posted
I, too, wonder how such a *ahem* stiff proponent of homosexual marriage can balk, even slightly, at the mention of giving polygamists equal rights.
True, there is potential for abuse. But those are minor details.
I think we have as much right to tell someone to be happy with one spouse as we do to tell someone to be happy with a spouse of the opposite sex.
Plus, I'm tired of beating the women off with sticks. I mean, come on! There's plenty of Frisco for everyone!
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the true test of your open-mindedness, Frisco, will be if you take me to be your lawfully wedded husband.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing about the "all or none" that you espouse, Doug, is that you yourself prefer to have two tiers of people where the right to get married is concerned. The heterosexuals like yourself that have that right and the homosexuals like me that don't. So I'll agree with Karl's response to your post, but I'm adding this because I feel your position is untenable AND a tad dishonest.
And I really do wish you would answer my question, but I'm not going to quote it again because I don't want you to feel that I'm badgering you.
For you guys trying to trap us into a polygamous slippery slope, the game is up. I agree that they should have the right to join themselves if they wish (look above to see my lack of understanding/lack of judgment towards polygamists) but in a discussion about whether or not we should recognize same-sex MONOGAMOUS relationships, as Lalo pointed out, polygamy's acceptability to society--or the lack thereof--does not enter into the equation.
Next you could say "what if I want to marry my dog?" or "what if I want to marry this litter of kittens?", or "what if I want to marry my baby sister?". All of these fall into the same category as polygamy, and they are all equally worthless to a discussion about the civil rights of homosexual people who, like their heterosexual counterparts (no pun[s] intended), primarily desire monogamous relationships and a community that fosters them.
posted
I don't think those of us bringing polygamy into it are trying to trap you in a slippery slope argument.
On the contrary, all of us I've seen so far are arguing on your side.
I don't think there's all that much difference in monogamy and polygamy, no matter how many sexes are involved. I know I love more than one person. I can think of a few women I'd be happy to marry. And though I'm not interested in them sexually, I have a few good male friends with whom I'd have no qualms entering into a group marriage.
If it becomes a question of rights rather than morals, as I think it should, those interested or engaged in polygamy should receive them, too.
It only seems like a slippery slope when a moral argument seeps back into the fold.
posted
Sexual relationships with animals is cruelty, to say the least. And probably rape.
Marrying a sister is incest, a taboo much more severe, in terms of genetics, than polygamy.
I'm actually a bit appalled that you'd liken those both to polygamy, even remotely.
Edit:
I think if you replaced this sentence:
quote: All of these fall into the same category as polygamy, and they are all equally worthless to a discussion about the civil rights of homosexual people
with this one:
quote: All of these fall into the same category as polygamy in that they are all equally worthless to a discussion about the civil rights of homosexual people
Then it becomes less offensive. But I still disagree. I think the big issue is who has the right to tell us who we can love and whether or not they can limit the sex or number.
posted
I'll state for the record that I don't have any problem with polygamous or polyandrous relationships between consenting adults or even the legalization of such relationships. My point is that, as Caleb stated, there is no reason they need to be debated together nor does the merit of the arguements for one have anything to do with the merits of the arguements for the other.
OH, and Frisco, if you're switching teams I'll send you my number . I've seen your photos and you're a hottie! Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:heterosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the opposite sex
homosexual monogamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between 2 members of the same sex
polygamy - an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship between more than 2 members of either sex
They still seem fairly comparable to me.
How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But homosexual monogamy -- pay careful attention to the subtle differences between the terms "polygamy" and "monogamy" -- has nothing to do with polygamy, no more than heterosexual monogamy has to do with polygamy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that homosexual monogamy did have anything to do with polygamy. Maybe you're the one who needs to pay better attention.
And I never said you did. Had you paid closer attention, you may have seen the post was addressed to Katharina.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The merits of polygamy, while arguable, still aren't at all comparable to homosexual monogamy. Sure, you can be in favor of both -- but that doesn't make the two equal. Not morally, not legally, not even mathematically. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you missed it, but many people don't find homosexual relationships to be morally equal with heterosexual relationships any more than polygamy is. You're still avoiding the question instead responding with backhanded insults. If society should allow homosexual marriages, why shouldn't it allow poygamous marriages as well? As Caleb pointed out, there certainly would be more legal issues to deal with in legalizing polygamy, but if it's the right thing to do, that shouldn't stand in the way.
I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not introduce pedophila while we're trying to make intellectually false comparisons to homosexual monogamy? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we all realize that pedophilia has a definite victim. One of your chief arguments has always been that there is no victim in homosexuality. Who is the victim in polygamy if all parties are in agreement?
Am I the only one reading my posts?
ZGator, I've repeatedly testified that I don't have any committed problems with polygamy. While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either. Polygamy, as I'm saying again for the third time, has its arguable merits. That doesn't mean polygamy is monogamy, no matter how you try to judge both based off their popular stigma.
quote:I, too, wonder how such a *ahem* stiff proponent of homosexual marriage can balk, even slightly, at the mention of giving polygamists equal rights.
Oy. C'mon, Eddie, read the posts. I'm not necessarily condemning polygamy. But polygamy, as I've said over and over again, isn't monogamy. I expect better from you than to misconstrue my posts.
Or do I?
And if I ever should oppose polygamy, it would be to keep you all to myself. Mmm. White meat between two white buns, it's like a white-meat hamburger.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have always had a strange affinity for men who look like Doug McKenzie.
And I agree that there are specific differences in homosexual monogamy and general polygamy. I just find a bigger issue in whether or not the government can regulate my love life.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I only mentioned them in context of the over-arching moral superiority that their argument implies. I agree with you insofar as I would not use those comparisons as an argument against polygamy--I would probably not argue against it at all; again, see above.
Those who are treating polygamy and homosexuality the same have let the "moral argument seep back into the fold", which is what I was arguing against. Like I said above, I think polygamists (sp?) ought to be able to make whatever choices they wish, even if I don't understand them. Perhaps especially because I don't understand them.
But when someone argues against homosexual marriage--ie, Doug not Frisco--by saying that we should allow polygamy if we allow gay marriage, their real argument is that if we considered marriage to be a right we'd have to let everyone do whatever they wanted with it and eventually it would become so perverted as to have no meaning in the public domain. That's why they use polygamy in their comparison: because to them it is a perversion. And that is the context in which I put those categories together.
As far as I can tell, Frisco, you and I couldn't agree more. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just love how all of us pro-homosexual marriage folk have now divided and are arguing over polygamy.
Eddie, I'm not misconstruing your posts. Nobody is saying that monogamy and polygamy are exactly the same. I'm just saying that they're same in the respect that both are situations which, by right, should be legal, but because of a moral majority are not.
Since this thread has already morphed, I would like to hear opinions on why polygamy is less acceptable than homosexual monogamy.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is Caleb, if a community does not want a particular aspect of society. Whether that is drinking, excessively loud music, or homosexual marriage, a community/state/country has the right to provide or deny it according to the wishes of the majority. It is not persecution to not allow a gay couple to get married in North Carolina, when they can be married in Vermont.
You are mistaken. The USA is a republic. We are not governed by direct democracy. Communities do not have the legal authority to deny basic human rights if they don't like the right being exercised. Remember the Constitution? Bill of Rights? No, those documents do not say anything about homosexual civil unions, but they do say a great deal about things like if it's not specifically restricted here, it's a right, either of the states or of the individual. When a state passes a law, it doesn't mean the state had the legal authority to do so in the first place. At best it means no one is willing to challenge that law.
We've had lots of unconstitutional laws in America, and there's not a state in the Union that doesn't have many of them on their books right now. That doesn't mean they're right to have those laws, or that they have the legal authority to pass them. ---- Ed, why don't you try not to be so caustic and insulting for a change? You keep setting yourself up as the righteous, right-thinking individual telling the bigots just exactly how stupid they are. In case you haven't noticed, this is not the best way to change these "bigots'" minds.
Unless you simply prefer to hear yourself sound so socially concious and self-righteous to a real discussion, that is.
If homosexual civil unions should be legal-and they should-then so too should polygamous civil unions. If it's not expressly stated in the US Constitution that one group of people are somehow less merited to pursue their own happiness, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, then it should be legal. In fact it is legal, illegal state laws notwithstanding.
That said, on a personal moral level I have a serious problem with a polgymist in this day and age. I cannot think of a single culture throughout history where one form of polygamy was legal, and women were not denied basic human rights that we take for granted. -----
quote:How? Monogamy is monogamy is monogamy. But monogamy is monogamy is polygamy?
Because they all involve an affirmation of a loving, committed relationship. Committed relationship is committed relationship is committed relationship.
quote:And I never said you did. Had you paid closer attention, you may have seen the post was addressed to Katharina.
And if you had paid attention, you would realize that your statement immediately followed a quote from me. How is it that you were addressing kat when you had just quoted me?
quote:I'm sure many people don't find heterosexual and homosexual marriage to be equal -- however, that doesn't mean that homosexual monogamy and hetero/homo polygamy are anywhere near the same. While a Chevy pickup isn't a Ford pickup, neither are a bulldozer. They simply aren't the same institution, and trying to portray them as such is intellectually dishonest.
They're not the same, but they're certainly comparable. They're all vehicles, they all run on an internal combustion engine. They're much more alike than when they are compared to a building or a river. Nobody is saying they're the same, just comparable.
I'm not advocating polygamy, not by a long shot. And I've already stated that I'm OK with legalizing homosexual marriage. But thus far, all the arguments I've seen for homosexual marriages could be used for polygamous marriages as well. Like Frisco, I'm looking at this more as an intellectual exercise.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, now...don't mix up cause and effect. These women probably didn't have decent rights before the polygamous relationship.
Not that the stereotypes are all false, I just don't think there's enough evidence that shows that women (or men, for that matter. I know some women capable of pulling off polygyny ) in this day and age would be mistreated for me to approve of punishing individuals before they've actually committed a crime.
Lalo, it isn't that you are open-minded. It isn't that you have a great understanding of what's going on.
What on earth is your opposition to polygamy? If everyone is an adult, who's the victim? Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
Of course I don't believe any of that. However, you have produced less reason for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality. One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing. Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
-----------
This has to be why this is the fiftieth thread in a month on this topic - because new aspects and angles keep appearing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
You're right, of course. I should've expressed myself more clearly. I'll give it another shot.
Misogynistic societies are more likely to permit some form of polygamy because, let's face it, it's a system designed to keep the male in control. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a culture throughout history that has permitted polygamy where a woman can have multiple husbands. But I could rattle off without thinking at least a half-dozen that permit the other sort of polygamy, the paternalistic type.
This is what I meant when I said I was suspicious of men who want to have multiple wives. I do not really have enough faith in human nature to overlook the roles this forces on men and women. Man=boss. Woman=one of numerous wives. I suppose, somewhere, there has been a polygamist marriage with one many and numerous wives that wasn't based on ideas such as, "A woman's place is in the home," etc., but I cannot think of a specific example. Can anyone?
It's like parking your Ferrari on the curb, opening the door and leaving the keys in the ignition, and leaving the title in there as well. Too ripe for abuse for me to have much faith at all that it's not essentially a misogynistic environment.
Edit: Bear in mind, Eddie, that I believe polygamous civil unions of both types should be legal. I just have an instinct to mistrust the situation, that's all.
posted
You're right, too. I don't like that scenario any more than you do.
I think polygamy, like most things, gets its bad stereotypes from the worst 5% of their population. I don't think most women in these relationships are forced to be in them...but the ones we see crying on TV sure were.
Legalizing polygamy wouldn't spawn as many of these situations, I hope, as much as it would the "group marriage" concept.
If I sound a little crazy, it's probably a combination of the facts that I read too much Heinlein and it's 9am and I'm still awake. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I hate it when you graph bad motives onto someone else's perspectives to make someone look bad and then turn around and say "of course I don't believe any of that". What's the point? You did the same thing to me when trying to make the case that my views on homosexual equality were merely a mask for my true agenda of taking out the Church.
Then you said something like "I don't believe that, but the case could be made."
You actively slander other people and then sheepishly back off your rhetoric because you don't want people to think of you as being mean. It's babyish.
You'll say you are *amused* or *warming up* and generally just pile on the condescension and at the last moment you'll throw in a qualifier to get yourself out of trouble.
If you were really interested in reasonable discussion you would note that Lalo is not against polygamy:
quote:While I'm no firm supporter of it, I'm not necessarily a critic of it, either.
And he has said as much several times.
Yet you still accuse him of producing fewer reasons for opposing polygamy than anyone has for opposing homosexuality, as if he was trying to oppose it in the first place. That you ignored the fifteen previous posts discussing the reasons why the legalization of polygamic marriage has no merit whatsoever in a discussion about purely monogamous homosexual marriages is additionally telling--that or you simply have no decent response and wish to continue trying to trap homosexual equality in a slippery slope of what you consider immorality anyway.
More examples of Kat purposely misconstruing another person's perspective for the purpose of making them look bad:
quote:Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
quote:Your argument seems to consist of "Ew. Gross. That's just not right."
Please, when you are trying to pick somebody apart could you quote them directly and respond with fair summations of their views, rather than inserting a compeletly false version of it? Oh wait, you CAN'T quote anything of Lalo's that sounded like that because he didn't say anything that sounded like that.
quote:Every justification used to defend gay marriage can be used to defend polygamy.
Except that no one here thinks that homosexuality needs to be "justified". You're missing the whole point, as usual. But that's something I kindof expect from you; it's the intellectual dishonesty I'm asking you to stop.
quote:One side can point to thousands of year old scripture and tradition and the commandment of God thing.
Of course, it should be reiterated that millions of years of tradition and scripture, if they existed, would still not be a single gram of support to the idea that our nation should keep homosexual marriages prohibited.
Concerning AIM: Damn! Is Parachat a possiblity for you? I miss gabbing. ---- Frisco,
Actually I believe the opposite. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the majority of polygamous marriages have things like kidnapped young women, marriages between close family members without the woman's consent, etc. I don't think that because I have no data on the subject. But I think oppression and dehumanizing women is much more likely to happen in a polygamous relationship with one husband, many wives, than in either a monogamous homosexual or heterosexual union. --- Homosexuality does not need to be justified to anyone to make homosexual marriage legal. That's not how it works. The opposition has to prove that something is harmful and detrimental to society before they can legitimately say it should be illegal.
Just like innocent until proven guilty, we put the onus of agitating to keep something not specifically denied in the Constitution on the one doing the agitating. It's just that most people decide, "I disagree with it, so I'll support criminalizing it."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
posted
I'm with Frisco. I don't agree with those saying that a discussion of the merits of polygamous marriage doesn't have any merits or bearing on a discussion of homosexual marriage. The justifications are the same. And I don't see it as an instance of the slippery-slope fallacy, because the line that existed before still exists: no victimization. So the progression homosexual marriage → polygamy → pedophilic/incestuous marriages → marriages to animals is a false one.
I don't think you can say that homosexual marriage is OK and polygamy is not. Everybody has backed off of that view now, but people were headed that way a page or so ago.
I don't think that polygamy should be illegal, and I do think this is an interesting and worthwhile angle on a tired old debate.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Parachat is hard for me when I'm working on other things, because I can't keep up with the conversation. Monday sounds good, though - see you then!
*plays small violin for lost AIM*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Misogynistic societies are more likely to permit some form of polygamy because, let's face it, it's a system designed to keep the male in control. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a culture throughout history that has permitted polygamy where a woman can have multiple husbands. But I could rattle off without thinking at least a half-dozen that permit the other sort of polygamy, the paternalistic type.
FYI I'm pretty sure that polygyny (if that is the matriachy side of it) occured quite frequently among the Pacific Island cultures. I read a book on people of the Pacific Islands a while back, but I don't remember the name or author. Google it if you wish.
quote:But I think oppression and dehumanizing women is much more likely to happen in a polygamous relationship with one husband, many wives, than in either a monogamous homosexual or heterosexual union.
I agree and disagree.I think it's much more likely to be present in a polygamous relationship, but I'd argue that the situation existed before the marriage. I can't picture many headstrong and independent women getting into these relationships and finding themselves oppressed at a later date. Unfortunately, I think women who tolerate chauvinistic (I don't want to call being a housewife dehumanizing) behaviors are going to do so whether the relationship is monogamous or polygamous.
And, hey...at least with two or three other women on your side, you can revolt. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I used the wrong word earlier. Polyandry is the term for a relationship consisting of a woman with multiple husbands. Polygyny is the more prevalent form, a man with numerous wives.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everybody has backed off of that view now, but people were headed that way a page or so ago.
I don't see that that is true. I've only seen a reluctance to throw it in because the ramifications of legalizing it are entirely different, including Rakeesh's concerns about the potential for abuse and the logistical concerns about how such marriages would be recognized when it comes to the standard monogamous couple benefits.
The issues are SIMILAR, in that the primary objection to keeping polygamy illegal is that it's an infringement upon human rights, but that is where the similarity ends.
In an argument that monogamous homosexual relationships should have equal rights to monogamous heterosexual relationships, we are fighting because no one else's concept of gender roles should be allowed to make those choices for us. With polygamy we are not discussing gender-marriage freedom as much as we are discussing many-party marriage freedom, and those are two entirely separate issues. Yes, they are similar in their "justifications", but that doesn't matter because it's an entirely different set of rights that no one here was trying to argue, for or against.
Furthermore, I don't see any reason for those of us who are on the Right to bring up the polygamy objection outside of the immorality-slippery-slope. They're saying "but then you have to allow polygamy too, and how can you justify that?"
They're using the fact that it would be very difficult to change marriage so as to accomodate many-partner unions as a justification for THEIR view that marriage should not be changed at all. Else why the objection? <---genuine question, in case I somehow misunderstood where all this polygamy talk came from in the first place.
quote:Caleb, it's abundantly clear that we argue about this. It's getting better, but I just don't feel like engaging that particular fray today. Lalo can take care of himself, I think. I want to see what he says. It'll be okay.
You don't want to engage in that particular fray?
Hm.
Acutally, I wasn't even arguing about "this" in my post. My purpose in that post was to call you on the way you try to "argue". Sure, Lalo can take care of himself, but I see no reason why I can't point out when you are using lies to forward your perspective. It HAS been better lately because you haven't been doing this as often.
And I'm sure you'll be offended that I'm implying that you're a liar. But surely you don't expect to get away with it when you put inconsistent words in other people's mouths just so you can appear to have footing in an argument where you have been shown to have none.
But then we already know that you don't respond to specific questions and you rarely--if ever--treat opposing viewpoints with respect, logic, or truth. I just keep pointing it out in the hopes that you might one day treat others the way you would like to be treated.
And that has many meanings in the context of this conversation, wouldn't you say?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're using the fact that it would be very difficult to change marriage so as to accomodate many-partner unions as a justification for THEIR view that marriage should not be changed at all. Else why the objection?
I'm intrigued by the polygamy question because I see one aspect of marriage (male/female) as being demonized as narrow and quite rightfully changed, and another aspect (two people) as being characterized as essential and inherent in the definition and therefor not subject to change, despite the wishes of some people.
Why is one characteristic supposed to be fluid and the other unassailable?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you care to provide an example of someone arguing that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because as has been repeated more times than I care to count, no one is arguing this at all.
In any case, the reason you bring it up is the same. You say you are intrigued but you are trying to paint us as hypocrites (see your post to Lalo, above).
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, I don't see any reason for those of us who are on the Right to bring up the polygamy objection outside of the immorality-slippery-slope. They're saying "but then you have to allow polygamy too, and how can you justify that?"
I agree that they are doing this. My personal answer, though, would be, "You are absolutely right. I think we should allow polygamy too."
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that they are doing this. My personal answer, though, would be, "You are absolutely right. I think we should allow polygamy too."
Which is more or less what I said:
quote:I agree that they should have the right to join themselves if they wish.
quote:Like I said above, I think polygamists (sp?) ought to be able to make whatever choices they wish, even if I don't understand them. Perhaps especially because I don't understand them.
Kat -
quote:Can I be intrigued by seeming hypocrisy? I think Lalo is a man of principle - maybe he can explain, maybe he's never thought of it in that way, maybe there's an acceptable case for treating the characteristics differently.
Yeah, you can be intrigued by a seeming hypocrisy. What you can't do without losing credibility is put that hypocrisy in someone else's mouth and then call on them to justify it. Again, I ask, can you provide a single quote from this entire thread that would indicate where someone felt--it would be great if it was Lalo, since you got so much glee out of bashing him with your post--that the "[two person] aspect [is] essential and inherent in the definition [of marriage] and therefore not subject to change"?
Because I think you'll find that that is a view held by YOUR side of the debate, not ours, and I think it perfectly--and redundantly--clear from our posts that this view is not our hypocrisy to explain.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only possible response to that post is that I think Lalo has the right to play whenever he wants to and with whomever he wants to, just like you and I. God bless America.
Also I must turn down your Klondike bar, because I have a toothache. I do appreciate the offer, however.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And like I said, feel free to hang me for a heretic, but questioning blanket statements that are made is not an attack on anyone. So - get over it! "
of course, you responded to her blanket statement with the blanket statement that not one of the 613 commandments is valid today.
To a Jew, where there is nothing of the christian notion of the laws of moses no longer being necessary, many of the commandments have meaning that you won't recognize, because they are applicable to religion, but that doesn't make them invalid.
However, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of commandments that make sense in the modern context, even if we remove the concept of religion entirely.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Lalo, would like to marry me-- and Ron? He's really hot.
I'm sorry about that. I just couldn't resist. I've been fighting it for a whole day now, and it just had to come out. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey! Let's all have a giant Hatrack marriage. I bet if we pooled our resources we could form a quite formidable dynasty. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. I've seen your photos and you're a hottie! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
