of identity and self-worth cause it's something I take pretty seriously. So I'm with you guys on that one.
However, as Romy suggests, this does not mean they define me. I choose to define myself, to reform and improve myself, based on certain chosen examples (both male and female). This is purely an act of choice though as far as I'm concerned. What others do or do not ultimately does not define who I am unles I actively choose to follow someone's example.
This works for me because it is not internally inconsistent for me to do this. It is part of my personal ethic. However, for another whose personal ethic might serve them differently, it may not be the case. To me it's all a learning process and a highly individual thing.
P.S. Hey Romy! Long time no talk! Not to worry: I am an equal opportunity neglecter these days.... (job search and all you know)
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted February 26, 2004 11:21 PM |
|
|
offtopic too
Yeah Jo I was beginning to think you forgot all about me *cries really loud* 
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 01:33 AM |
|
|
I've been trying to listen to this issue in the press lately, but the Irish and British press doesn't give it an awful lot of coverage?
Could someone give me a rundown on what's been happening stateside on this issue lately? I have a vested interest
When America sneezes we catch the cold over here so I'm rooting for all those USA homos.
And what's the view on Mr. Bush trying to make same sex marriage unconstitutional? I thought he'd left enough bloody legacy already!
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 02:09 AM |
|
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 02:41 AM |
|
|
What is the definition of marriage?
____________
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 27, 2004 03:29 AM |
|
|
Thanks Concis. That really cleared the issue up for me.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
