the conservative case for same sex marriage - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-12-2010, 02:46 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
As long as we are going to have religion, we are going to have 'guilt free' discrimination.
Bears repeating.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 02:48 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,153
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
As long as we are going to have religion tradition families ideology, we are going to have 'guilt free' discrimination.
fixed
__________________

Dalton is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:04 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:10 AM
the second INDY wants to offer up an argument that's more than "because i said so," i'll be willing to rescind my conviction that opposition to SSM is rooted in something more than basic bigotry.

also, would modern day white supremacists advocating for, say, a return to racially segregated schools be accorded the same amount of legitimacy and respect that we give to people who are against marriage equality?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 07:09 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I made a well thought out response to some of Nathan's posts regarding this topic in the previous thread, that held some undeniable truths in it, and was genuinely curious as to how Nathan would respond. Alas, there was no response.

Nathan, if you see this, not a slam on you at all. Maybe you were busy and didn't have time to respond. I was just curious as to your reaction to my points, but you sort of dropped out of the conversation after that. I was a little disappointed by that.
Sorry I disappointed you, VP. My posts tend to come with alarming irregularity in FYM. I don't recall if I read your last posts, so don't take it as a slight for me not responding. With the new year, a whole pile of new projects have landed on my plate, and FYM is the first thing to go.

I also think that we're just going to wind up talking past each other, so after a while it feels like an exercise in futility. I'm happy to posts when I can, but it's not as often as I'd like. Still, I appreciate your graciousness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
and let's just be honest, Nathan: your positions are anti-family and anti-child. you are presenting, as ever, a fundamentally bigoted argument that harms the fabric of society by imagining a perceived threat presented by some minority group, and then you're arguing that this menace needs to be sanctioned.
I don't remember presenting a bigoted argument, Irvine. I remember you saying, after posting a piece by a conservative, "that settles THAT." So I merely posted, in response, a commentary by a self-avowed liberal Democrat, simply to show that that does not, in fact, settle that. His views aren't necessarily mine -- in fact, I've previously espoused a solution along the lines of what he and Rauch propose. But I thought it was still germaine to the "even conservatives support gay marriage" train of thought.

And you'd probably be surprised to know that my positions are more nuanced than you think. I'm not a fan of radicalism in any form, and the often-posted attitudes in FYM -- "gender doesn't matter! why do we have to think of the children? biology isn't important! kids don't need fathers!" -- often require a dissenting voice, if only to keep the conversation interesting.

The posted article ends with a statement that nicely sums up my perspective, I feel:

"In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief.

"But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it."
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 07:20 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
This issue illustrates two things:

Religious discrimination is a two day street.

Pious dogma isn't confined to religion.
Actually, this issue does demonstrate one thing:

The best the Right can do with this issue is resort to cutesy one-liners and unsubstantiated self-victimization. Tolerance of intolerance goes very much against the classical liberal/modern conservative tradition, so I have little sympathy for bullies who wish to blame their targets for standing up for themselves!
melon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 07:30 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Your shtick is the Progressive shtick.

There is no intellectual argument to be made against same-sex marriage, or any other part of the Progressive or liberal agenda, because none exists. That's the whole condescending premise of the book 'What's The Matter With Kansas.' There is Progressive Thought and than there are the Red State rubes who can't be trusted to act or make decisions in their own best interest. In summary, dissent from Progressive Thought can only be based on fear or ignorance and democratic self-determination and traditions must be in harmony with the Progressive Worldview to be legitimate.
This is a strawman non-argument.

What you've effectively been advocating by your lack of argument is that the Left abandon centuries of established logic and reason necessary to formulate coherent debate, and to just let the Right make up whatever they want along the way that we must respect by some kind of ideological entitlement. That is, while the Left must produce objective data to back up their arguments, all the Right has to do is say anything at all and demand that it be taken as "Truth" without challenge; otherwise, of course, there's some sinister "leftist agenda" out there.

I'm very, very sorry, but it's logic, reason, and coherent argumentation that separates Western Civilization from arbitrary barbarism. There's no "leftist cabal" that's holding conservatism back; it's the incoherent babble coming from the mouths of conservatives themselves that's holding them back. Western tradition and the First Amendment certainly guarantee that you can babble ad infinitum to your heart's content, but there is no way in hell I have to accept that nonsense.

If you want the "Conservative Worldview" to be legitimate, then--for the love of God--start making sense.
melon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 07:37 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I don't remember presenting a bigoted argument, Irvine.

i'm doing my best to help you to see how bigoted your arguments are.


Quote:
I remember you saying, after posting a piece by a conservative, "that settles THAT." So I merely posted, in response, a commentary by a self-avowed liberal Democrat, simply to show that that does not, in fact, settle that. His views aren't necessarily mine -- in fact, I've previously espoused a solution along the lines of what he and Rauch propose. But I thought it was still germaine to the "even conservatives support gay marriage" train of thought.

you've posted it before, and it's been debunked before. the article, as we've demonstrated, is incredibly poor. it has nothing to do with SSM, unless you're willing to make natural procreation a legal requirement of marriage. not even you are willing to go that far, so the article has no merit, not then, not now, and even the author himself appears to have advanced his arguments in the second piece i posted.



Quote:
And you'd probably be surprised to know that my positions are more nuanced than you think. I'm not a fan of radicalism in any form, and the often-posted attitudes in FYM -- "gender doesn't matter! why do we have to think of the children? biology isn't important! kids don't need fathers!" -- often require a dissenting voice, if only to keep the conversation interesting.

it's not "why do we have to think of the children," nathan, as you invent strawman arguments, it's that we are thinking of the children. we are thinking of how gay people getting married poses no harm to children whatsoever. we are thinking of the children of gay couples who would greatly benefit from the protections and rights of marriage.

you keep trying to insist that a family can only be just so ... when how real life is lived doesn't support your romantic dream of life that doesn't have nearly the "5,000 years" of history you imagine it to have.

the "natural procreation only is the only family worthy of protection" argument is absolute bunk. so why continue, if only to dress up deeply held prejudices? if you want to argue against gay adoption, go ahead and do so. but let's at least separate that from SSM.

as ever, Nathan, please tell me why children need to be protected from myself and Memphis and exactly how preventing us from getting married will provide said protection.




Quote:
"But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it."


i see no reason to accommodate either, 1) religious bigotry, or 2) invented "threats" to families and children that requires punitive legal action against a clearly targeted minority. it's the second argument that Olson is, so far, deftly arguing. objecting to these two things is hardly "extreme" -- and i don't think you'd accept it at all, nathan, if you weren't allowed to marry your wife.

how would you feel?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 07:39 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Western tradition and the First Amendment certainly guarantee that you can babble ad infinitum to your heart's content, but there is no way in hell I have to accept that nonsense.


if you don't accept non-arguments, then you aren't being fair and balanced.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:30 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Actually, this issue does demonstrate one thing:

The best the Right can do with this issue is resort to cutesy one-liners
We have our cutesy one-liners and you have your "Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay, Born-Again Bigot Go Away" chants.
Call it even.
Quote:
and unsubstantiated self-victimization.
You mean like the "Gay is the new black" argument for same-sex marriage which, as you know, is largely rejected by African-Americans.

Quote:
Tolerance of intolerance goes very much against the classical liberal/modern conservative tradition, so I have little sympathy for bullies who wish to blame their targets for standing up for themselves!
Tolerance doesn't mean checking one's beliefs at the door and condoning every practice, idea, trend, style
or new "right" that germinates in a free society. It does sometimes mean finding a compromise -- coexisting as it were. I have tried to do that.

And if cutesy one-liners is seen as bullying then what are you gonna call the Right when we are forced to unveil our Shock&awe/logic&reason/can't-be-disputed/final-word/checkmate/rip-your-heart-out-and-show-it-to-you/pickup-your-toys-and-go-home Conservative Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:57 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm doing my best to help you to see how bigoted your arguments are.
My post contained not a single argument of my own, Irvine. Period. It was a cut and pasted article in response to a cut and pasted article.

Quote:
it's not "why do we have to think of the children," nathan, as you invent strawman arguments
Martha posted that comment in one of the other multiple threads. It's not an invented strawman. (Which seems to be this thread's Word of the Day, by the way. Cue the balloons.)

Quote:
it's that we are thinking of the children. we are thinking of how gay people getting married poses no harm to children whatsoever.
And some of us are thinking about kids deprived of a mother or a father. *shrug*

We can go around and around on this issue, Irvine, and it only points out my earlier point -- we are talking past each other. Which makes continued talking pointless.

Quote:
you keep trying to insist that a family can only be just so
That's not accurate either. I've said there are optimal family situations, and have backed it up with numerous facts and statistics from a variety of different sources. I've also made allowances for other family structures, while pointing out that laws govern the rule, not the exception.

Quote:
as ever, Nathan, please tell me why children need to be protected from myself and Memphis and exactly how preventing us from getting married will provide said protection.
I'm also pretty sure I've never said that. I don't think kids need to be protected from you.

There are a lot of people out there convinced that same sex marriage is the ultimate bogeyman. I'm not one of them. I'm far more concerned with the damage of no-fault divorce, and more annoyed that the same people who are so quick to demonize gay marriage so easily turn a blind eye to matters of far more significance.

If you're going to ask my perspective on all of this, and if I'm going to be honest, I think most people these days shouldn't get married. And they sure as hell shouldn't procreate. I don't believe that marriage is a right for any/everyone -- the past fifty years of the history of marriage in this country proves how quickly a (real or, in this case, perceived) right can be abused -- and for straight people to claim some sense of entitlement to the institution is the epitome of hypocrisy, given the ways the institution has been dumbed-down and abused over the past century. Marriage doesn't complete you, nor does it make you a better person, nor does it guarantee a happily ever after. It's work -- at times soul-searingly so. It's not to be entered into lightly by anyone, and it's high time we recognized that and treated it as such.

I further think that, if the federal government is really going to take this whole issue of marriage seriously -- and I think it should, since we would all agree that healthy marriages and families are the bedrock for society -- we should remove any discrimination against same sex couples, while at the same time making it much, much more difficult for people to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation. Whether straight or gay, marriage is an institution that requires a license, and like any other licensed right or privilege -- operating a car or heavy machinery, owning a gun -- there should (at the very least) be a mandatory three month waiting period. Want the (perceived) financial benefits of marriage? Want property rights, etc.? Take on the responsibility. There should be mandatory training on crucial issues like conflict resolution, family planning, what to do in abusive situations, parenting, financial planning, etc. -- in exactly the same way that we require licensed drivers to be trained to use an automobile, or screened before letting them buy a handgun. And a fractured marriage can cause much, much more irreparable harm than either.

This is where I break with my conservative and libertarian brethren -- if the government is going to get into the marriage business, the government should work with its citizens -- all its citizens -- to help them stay married.

With that, I bid you all adieu.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:01 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
This is a strawman non-argument.

What you've effectively been advocating by your lack of argument is that the Left abandon centuries of established logic and reason necessary to formulate coherent debate, and to just let the Right make up whatever they want along the way that we must respect by some kind of ideological entitlement. That is, while the Left must produce objective data to back up their arguments, all the Right has to do is say anything at all and demand that it be taken as "Truth" without challenge; otherwise, of course, there's some sinister "leftist agenda" out there.

I'm very, very sorry, but it's logic, reason, and coherent argumentation that separates Western Civilization from arbitrary barbarism. There's no "leftist cabal" that's holding conservatism back; it's the incoherent babble coming from the mouths of conservatives themselves that's holding them back.
Western tradition and the First Amendment certainly guarantee that you can babble ad infinitum to your heart's content, but there is no way in hell I have to accept that nonsense.

If you want the "Conservative Worldview" to be legitimate, then--for the love of God--start making sense.
You realize the notion that marriage is between a male and a female, a bride and groom, a husband and wife... makes, and has for some time, perfect sense to a great many people.

Above you mention "logic, reason, and coherent argumentation." All certainly commendable attributes for intelligent thought but they can still lead one to the wrong conclusion without the one thing you didn't, and can't, mention.

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change.

It occurs to me that the onus of debate falls on you to convince me that redefining marriage is a prudent rather than a radical change. Not on me to defend an institution that has been a pillar of Western civilization.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:11 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change. It occurs to me that the onus of debate falls on you to convince me that redefining marriage is a prudent rather than a radical change.
I would think that observing societies where gay marriage is legalized and has been so for a number of years would be helpful in getting you to see that the sky hasn't fallen in the meantime, that our straight couples are still bearing children, and that hetero marriage has been impacted in no discernible way.

But even this argument fails because we are told that it will take "two generations" or some such before we can make conclusions. So your gay citizens better sit back and chillax for 50+ years, maybe then we can revisit this. Of course then we'll be on to a different argument.
anitram is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:18 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Of course then we'll be on to a different argument.
Ahhhh, right. Gays aren't the only ones knocking on the castle gate of marriage with the password of "tolerance" are they?
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:21 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
We have our cutesy one-liners and you have your "Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay, Born-Again Bigot Go Away" chants.
Call it even.

You mean like the "Gay is the new black" argument for same-sex marriage which, as you know, is largely rejected by African-Americans.
A cutesy non-argument.

Next...

Quote:
Tolerance doesn't mean checking one's beliefs at the door and condoning every practice, idea, trend, style
or new "right" that germinates in a free society. It does sometimes mean finding a compromise -- coexisting as it were. I have tried to do that.
An "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy.

Next...

Quote:
And if cutesy one-liners is seen as bullying then what are you gonna call the Right when we are forced to unveil our Shock&awe/logic&reason/can't-be-disputed/final-word/checkmate/rip-your-heart-out-and-show-it-to-you/pickup-your-toys-and-go-home Conservative Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage?
And nonsense.

The entire summation of the right-wing case against gay rights.
melon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:30 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Above you mention "logic, reason, and coherent argumentation." All certainly commendable attributes for intelligent thought but they can still lead one to the wrong conclusion without the one thing you didn't, and can't, mention.

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change.
Wisdom. Indeed.

Quote:
Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.

...

As is somewhat visually apparent, those states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates. In Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, the divorce rate has declined by 21 percent and is the lowest in the country by some margin. It is joined at the top of the list by Rhode Island and New Mexico, which do not perform same-sex marriages but idiosyncratically also have no statute or constitutional provision expressly forbidding them, as well as Maine, whose legislature approved same-sex marriage only to have it overturned (although not banned constitutionally) by its voters.

On the other hand, the seven states at the bottom of the chart all had constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage in place throughout 2008. The state which experienced the highest increase in its divorce rate over the period (Alaska, at 17.2 percent) also happens to be the first one to have altered its constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, in 1998.
anitram is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:35 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And some of us are thinking about kids deprived of a mother or a father. *shrug*


so go bang on about gay adoption. we all know marriage has nothing to do with this. *shrug* (one that's just as smug)

i'd be happy for you to tell me about how my married lesbian friends who are trying to get pregnant are doing horrible societal harm by depriving their future child of a live-in biological father.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:46 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
You realize the notion that marriage is between a male and a female, a bride and groom, a husband and wife... makes, and has for some time, perfect sense to a great many people.
"Perfect sense"--that is, a subjective emotion grounded in no factual, rational, nor observable evidence. That is, it made "perfect sense to a great many people" to put Jews in ghettos for centuries.

That's not how civil rights work.

Quote:
Above you mention "logic, reason, and coherent argumentation." All certainly commendable attributes for intelligent thought but they can still lead one to the wrong conclusion without the one thing you didn't, and can't, mention.

Wisdom. It's what separates prudent change from radical change.
Again, "wisdom" as (in this circumstance) a subjective emotion grounded in no factual, rational, nor observable evidence. That is...

Quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Such "wisdom" rings hollow when it cannot withstand scrutiny.

Quote:
It occurs to me that the onus of debate falls on you to convince me that redefining marriage is a prudent rather than a radical change. Not on me to defend an institution that has been a pillar of Western civilization.
It occurs to me that there have been numerous arguments made--including that by Theodore Olsen in the first post of this thread--as to why gays should be granted equality. And it equally occurs to me that not one single argument opponents have made in opposition to this notion has withstood scrutiny.

The best the Right can offer is an appeal to tradition and fear based on falsehoods. Can you see why anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny all inevitably collapsed? Because none of this "traditional wisdom" that had made "perfect sense" to millennia of cultures could withstand the test of reason. And I do not know what the outcome of this specific challenge to Prop. 8 will be, as court cases of this nature can go one way or another, but the momentum of logic is in our favour.
melon is offline  
Old 01-20-2010, 05:28 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Cindy McCain NOH8 PHOTO: McCain Joins Project Protesting Prop 8
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-20-2010, 05:34 PM   #39
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Very interesting...

Now come on Obama!
BVS is offline  
Old 01-20-2010, 05:44 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
3 weeks after gay marriage law, NH takes up repeal

CONCORD, N.H. -- Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents on Wednesday asked a House committee to repeal the law.

Gay marriage opponents want the law repealed and also want to change the state constitution to ban the unions.

In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting New Hampshire's 400 House members and 24 senators aren't representative of the people's wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.
I admit to being torn on this one. We have a representative democracy which means we don't vote directly on everything. If same-sex marriage is to become law this is the "legitimate" route in my opinion. Yet as the Democrats in D.C. are learning, you can't govern against the will of the people either.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposition 8 discussion continued yolland Free Your Mind 797 03-03-2009 01:09 PM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1002 11-08-2008 02:23 PM
Rate my album collection. shart1780 Lemonade Stand Archive 75 02-13-2008 11:07 PM
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue Headache in a Suitcase Free Your Mind Archive 130 04-15-2003 07:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×