posted
Instead of charging homosexual rights advocacy groups with threatening the sacred institution of marriage, conservative scholars are considering a more pronounced look at US society as a whole:
posted
I don't know. It seems to me like the people opposed to marriage as it is now are afraid of the fact that it's changing. Granted, I don't think that the high rate of divorce and marriage being something it's easy to throw away is GOOD, but before divorce was "OK" there were likely at least as many people who were in unhealthy relationships and couldn't get out.
It's hard to make a value judgement on cultural change. It takes a lot to get something like that back to the way it used to be.. That's why I doubt that abortion will ever be completely outlawed. People just won't stand up when you give them a choice and then take it away, regardless of how harmful some think that choice is.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't anything new here. Gay marriage is a sidetrack. The next step is going to questioning the appropriateness of young marriages, and hopefully, in a few decades when we figure this out, everyone is going to realize that marriage is about fidelity, uncovering a trust between people that makes us noble.
The high divorce was necessary as people were getting married for the wrong reasons. I think it's going to fade out, then there are going to be fewer marriages, and then there will be more marriages, except they will be better.
posted
Honestly, if someone is in an abusive marriage, that's a perfect reason to divorce. But disagreements or the idea that, "I just don't love you anymore" are things that can be avoided or fixed if people actually work at it. I'm for anything that tries to make marriage more important in our society...Unfortunately, I don't think there is much that can really be done about it, now that the damage is done, without a complete change in the way people think in this country.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."
I wonder what he means by addressing cohabitation and "deliberate childlessness".
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he means that cohabitation and deliberate childlessness are both bad things for the institution of traditional marriage, which I guess is supposed to result in a nuclear family (and the LORD said unto them: "Go forth and produce ten jillion children, but not before you are married" ).
posted
Well, it's obvious that conservative Christians have problems with cohabitation. However, in my church, at least, they held the belief that we were called to have children, thus choosing not to have children was a sin. Unsurprisingly, fully half of our congregation was under the age of 12.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think he means that cohabitation and deliberate childlessness are both bad things for the institution of traditional marriage
That's what I think he means, too. I was wondering how they'll go about "addressing" the issue. A constitutional amendment against cohabitation? A law saying that every married couple must reproduce?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On November 13, Mark Shields had some interesting comments related to this topic on "The Capital Gang." Some states have a much higher divorce rate than others - and being in the bible belt isn't much of a predictor in terms of the divorce rate:
quote:(MARK)SHIELDS: Al, aside from my time in college, in my college years, and my time in the Marine Corps, I have lived my entire life in the blue states of this country. The blue states, of course, as we know, vote Democratic and are out of touch with American faith, morality and values.
Wait. Thanks to "The New York Times" Pam Bellchek (ph), we learn that there are a lot more divorces in the red states of America, the church-going states, than in blue America. Red states with the highest divorce rates include Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas. And what American state has the lowest divorce rate? That's right, Massachusetts, which sanctioned gay marriage.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, your apologies will be accepted.
Much to my surprise, Pam Belluck's article is still available online, even though I had to dig a little to find it:
quote:To Avoid Divorce, Move to Massachusetts By PAM BELLUCK
BOSTON — If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals.
As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.
Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.
The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
"Some people are saying, 'The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,' " said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. "And there's a lot of worry in the red states about the high rate of divorce."
The Barna Group, a California organization that studies evangelical Christian trends, has produced two studies about divorce that found that born-again Christians were just as likely to divorce as those who are not born-again Christians.
One of the reports, a survey of 7,043 people in 2001, said that: "Residents of the Northeast and West are commonly noted for their more liberal leanings in politics and lifestyle. However, the region of the nation in which divorce was least likely was the Northeast."
The other study, published two months ago, said that even though the Northeast probably had a higher rate of couples living together rather than marrying, the divorce rate would be essentially similar even if the cohabiting couples got hitched. And it said that "relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior."
posted
I'm still confused as heck on how, HOW, do some of these scholars think that gay folk getting married would cause the collapse of straight marriage.
Just baffles me.
I agree with the idea of bolstering marriage in general...very good idea...but the idea that you need to ban gay marriage in order to save straight marriage and all civilization really comes down to culture shock and prejudice from religious dogma. imho.
People grow up knowing a world that functions the same way all the time...families are set up the same way everywhere. And then eventually new ways of having a family are seen...they are different and alien. And thus must be "evil". To admit that those ways of living are ok would mean to question everything else you believe in...and most people don't have the strength to do that. Cognitive dissonance.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting article. I was surprised to learn that "no-fault" divorce means only that neither spouse is blamed for the failure of the marriage. I thought it also meant that no reason needed to be provided, but it seems that one does. Since you can't get divorced just because you woke up one morning and decided you didn't want to be married anymore, I don't see how no-fault divorce is to blame for failed marriages.
The best way to prevent divorce is to make sure that people know what they're getting into when they marry. That means pre-marital counseling of some sort--not that it should be a legal requirement, but it should be encouraged. It also means that people shouldn't rush into marriage, though again I'm not advocating waiting periods to get a license.
I think some people do get married too quickly, and I have a theory about why it's possible that religious conservatives may be prone to it. I went to a private Christian school for awhile, and I noticed an alarming number of students got married to each other as soon as they graduated. Perhaps one of the reasons why is that the school emphasized no sex before marriage. I have no problem with this teaching in itself, but I am concerned that it may lead people to marry an unsuitable partner because their sex drive needs to be sated. I don't have any hard evidence of this, and I certainly don't think it's the only cause of divorce. I also don't advocate parents and schools telling kids that they should go out and have all the sex they want. I'm just wondering if perhaps strict abstinence teaching may have unintended consequences.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who blame 'No Fault' divorces don't get it either. If two people belong together, you don't need chains to keep them together. The backlash against 'No Fault' divorces is an outgrowth of our prison culture. Finding fault in divorce won't strengthen marriage.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit torn on no-fault divorce... my Dad and Mom were married for thirty years. He cheated on her for a year and left her for a younger woman... leaving her to fend for herself with all her medical conditions and now no insurance. Thus dooming my brother and I to take care of her, with no money and when we should be busy trying to build our own lives. It should have been his job. *shrug* If Michigan wasn't a no-fault State, Mom might have gotten quite alot of money... instead she gets the house, it's morgage payment, and three years on Dad's COBRA.
[ November 21, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "No one in the alliance believes saving the legal status of marriage as between man and woman will alone be sufficient to stem the tide of family disintegration," Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status, we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
Ah ha... the truth comes out. By sacrificing gay folks status they think they can save marriage with laws.
quote: Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of a new history of marriage, said passing anti-gay amendments in hopes of returning marriage to some bygone traditional status is futile.
"Heterosexuals changed marriage, not gays and lesbians," she said. "None of these measures is going to change the fact that marriage no longer plays the same central economic and political role that it used to. … People see it as more optional."
Unfortunatly this is more likely.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm gonna rant. Adultery is such a painful thing to overcome in marriage. The hurt and betrayal. Why do so many people do it? If people would just exercise self-discipline, what effect would it have on the divorce rates? Why is it so hard to just stay faithful to one's spouse? If you have problems, both of you work on it.
I ask again WHY DO PEOPLE COMMIT ADULTERY? It is STUPID! It is KILLING YOUR MARRIAGE! Sorry for shouting. I am ticked.
If you ask me, it is the silly notions of "follow your heart" and "easy romance" and "instant gratification" that prevail in society that is causing this disease. Christians are just as susseptible to these lies as anyone, apparently. Perhaps even more so?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that instance, would the fault-finding divorce strengthen your parents' marriage? Or would it have just made the break-up more reasonable.
No... it would not have strengthened their marriage at all... only made the separation of wealth more fair. I suppose if the punishment to my Dad was strong enough it would have "strengthened" the marriage by forcing him to stay with Mom, keeping his mistress on the low forever and hating Mom all the while. Not much of a marriage.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp, California is also a no-fault-divorce state . . . AND it is a community-property state. I think it is the latter that would have helped your mom.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all of the "people don't need chains" business, this forgets that the people who suffer the most from divorce are not the estranged couple, but the children. Telporian's gives us a good example.
Kids have no control over what their parents do. It used to be that, once upon a time, divorce was such a taboo that people stayed together no matter what. I think it is good that some of the stigma has been lifted, so that people suffering abusive relationships can get themselves and their children out. But there really just isn't enough commitment.
I think people greatly overestimate how horrible it was when people had a more difficult time getting a divorce. Those small handful that we've helped by making it easier are hugely outnumbered by those people who just gave up when things got tough. And again, the ones who are stuck with the most damage are the kids.
Think this is whining about poor, cute, helpless little ones? No. It is about our future. The damage we do to our kids is damage we do to our future, like it or not.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there something corrupt about marriage when the only reason people stay in it is because they can't afford to get out?
It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't drink and drive because having a DUI on your record is a pain in the butt.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
After thinking about my rant above, I wonder to myself if adultery is any more common now than in generations past or if it is just that divorce is easier. I suppose there is no way to *really* know.
But I still think adultery is STUPID. It is tantamount to declaring a death sentance on your marriage.
posted
People need to THINK before they get married. TO make sure. They should not be casual and ignorant about marriage. They shouldn't just think it will be easy, all peaches and cherries once they walk down that Aisle. Marriage is about responsibility, about hard work. If anything effects marriage negatively it would be- Poverty. Working two jobs each that don't pay enough, hardly getting to see each other, that has a much worse impact on marriage than anything gays do. The couple just doesn't get along, doesn't have anything in common, or perhaps they are both immature. Getting married JUST to be able to have sex, for no other reason but that. And a whole host of other reasons. Furthermore, morality cannot be legislated. If people want to cohabit, not have kids or a host of other things, conservatives should just not care. Just put it out of their mind. It is not their business. They do not put in enough energy towards things like child abuse that are a real threat.
BUT, i do agree about adultery... It's just not right. People should keep their marriage vows.
posted
That's a difficult question... It could range from becoming social workers, changing laws that put children BACK into abusive homes after they have been taken out of them. Being a foster parent. There also has to be some way to set up a network to help young parents, especially those that have been abused themselves to find other ways to handle their children besides physical violence. Or, even just changing the attitudes about abuse... there just has to be SOMETHING that can be done.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you ask me, it is the silly notions of "follow your heart" and "easy romance" and "instant gratification" that prevail in society that is causing this disease. Christians are just as susseptible to these lies as anyone, apparently. Perhaps even more so?
I dunno, Bev. But there needs to be some explanations why the highest divorce rates in this country are in the states of Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas. The lowest divorce rate is in Massachussettts. (That, as Mark Shields pointed out, is where the court OK'd same-sex marriage.)
Maybe "red staters" feel the institution of marriage is threatened because it IS more threatened in THEIR states???
(sorry to shout - too lazy to use code for italics or boldface)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:After thinking about my rant above, I wonder to myself if adultery is any more common now than in generations past or if it is just that divorce is easier. I suppose there is no way to *really* know.
That's exactly right, which is why I don't buy the "decay of society" thing -- I really do think that people were always doing these awful things (adultery in particular I'm thinking of), but we're more aware of them because of mass media (including the internet).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I still think adultery is STUPID. It is tantamount to declaring a death sentance on your marriage.
Even more strongly, it shows that the people didn't understand what a marriage is to begin with. I think that too many thoughtless people get married. I think it happens at too young of an age with too little understanding, especially in the high divorce states.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that conservatives feel like the same attitudes about easy divorcing also lead to more child abuse.
Children are statistically abused more by a non-biological guardian (read step parent or live in BF) than by their parents.
Also, I would think that people who abstain from sex before marriage are more likely to not be driven by the kinds of attitudes that lead to more divorce. So I don't think that getting married 'just to have sex' is as much of a problem as you'd like to say it was. It shows someone who is more likely to be faithful to their spouse.
Parents are the foundation of the family, and in strengthening that foundation you decrease the chances of neglect and abuse of children.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But there needs to be some explanations why the highest divorce rates in this country are in the states of Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas. The lowest divorce rate is in Massachussettts. (That, as Mark Shields pointed out, is where the court OK'd same-sex marriage.)
Yes, I am curious about that too. I wonder what factor/s are involved? Some might be quick to say that religion is a factor. Though I don't understand *why* that would be.
Shigosei had an interesting thought about people getting married in order to have sex because of the efforts to remain chaste. I have heard this come up before, and I am concerned since I belong to one of many faiths that *strongly* believes in chastity outside of marriage. While I would not consider changing my mind on the importance of chastity outside of marriage, I would concern myself with helping young people avoid marriages happening for those reasons.
Edit: Amka, I think it might happen more than we are comfortable with. It might even be a factor without the people involved realizing it. But these are my own opinions on the matter.
Edit: But of course, there may be other factors. There are certainly cultural differences between these regions. What other differences might there be?
Syn, my aunt is heavily involved in volunteer work for helping children who have been abused. She kind of feels that it is her life's mission. It is a great work she is doing. Perhaps I can ask her how I can be of help.
posted
Maybe it's lower in the red states because more people up there are okay with sex outside of marriage? Sex all the time.. with anybody.. first date.. one night stand.. whatever.
Isn't it just like the sitcoms and the movies??
While the blue states get married on the first date.
But seriously... why not waiting periods to get your marriage license? It might be a good idea. Set it to something like a month, and hopefully stop those stupid weddings in vegas that last about 5 minutes.
posted
how about if they do the May Day thing and jump over a bonfire to get married for one day? But, that only counts on Beltaine and it only counts if you are a pagan.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost all of my aunts and uncles on my father's side of the family are in loveless marriages - and some downright nasty ones at that.
Most of the children my age have major issues with their parents and/or with the notion of getting married because of our experiences with our parents.
They stay in these marriages because 1) They are Catholic and divorce is a major no-no 2) At this late date, habits die hard
I don't think anything could help this state of affairs, but I also think the divorce rate was so low because women put up with a helluva lot before they were willing to embrace the stigma of a divorce which would have seriously impacted their ability to survive and/or get re-married.
As for affairs - I don't think anyone has an affair with the notion of killing their marriage.
Some people cheat because they feel like they're not getting what they need from the relationship, be that excitement, romance, sex - whatever.
Other people cheat simply because they don't take their vows seriously and are looking for gratification on the side.
quote: As for affairs - I don't think anyone has an affair with the notion of killing their marriage.
And herein lies the problem. People aren't thinking. You don't keep a marriage healthy by being passive about it. Both have to take an active roll in keeping it well.
quote: Some people cheat because they feel like they're not getting what they need from the relationship, be that excitement, romance, sex - whatever.
This is a reason to *want* to cheat. People can still choose not to.
As for Catholics not divorcing because it is against their religion, not working on their marriage is probably not "OK" with their religion either. I don't understand feeling that you are doing the right thing by just staying in the marriage. You have to actively work at it.
But it also should be an effort made by both. It is sad when one member of the marriage isn't willing to change or sacrifice for the sake of the marriage being a happy one. I really feel for those people.
posted
My dad did have an affair with the notion of killing his marriage to my mother. He wanted out and he figured that would make my mom give in to divorce. She didn't right away. She tried to get him to go to counseling with her, he wouldn't. She tried simply talking to him, he wouldn't. She tried begging him to stay for our sake, he didn't really believe his actions would harm us. He had made his mind up and there was no convincing him otherwise; he wasn't willing to put any work into it.
He denounced his Catholic upbringing around that time, as well, while my mother clung to hers.
Just my anecdotal two cents.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uleeuh, I was wondering if a person might have an affair in order to try to end their marriage. I assumed they wouldn't because then the divorce would go worse for them. I guess I was wrong. That is sad.
quote: Affairs don't just happen.
Sooo true. All of us are going to have opportunities to develop feelings for someone outside our marriage. We should take care and realize that we *can* control our emotions. Idle fantasizing can lead to disaster.
Youth isn't the problem, maturity is. They don't necessarily go hand in hand. People underestimate children too much, and our young adults are being treated too much like children, so that they can't mature.
This is a problem of both too much permissiveness and too much constriction. In too much permissiveness, the parents don't teach their kids boundaries or how to control themselves. In too much constriction, the parents don't teach their kids independance or, again, how to control themselves. In both circumstances, the results make poor spouses until they have a few years on their own to learn the lessons in the world that their parents should have taught them.
But this isn't always the case. Many people are more ready to get married at 18 than some are at 30. There are many advantages to 'early' marriage and early child rearing.
*The later youth of the two spouses is spent together. This helps bonding. *Easier conception *Easier pregnancies *More energy to raise children. *More flexibility is accomodating the children. This is true of the spouse as well. It is much easier to mesh lifestyles together when one isn't set in their ways. *Child rearing is also finished when young. I will be done when many are still in the early stages of parenthood.
There are many things that years spent on a career and 'enjoying my youth' could never have taught me about being married or having children. These are things you just can't learn until you are in the situation.
Just because you, yourself, don't feel like you are ready to be married (very valid for many people) doesn't mean that everyone your age isn't ready to be married.
Of course, there are many people that are getting married that shouldn't be. But again, this is no so much a matter of their age so as their maturity.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'd just like to add an anecdote of my own. My aunt had been having trouble with her husband for a long time. Recently they got divorced and he had his lawyer write up the papers. My mother urged her to get a lawyer to look at them, but she didn't believe he would do anything to hurt her like that. She signed and lost a lot... House, car... (sigh) They're right. This sucks. But that's no way to try to fix it.
quote: I ask again WHY DO PEOPLE COMMIT ADULTERY? It is STUPID! It is KILLING YOUR MARRIAGE! Sorry for shouting. I am ticked.
I was going to make some crack about how this person seems a little sensitive about this subject, but then I noticed that it was my wife who posted that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In too much permissiveness, the parents don't teach their kids boundaries or how to control themselves. In too much constriction, the parents don't teach their kids independance or, again, how to control themselves.
The worst is when it's too much of both permissiveness and constriction. The parents let the kids get away with too much in some arenas (partying, consumerism, not doing work, etc.) and also set their lives up for them in other areas (go to school A, B, or C; major in D; take job E).
You get kids who can't handle the slightest inconvenience or delayed gratification, yet can't order their life. They can't set goals, they can't work to meet the goals they adopt as the course of least resistance.
posted
thi is why I was so upset about the Gay Marriage arguments.
Its not because I am Gay. I'm not.
Its because the arguments most often repeated were ones targeting Gay Marriages as Childless unions.
My wife and I can not have children, not without risking her life.
So by this religious argument, the value of my wife is determined by her womb, and the least sinful thing I can do is divorce her for barrenness, and marry some other more fertile woman.
There are two ideas about marriage in this world. One is that a husband and wife are a couple working together to better their own lives, caring and taking care of each other. The second view is that a husband and wife are part of a production system to create children, preferably healthy and Christian.
Those who believe in the first definition are more likely to believe in love conquering all.
Unfortunately, love doesn't conquer all. If you think about your experiences and the stories youve seen, read, or listened too, love can conquer death, and time, and war, and race, and politics. However, love is always defeated by human stupidity.
That--human stupidity--is the closest thing to omnipotent power we can see short of heaven.
Those who believe in the second defintion are more likely to be worried that White Protestants are becoming more of a minority in the world, and soon to be one in this country, because they do not produce enough offspring.
They seem to want to value women by the power of the womb. Forget all the progress in equal rights made in the past 100 years. A womans place is pregnant and chasing the children.
In other words, I smell the stench of sexism and racism in some of their arguments.
ps. Now that's a rant.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who believe in the second defintion are more likely to be worried that White Protestants are becoming more of a minority in the world, and soon to be one in this country, because they do not produce enough offspring.
That's a very narrow view of the situation. First, the religions with the biggest "cultural" push for large families seem to be outside the "Protestant" establishment: Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons leap readily to mind. The evangelical movement is also very much outside the W.A.S.P. establishment you hinted at.
I understand what you're getting at, but I think you overreached.
quote: Those who believe in the second defintion are more likely to be worried that White Protestants are becoming more of a minority in the world, and soon to be one in this country, because they do not produce enough offspring.
Us Mormons wouldn't be nearly as worried about that. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, it isn't so much that a married couple must have children in order to validate their marriage.
It is that marriage should be the first step in having children. If no other steps happen after that, then so be it.
But because it is that first step, it needs to be protected as the foundation for raising good children. It makes no difference to me if the children raised as a result of that marriage come from the womb of the wife, or are adopted.
As a society, the safe and competent raising of our children is the most important thing to ensure a strong society in the future.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hoped my qualifer, "more likely" would cover explain that I do not mean all, most, or many of those 2nd definition believers came by their beliefs through sexist or racist avenues. Just that there are more of them who do than those who go by the first defintition.
One side note to consider. One of the churches in this country on the fastest rate of decline is the Catholic Church, which has strict rules on marriage, reproduction, and basically--increasing the children raised in Catholic homes.
They do this by telling thier followers what the CAN NOT do.
The Mormon church, on the other hand, is growing. They also have strict rules on family, marriage, and reproduction.
Do they have a different marketing approach? Do they emphasis more what one SHOULD DO, not CAN NOT DO. (the Can Not drives more people away from the church.)
Another option is that one is right and the other is wrong, and that's the price for heresy. Though I won't say which is the heresy.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
