posted
I know we're flooded with threads about homosexuality, but our school newspaper published an opinion piece today about religious aspects of homosexuality that I really wanted to share on Hatrack. I, for one, am thoroughly in favor of gay marriage, as most people on this forum already know. I've never really gone along with the whole "homosexuality is a sin" and the "hate the sin, love the sinner" rhetoric that generally goes on in these types of debates. But Mr. Forte approached the subject in such a way that challenged the way I was approaching such arguments -- he refutes the assumption that tolerance is the ultimate virtue.
Anyway, I'm just curious as to how Hatrack Christians (and non-Christians) feel about this article.
quote:Column: Speaking the truth
By Tiago Forte
Published: Thursday, February 26, 2004 There are students at this University who think the Bible is a compilation of clever sayings, an easy-reference guide for those times in life when a comforting word or deep reflection is needed to make an idea sound wholesome and traditional. Unfortunately, most readers will take their information, and thus, their opinion about the Bible from such people, never wondering if perhaps there is another side to the Story, a truer and more complete side.
Many advocates of the institution of homosexual marriage criticize Christians for their lack of love and compassion. They say that Christianity is a faith of hypocrites who proclaim mercy and grace one day and denounce and judge on the next.
If God is love, then why do we discriminate, right? How dare we say anything is wrong, or imprison anyone for breaking laws? Isn't "law" just discrimination against people who happen to prefer a "style of life" that society has decided is unacceptable? The fact is that we discriminate every day, and so do society, law and God.
Doesn't God love liars, thieves, criminals, cheaters, murderers, bad drivers, adulterers and rapists as well as homosexuals? you ask? The answer is an unequivocal yes. As Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." He loves everyone, yet nowhere does he exhort us to tolerate their wrong behavior as a society.
We hear often in our culture that tolerance is the answer, that if we just accept people as they are, as Jesus accepted them, all our problems will be solved. God was and is, in fact, very intolerant. He did not tolerate Adam and Eve's sin (Gen. 3:1-13), Cain's fratricide (Gen. 4:8), the Tower of Babel's existence (Gen. 11:1-8), Moses' faithlessness (Num 20:11-12), the Hebrew people's doubt (Num. 14:1-12) or worship of a golden calf (Ex 32:2-10), King Saul's pride (1 Sam 18:7-11), the Amorites, Hittites, Jebusites (Ex 23:23-24), or hundreds of other individuals, families and even entire nations. All of these were dealt with harshly. Did Jesus accept the Pharisees when he called them a "brood of vipers"? (Matt 12:34) Did he accept the moneychangers when he overturned their tables and drove them out of the temple (Mark 11:15-16)?
Love is actually much deeper than simply putting a stamp of approval on everything set before us. It is united and bound inextricably with Truth. 1 John 3:18 says, "let us not love with words or tongue, but with actions and in truth." Jesus Himself says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15). In Romans 12:9 we find this startling statement: "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil, cling to what is good."
Many people quote the ubiquitous John 3:16 as proof of how much God really loves us, yet fail to realize that the actual verse says, "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." An essential part of "believing in him" is believing what He said: "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me" (John 14:21). Compassion as the Bible describes it is not moral forgetfulness, but rather an invitation into a relationship where Truth reigns.
You will find no one who disagrees more with the public face of evangelical Christianity than I; the gaudy, worldly, offensive characters we see on TV are allowed to propagate the myth of the crazed, racist Christian while the true believers remain hidden. I in no way support the tactics of many conservatives and Christians today; the intimidation, condemnation and ostracism of gays and lesbians that occurs often in our society is just as wrong.
True love means, however, caring for someone enough to tell them when they're wrong. My commitment to telling people the truth means that I cannot tell a homosexual person that the Bible regards homosexuality as an acceptable way of life.
I, as a Christian, am called to love homosexuals as Christ first loved me, to accept them as sinners and introduce them to the power and truth of a life-changing relationship with the Savior. And this challenge I accept, but institutionalizing something the Bible clearly says is wrong would be the least truthful and least loving thing I could possibly do. Waving a banner of only truth is callous arrogance, and waving one of only love is misguided sentimentality.
-The writer is a freshman majoring in international affairs.
posted
I'd also like to add that GW is, for the most part, a very liberal school -- we have a thriving, very visible gay community on campus. The Hatchet Editorial Board comdemned President Bush for supporting a constitutional amendment, but still published Mr. Forte's column.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a fine opinion to have, but it really sidesteps the question of opposing gay civil marriages, for instance.
It's one thing to say, "You are wrong, because of my beliefs, and as such I can't accept what you are doing in my social group" it's another to say, "You are wrong, and you ought not to be allowed to participate in some of our shared social group's privileges."
posted
Very well spoken, well thought out, and presented without resorting to calling anyone names. Makes a point many people miss - God is not a giant Teddy Bear just there to hug you when you're down. Yes, he is a loving God and to the broken sinner on his knees he does offer that love and acceptance. But he is a God that expects obedience. The great thing is he also forgives us when we are disobedient.
quote: He loves everyone, yet nowhere does he exhort us to tolerate their wrong behavior as a society.
So true. In fact, Paul writes quite a bit about how to approach someone who is sinning deliberately and without seeking redemption for that sin. Never are told to condone people's behavior, just not to judge them as if we were better than them.
quote:Waving a banner of only truth is callous arrogance, and waving one of only love is misguided sentimentality.
I love that quote, I'm saving it. Truth should always be tempered with love, and love should always be bestowed with truth. Wonderful.
So, if you want to know what I felt about it - I liked it. It helps say some things I've been feeling but haven't been articulate enough to express.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This argument against Gay Marriage is much better than a lot of the ranting and name calling I've heard in the self-righteous press.
It doesn't drive me to attack it just because its closed minded and wrong. That was phrased badly, because it is definately not closed minded. The stuff coming out of others has been.
What she is argueing is simple, "Christianity is not just about forgiveness. It is about faith. It is about trying to be a person worthy of forgiveness. Homosexual acts are sins that pull us away from being worthy. To allow the state to allow this behavior is morally wrong."
I can understand that argument.
I don't agree with it, but I can understand it and discuss it without getting upset.
I would respond, if I went to that school: "You are right. By everything that you believe and hold sacred the act of homosexual love is a sin, and as such should not be supported by our government.
However, according to my religion and my faith, and everything I hold sacred, love is the highest, most important aspiration of us humans. To try and change the government in such a way as to eliminate the chance for two people to confirm and commit to their love is something I consider a sin. It is against love and that is against God.
We can argue about this, yell and scream and throw bible versus around. The problem is that your faith springs from your heart, and will not be changed by words or phrases I can offer you. Similarly, my faith is as strong. All we will do is add to the noise pollution rampant around us.
Fortunately, for me, we live in a country that allows both of us to practice our choice religion. That means that you are not allowed to force your religious views of homosexuality on those who do not share them.
You can try to convert them. I wish you luck, for faith is as prescious as love, but rarer and more fragile.
You cannot, however, make there lack of conversion illegal.
I didn't interpret his article at as an attempt to justify the anti-gay-marriage position but rather to address one attack issued by pro-gay marriage advocates against Christians.
quote:You cannot, however, make there lack of conversion illegal.
How does denying them a marriage license make their beliefs, their love for each other illegal?
I would never support rounding up gays and putting them in internment camps or jail, not allowing them to own property, not allowing them to vote. I see the right to live where you please, the right to buy land where you please, and the right to vote as fundamental rights each person should have in this society unless that person has committed some crime. Being gay is not a crime, nor should it become one.
What this argument comes down to, is not that one side doesn't want gays to have rights and the other one does, but one side thinks marriage is a fundamental right, and the other side doesn't. You are not entitled to be married. Telling you that you can't marry the person you want to does not, in my opinion, take away one of your fundamental rights.
For example, am I taking away your rights when I tell you that you can't marry an 11 year old, or someone who is already married to another person?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I agree, it's beside the point in the gay marriage debate. But not beside the point in the larger "Thinking Homosexual Actions are Sinful Makes you a Bigot" discussion.
Dagonee And Dag is fine. Or Dagonee. Or Dags. Not Dragonee, though. I hate that. And don't use Dag if Geoff's in the thread, or I'll wonder if you meant to put an "o" instead of an "a" and get all confused and stuff. Got that? Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if I called you "Togdor the Buninator"?
I think it can work in favor of those claiming religious folks can be bigots on this issue. The "Truth", as given by their religious doctrine, provides the necessary "contempt" to work to stop gay civil marriage. It does become largely a semantic argument at that point, though (as evidenced by my quotes).
So I still think it's besides the point... Except in cutting down the tiresome argument that Conservative Christians aren't really such, since they don't love "enough". It defends religious conservatives from the label of "hypocrit".
posted
To answer the last questions by Belle: No, because of (respectively) consent and preexisting legal obligation.
Homosexual marriages would not violate anyone participant's consent, and would be just as subject to preexisting legal obligations as any other marriages.
Plus, its worth pointing out that in most places for a long time it was okay for a person to marry an 11 year old, as a side note.
These sorts of objections are just as irrelevant every time they're brought up.
If I were to say "you can't marry person x" and you were to say "but that violates my rights because I love person x, person x loves me, and we want to enter into a societally binding arrangement that will give us legal protections for our love in exchange for our honoring our obligations jointly", it doesn't make any sense for me to say "but would it violate your rights if I were keeping you from marrying an 11 year old, or someone already married?" whether your partner is the same sex or the opposite sex as you. Its wholly irrevelevant.
posted
I mean it. I can't think of any way to elaborate that won't sound like a backhanded compliment, but really, I'm so impressed. You're making me rethink some of my preconceived notions about the late teen to early adulthood years. And about the value of a college education.
posted
To me, when people trot out the, "tolerance" word in discussions involving topics like this I really begin to cringe. Tolerance, to me, is really quite a pejorative word, inherantly suggestive, or at least implying to me that there is something wrong w/what should be "tolerated".
I fully understand that many people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with homosexuality, or simply homosexual behavior/acts, I'm just pointing out that at least to me, "tolerance" is not some great bridge to better understanding. It may be better than hatred, and violence, but it still implies (to me anyway) that there is something wrong with what's being "tolerated" and that the individual doing the "tolerating" is special/or potentially good for doing so. This to me is ludicrous.
Anyway, thanks to Kasie for starting the thread, certainly an interesting one and one relatively free of the fiery rhetoric that usually descends upon such a subject (and I'm not free of that characterization as Lalo and I are virtually identical in our views of the subject matter. That being said I can't speak for Lalo, as only he can, I just mean to suggest that when he posts in these threads I often find him writing what I feel and what I think in a much more straight forward manner than I normally would).
There will always be people out there who are different from me. Men, blacks, elderly people, sick people, people from broken homes, homosexuals, rich people, poor people....all are different from me. There is no denying that everyone has different experiences than I do.
It doesn't necessarily imply inferiority -- it's just difference, and there is nothing inherently wrong about that.
I think it is everyone's responsibility to tolerate -- or perhaps accept would be a better word (although, honestly, my preferred word would be appreciate) -- each others' differences.
I guess for me, being tolerant isn't something I see as a majority-minority construct. For me, it's very individual.
[ February 26, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina -- , and thank you . Considering how wildly different our opinions usually are, that really does mean a lot.
jeniwren -- Just so you know, you've definitely challenged me to evaluate my own assumptions about religion and some other things. Thanks for that I was just wondering, though, about how you feel about college education and/or how I changed how you felt about it...*curious* -- if you don't want to reply here just drop me an email or something Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolerance is limited... It's not want is needed. A deep understanding outside of the framework of religion and to see who a person really is. To empathize with them and their pain and experience.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A deep understanding outside of the framework of religion and to see who a person really is. To empathize with them and their pain and experience.
...why is it necessary to see someone outside the framework of religion? You always have to look at people within the context of your own experiences....so what if that experience happens to be religion, or a college education, or growing up in a third-world country, or growing up an orphan? Your own experiences will always shape the way you understand and interact with people. The challenge is to refrain from judging people with the lens of your experiences, and instead to emphathize with them and their pain and experience.
Look, as much as I might disagree with it, Christians have a right to believe homosexuality is a sin. We do have freedom of religion in this country, and as long as they don't act to harm others based on that belief, I can't hold that against them.
I might disagree with them....but I also like knowing that I have the right to agree with them if I so choose.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, I don't have an understanding of anything outside the framework of my religion. It informs nearly every opinion I have. Those it doesn't represent failure on my part to make it so.
Religion is not a compartmentalized part of my life. That doesn't mean I don't understand or respect people who believe differently than me. It means that my understanding of everything is informed in some way by my faith.
posted
I don't know Kasie, I think religion can have a way of sharply defining how you interpret something before you have any grasp of what it truly is. But the same could be said of a lot of things.
I don't know what the answer's are, I certainly don't have them, the issue really depresses the hell out of me . I once had loads of issues w/homosexuality, but as a teen growing up in the bay area of California, I was exposed to lots and lots of living real people that were gay, both male and female. That stopped it from being simply a concept for me, it made it into an everyday reality, a flesh and blood reality, and I found myself completely incapable of holding onto what I had come to feel were backward, ill-informed views.
That's my personal experience, just as religion has deeply shaded many individuals ways of interpreting the world around them, I'm sure growing up in the bay area has deeply shaped who I've come to be, and the way I interpret the world around me.
This isn't helping I suppose, it's just my muddled view of the situation for whatever it's worth.
It would be interesting to see what kind of views kids would have if they were raised in an environment completely free of takes on the issue from either side, and free of religion as well. I wonder how the kid would interpret sexuality in that sort of situation?
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe a bit like how I see it... because I have no particular religion or perspective.. I just see it this way... it hurts people.. it hurts people when they are dismissed as just... some sinner.. i don't know... i need to stop arguing about this issue.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Kasie that tolerance isn't perjorative.
I kept waiting for the author to say, but maybe he didn't need to, that the first great commandment is to love God, and loving our neighbor comes second.
There is also the quote (Matthew 10) that He (Jesus) came not to bring peace, but a sword to divide us from everything that would come between us and him. Even our parents and children.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just see it this way... it hurts people.. it hurts people when they are dismissed as just... some sinner..
I've tried explaining the role of pointing out sin as relates to loving others in numerous threads, as has the article here. Can you at least explain what about the explanation doesn't make sense to you? Maybe I'm just not understanding the difficulty you have with it.
posted
I think one of the things I liked most about this article was that the author first pointed out that everyone is a sinner, not just homosexuals, a key tenet of Christianity that I think is overlooked in a lot of these debates.
I think if a Christian tried to tell me I was a *worse* sinner than someone else, I'd get a little bit angry -- Christianity (as I understand and choose to believe it) asserts that if you repent, you are forgiven, no matter what the crime, because Jesus died for it. So really, in the eyes of God, we are all the same. Doesn't mean Christians condone the sin....but they do acknowledge that they are sinners, too.
....and I think I've walked my brain in circles. *sigh*
[ February 26, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...everyone is a sinner, not just homosexuals, a key tenet of Christianity that I think is overlooked in a lot of these debates"
I don't think that's overlooked, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument and everyone with a functioning brain in their skull knows that everyone sins from time to time.
The problem for me, though, is that virtually all sin's are actions taken that are somehow possibly correctable w/o denying who you are, and what you are, they involve simply correcting behaviors that are unwise or potentially harmful. But to me, telling a gay man or a woman, that physical expressions of the love they may have for another is a sin is telling them that part and parcell of who they are is "SIN". If to express a fundamental part of yourself is sinful, then how can anyone come to terms with this?
Really. Can't we see how horrifying this is? It would be one thing if homosexuality was clearly akin to other sin's fundamentally and at it's core, but the fact is, this isn't so. It's on a fundamentally different scale, stealing is one thing, it can be an addiction, but it's still a behavior that can be taught, and untaught, it doesn't define who someone is to potentially there very biology. Homosexuality, however, could very well be proven in the coming years to be in some cases (not all, I know plenty of dilletante's, among women FAR more often then men) to be a genetic fact, a potential biological reality. What then of this love the sinner hate the sin take? Everyone sins, sure? But if the sin people condemn in you is no different than say, the freckles that dot my skin, then aren't we in another situation here. Another very, very problematic situation?
I just don't buy that argument, it does nothing for me, it doesn't win me over, it just makes me suspicious, like the word "tolerate", I can't see how one could fail to see how the word can carry a pejorative tone either. How do we use the word "tolerate" after all? Does it have positive, connotations, can one infer warmth, support, and empathy with it, or when we think "tolerance," do others imagine, as I do, that we're talking about something negative that we need to come to terms w/and accept? Tolerance, to me, is a word halfway between enmity and empathy.
If I overhear someone telling someone else that "they should have tolerance for stephen/graywolfe," I'm not gonna be confusing that w/ someone saying that "[stephen's/graywolfe's] a great guy, you'll love him."
posted
I think I need to give up.. because I am going against something larger than me... Religion, a core believe that homosexuality = sin but people are not sins. I firmly believe that having an affair is wrong, but if someone says they slept with a married person will I say, how bad, you sinner, you ho, you... Even Jesus, confronted with a woman accused of sin chose to distract the crowd from her, to empathize with her. That is what i believe in... toss aside a rule that makes no sense to see people as PEOPLE in need of compassion The threads between people are my religion.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion, a core believe that homosexuality = sin
I assume you meant that religion has a core belief that homosexuality is a sin. Most denominations of Christianity do not believe in status sins - they believe that homosexual actions are a sin. Further, no part of sexual morality is very close to the "core" beliefs of Christianity.
quote:but people are not sins.
This belief is much closer to the core tenets of Christianity.
quote:Even Jesus, confronted with a woman accused of sin chose to distract the crowd from her, to empathize with her.
quote:But to me, telling a gay man or a woman, that physical expressions of the love they may have for another is a sin is telling them that part and parcell of who they are is "SIN". If to express a fundamental part of yourself is sinful, then how can anyone come to terms with this?
Exactly. And it isn't enough to say that "sex isn't a big issue for me" -- many things aren't an issue unless they become problematic, and there is a wide range of experiences with self-identity and sexuality. I do know that whenever I read of someone being led to shame about being a sexual creature (the self-identity, not necessarily a particular action), I am appalled.
quote:If I overhear someone telling someone else that "they should have tolerance for stephen/graywolfe," I'm not gonna be confusing that w/ someone saying that "[stephen's/graywolfe's] a great guy, you'll love him."
posted
There has been a lot said here, and a lot worth discussing, since I left yesterday.
I will try to first give the answer that I promised.
Belle asked,
quote: How does denying them a marriage license make their beliefs, their love for each other illegal?
That is quite simple. Denying legal recognition of a gay couples relationship means that such relationship has no status under the law. It is Out-Lawed or Out of the Law or Il-legal. It is completely uncovered by the law and has absolutely no value or standing in court.
That does not mean it is crimminal. It just has no standing. There are a lot of straw men I could throw up showing how dangerous such a relationship could be, and the ills such a relationship could foster. However, that won't effect anything.
In specific, what I was talking about was my religious belief, held deeply and with much spiritual conviction, that if two people love each other, they should honor that love in marriage. Such marriages are real and blessed. Your belief appears to me to say that if those couples are of the same sex, the acts they perform to consumate their marriage are specific sins that nullifies the sanctity of their love.
This is a disagreement in religious views. No argument will shake your faith. None will shake mine. However, not allowing those of the same sex to even use the term married, not to mention get married as my faith requires, is basically making my belief illegal and CRIMMINAL.
On another topic, I think I know why both sides of this debate are so adamant. They both believe they are defending the status quo.
At the moment there are few Gay Marriages, and those are of questionable legal status. Homosexual behavior was so hidden in the past, and so frowned upon, that any couple seeking to wed had to hide from public opinion. As a result, most marriage laws assume Man and Wife, but do not specifically point this fact out.
So in many cases, there is no law barring a man and another man from marrying, though there is no law allowing it either.
Both sides are strivng to stop the other side from making a change. Both sides dig into desparate defensive postures. Each side believes that the status quo is in their favor. The Anti-Gay marriage side points to thousands of years of tradition. The Pro-Gay Marriage side points to thousands of years of progress leading to this point.
Finally, I would like to point out to Synth and many others that this well written letter represents one person of faiths point of view. It does not represent all people of faiths point of view, or even all Christians points of view.
There has been a strong attempt by people I call Wovles in Shepherds Clothing (sham religious leaders who dine off thier flock) and thier friends, Romans in Temple Garb (politicians who dress up as religious leaders but have no faith themselves), to turn this issue into a Christian VS Heathen fight. If you listen to them talk, they don't say a word about the gay couples as people. They just continue to label enemys, the five A's of the apocalypse--Agnostics, Aethiests, Apostates, Activists and Abortionists.
They are trying to convince the world that not only are gay marriages an attack on families, but they are an attack on Christianity. They hope that the faithful will flock to their side, close ranks, and support them in their Holy Crusade to quite literally defend Mom, Jesus Christ, and America.
I am proud that there are so many Christians who see how disallowing gay marriages hurts people and refuse to play along with them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Denying legal recognition of a gay couples relationship means that such relationship has no status under the law. It is Out-Lawed or Out of the Law or Il-legal.
So we have a disagreement about the meaning of the word.
I defined illegal in my statement to mean "against the law, an arrestable offense.[/quote] By my definition, a relationship is not illegal.
Again, we are back to the same argument that will never be solved, it doesn't look like. I don't think marriage is a right, therefore homosexuals aren't being denied anything and no law is being broken by saying that "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman only" Since I don't think that's wrong, and you do, we'll never agree.
Incidentally, what about the states rights issues? Alabama's legislature is working on an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it's passed the State House. If it is passed and becomes a part of our constitution in this state, should that be respected? Should Alabama be forced to recognize marriages that don't fit its definition of marriage?
I know we've covered those before, but I was hoping we could move this debate forward onto something else, since we've pretty much hit the point of "agree to disagree"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think it is neccasaryilly so, but I can hope.
At one point it was illegal in a couple southern states for people to marry across racial lines. Were mixed race marriages done in other states recognized in those states? I do not know.
(I don't want to debate the vast differnces between racial intermarriage and gay marriages. Its just the closest precedent I could find)
Perhaps the divorce laws would be a better analogy. In the 1950's the state of Nevada had very liberal divorce laws. People flocked to that state to get "quickie Divorces" that were recognized in every other state of the union as valid, even if those other states did not believe it morally wise to have such quick divorces easily available.
Then again, those other states did not put up as big a fight as those who believe Gay marriages are wrong.
There would be several problems with not recognizing all marriages performed in other states. I'll give you one example--Divorce.
What if I said that we do not recognize any marriages in the state of Raven. Anyone who shows up there is no longer legally wed.
Now suppose Ms. X's husband wants a divorce, but doesn't want to pay alimony or loose part of his property.
He'd run to Raven and automatically be free. Similarly, if several states don't recognize gay marriages, then they would not recognize gay divorces, or decreys for alimony or community property either.
There are also a lot of legal papers that become questionably legal if marriages are not allowed. Insurance that covers you spouce suddenly is questionable.
I do believe that this will require a federal decision. Mainly I think this because if it up to just one state to allow gay marriages, then the most liberal state in the union would be setting our policy, while if you could not take your marriage from one state to another, that would weaken the whole marriage idea down to being nearly worthless, so the most conservative state in the union would be deciding this.
Either way, we both would agree that extremes do not offer solutions.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
