gay marriages

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

gay marriages

Postby TerraFrost » Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:19 am

there's been a lot of controvery around 'em, recently. george bush condemned them in his state of the union, as has the governor of california, and massachutes has legalized them.

the main arguments against gay marriages seem to be that if we don't place limits on what qualifies that soon anything and everything may qualify. also, people seem to worry that this will upset an institution which is already have problems (those problems being increasing number of divorcers, among other things).

i don't buy either of those arguments, myself, however. for one, if you ban gay marriages, straight couples may see gay couples getting by without marriage, and may decide to, themselves, get by without marriage. sure, the marriage problem would be solved (assuming you think its a problem, at all), but you'd be contributing to pre-material sex, etc, which christianity doesn't exaclty aplaud, either.

also, if marriage is defined so as to exclude same-sex couples, why not redefine sex to exclude same-sex "unions"? if we did that, then gay people wouldn't be having sex (they'd be doing something else), and perhapes all the fuss regarding homosexuality would die down.

so, all in all, i think the common objections to same sex marriages are rather weak. although, that said, i did come up with what i thought to be an interesting reason as to why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. it is impossible for a same-sex marriage to produce kids. they can adopt them, or perhapes cheat on their partner with a member of the opposite sex, but the marriages, themselves, can't produce any kids. different-sex marriages can, however. this, taken in stride with the possibility that states have a vested interest in population increase, would sorta provide a justification for state-banned same-sex marriages - that the reason the state, itself, recognizes marriages is to inspire population growth, and that same-sex marriages, because they don't do this, don't really have a reason to be allowed.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Gigafrost » Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:56 pm

Well, I was going to go into detail myself, but this site sort of has a good summary against that argument:

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:44 pm

taking away marriage certificicates from those who are married and not giving marriage certificates to those who can't have children are two very different things.

also, and as has been pointed out to me, before, not all different-sex couples that get married intend to have children. for some, like you said, it might be a virtual impossibility due to infertility or whatever. however, with such couples, having children is still possible. couples who don't intend on having kids when they marry may very well change their mind. infertile couples may be able to have couples if they undergo, admittedly, expensive medical procedures. in contrast, same-sex couples can't have children, no matter the cost. atleast not yet.

finally, just for the record, i am in favor of gay marriages. i'm just advancing an argument against them for the sake of debate.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Rao » Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:03 am

I really dont care about the marriages, I am a firm believer in do what makes you happy. I laugh at Bush though who just lost a large number of voters. Should he held some what of a positive position, he would have had a large portion of the gay community and those who back the gay community. I commend that texan for his lack of political abilites.
Tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by,
That here, Obedient to their laws, We lie,
User avatar
Rao
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:26 pm
Location: The Boondocks

Re: gay marriages

Postby paleofrrrost » Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:14 pm

TerraFrost wrote:<snip>
i did come up with what i thought to be an interesting reason as to why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. it is impossible for a same-sex marriage to produce kids. they can adopt them, or perhapes cheat on their partner with a member of the opposite sex, but the marriages, themselves, can't produce any kids. different-sex marriages can, however. this, taken in stride with the possibility that states have a vested interest in population increase, would sorta provide a justification for state-banned same-sex marriages - that the reason the state, itself, recognizes marriages is to inspire population growth, and that same-sex marriages, because they don't do this, don't really have a reason to be allowed.


Where do you get that the reason the state recognizes marriage is to inspire population growth? Can't say I've ever heard that before. That may be part of some religion, but not of the state.

If we are looking at "what makes sense," then we do not want to encourage population growth, because the population will outgrow the available resources. We want to encourage population stability, maybe after a little reduction (http://www.hillfamily.org/david/guidestone-english.htm). If marriage policy is tied to population control, then it only makes sense to encourage gay marriages.

my 2 cents worth,
Image
"The old dog lay in the snow, huge soft flakes drifting down around him, waiting for his master, not knowing he would never come."
User avatar
paleofrrrost
Traveler
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:01 am
Location: the lowest levels of the oldest mountains on the third planet

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:09 pm

Where do you get that the reason the state recognizes marriage is to inspire population growth?


i'm not saying that the state *does* have a reason to inspire population growth - rather, that *if* they did, i can sorta understand them disallowing gay marriages. a similar argument is made involving taniyama shimura conjecture, which states that if fermat's last theorem is true, so to is the taniyama shimura conjecture, and if fermat's last theorem is false, so to is the taniyama shimura conjecture. (ref).

as for why the state might want to allow gay marriages... perhapes the state is of the belief that more people equates to more income through taxes? perhapes they would be interested in population increases because they would want more seats in the house of representatives, or they would want more electoral votes? i dunno. of course, then again, just as there are valid reasons (well, assuming the reasons i just gave are valid, heh) for encouraging population increases, there are, as you pointed out, valid reasons against encouraging population increases, as well. where the states (or varrious states) draw the line, i do not know. personally, however, i hope that they don't want to encourage population increases, as i think the only benifits are short term. but, then again, if politicians were considered about anything other than the short term, then the EPA would probably have a ton more power than it currently does, as would NASA, probably.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Feb 25, 2004 4:46 am

after reading a cnn article on the subject, i've had a few more thoughts.

first, consider the justification against gay marriages given in giga's link:

"Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences."

the response made in giga's link to that point is that it is a logical fallacy to assume that, that such things haven't happened in other countries which have legalized gay marriages, and that there are other things that are making the country worse of, anyways.

of these, i think the "logical fallacy" counter is the weakest, and that by using it, you deprive yourself of an oppurotunity to use what i'll call the counter-slippery-slope argument.

just as the legalization of gay marriages may establish a dangerious precident for the legalization of legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy, etc, the illegalization of gay marriages may establish a dangerious precident for the outlawing of homosexuality, the persecution of homosexuals and eventually other minorities, and then may lead to the US becoming a nation embroiled with white supremacy, in a manner similar to nazi germany.

second, i think this quite is very insightful:

Democrats accused Bush of using the issue for political gain and trying to draw attention away from his record.

"President Bush came to the White House pledging to unite us and is now seeking to divide the country for his own political gain," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement.

here's the cnn article (and the source for the above quote):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:17 am

it's funny... i showed this thread to someone and after reading my first post, they thought i was full of hot air (although not in so many words). later, when we were discussing the topic of same sex marriages, i quoted something from that post, and they thought it was an amazingly insightful point. this makes me wonder... does the validity of my points fluctuate with the alignment of the stars, or something?

in any case, another argument against an ammendment to ban same-sex marriages and indeed an argument for maintaining the seperation of church and state is that since the government tends to hold the greatest power over the people, and that since, as the saying goes, power corrupts, if church were to meddle in the affairs of government, church would risk corruption, itself.

to phrase the above somewhat differently... our government may well be corrupt, but no religion is gonna cure that corruption. indeed, if any religion were to try, the corruption of government would, in all likelyhood, rub off on them. instead of a pure religion and a corrupt government, we'd have a corrupt religion and a corrupt government.
Last edited by TerraFrost on Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Re: gay marriages

Postby ChatOmbre » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:48 am

TerraFrost wrote:so, all in all, i think the common objections to same sex marriages are rather weak. although, that said, i did come up with what i thought to be an interesting reason as to why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. it is impossible for a same-sex marriage to produce kids. they can adopt them, or perhapes cheat on their partner with a member of the opposite sex, but the marriages, themselves, can't produce any kids. different-sex marriages can, however. this, taken in stride with the possibility that states have a vested interest in population increase, would sorta provide a justification for state-banned same-sex marriages - that the reason the state, itself, recognizes marriages is to inspire population growth, and that same-sex marriages, because they don't do this, don't really have a reason to be allowed.


who says they'd be cheating? :p in some cases they would be, but in others they might not.
Queen of the PointyShiney

"Too much ink is drawn to describe and define love. Why describe it and define it? Take my hand and let's just take a ride through it. Love is... Love is... Let's just go for awhile, leaving ourselves for each other." --Mike Smith
User avatar
ChatOmbre
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:41 pm
Location: somewhere over the rainbow

Postby Tar-Herunole » Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:08 pm

There are good reasons for sustaining a moderated growth in the population, although, right now, I think it would be more fair to do it through controlled inmigratin than through increases in fertility. Among others, there is a need of increasing the number of producing individuals, as everytime, given both the higher longevity and the lower natality, there are more pensionists and less active workers.
But again, I believe increasing fertility is an unethical way of solving the problem. There is too many people dying of famine in developing countries, or lacking the right opportunities who would be glad to work in the US (or EU) and contribute to pay pensions, and taxes, and whatever to the aging western population.
In any case, what there is no doubt about, is that society and the state has an interest on protecting the supervivency of the population and the improvement nof the new individuals. What I mean is that the new children should have a better future than their parents, and should be better contributors than their parents. This is very important to understand marriage.


Having said that, I believe there are strong reasons for not accepting homo-marriages. The essence of the marriage is to protect the children. Talking about the rights of the people to marry, or to adopt is an absolute non-sense. The first consideration is to think about how the children (or potential children) will be better protected. With the marriage, the state protects an institution that will serve as an ideal protection for the interests of the child as both parents and the whole of its patrimonies would be tied and dedicated to the upbringing of the child.

If children are not involved, then we can start talking about the rights of the individuals. And all individuals have the right of establishing commercial unions such as companies, but also social unions as associations.

Individuals that reject the goals of marriage (becoming a unity that is oriented to procreation) can also obtain protection from the Law in the form of a Hetero or Homo Convivence Union, but not marriage, for the special privileges of marriage are dedicated to the protection of the children, and not of the parents.

Having said that, the reason why hetero marriages that will actually not end up in upbringing children are to be allowed and not hetero, is because in the case of the hetero there is a legal presumption that the purpose of the union is to have children, or that there is a important probability that the union will end up having children, wanted or unwantred, and in that case the interest of the children should be protected. That is why in the divorce proceedings, the first interest to be protected is that of the children, and the whole patrimony present and future of the children has the prioritary application to the upbringing of the children. In the case of homo-unions, the legal certitude (that goes beyond presumption) is that there would be no procreation, and therefore the legal privileges of marriage should not be given.

There are a lot of examples in the Law about legal presumptions, that give or take away rights or duties, just based on the fact of what is the most usual. These presumptions are of three types: 1) those ad-hoc that can be presumed from the facts of the particualr case 2) legal presumptions that work unless the opposite is proved (for example, for a guy with a contract with a company, all that he does in his working hours, and in the area of business of the company, is presumed to be done in behalf of the company, unless proved otherwise) 3) legal presumptions that cannot be proved otherwise (let's take the same example of a worker. In many law systems its civil responsabilities affect his company, even when proved that he acted against the orders of his superiors: F. ex. An insurance agent takes a policy for your house against floods, when a tempest is coming. Your house is effectively flooded and you ask for the money. The company cannot refuse to pay you by showing a written order of not offering flood policies. They have to pay and then try to get the money back from the agent)

One of the reasons for this presumptions are that the normal case is so frequent, that even when the opposite could have been proved (the policy-holder could have called the Insurance company, a school-director could ask for marriage certificate) the law estrimates that is not needed to ask for proove, and that third parties have the right to believe a hetero-union is oriented to procreation, or that a guy working for an Insurance company sells policies in its behalf. Establishing the need to prove it would be innappropriate for the society as a whole.

Having said that I believe this should be a legal issue, not a political issue, and much less something Bush or anyone uses as a political catch. One thing is to keep the legal institutions for its rightful purposes, and another to make public statements about it that may sound as a crusade against gays or anything similar. But Bush is Bush.
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby Gigafrost » Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:47 pm

Having said that, I believe there are strong reasons for not accepting homo-marriages. The essence of the marriage is to protect the children. Talking about the rights of the people to marry, or to adopt is an absolute non-sense. The first consideration is to think about how the children (or potential children) will be better protected. With the marriage, the state protects an institution that will serve as an ideal protection for the interests of the child as both parents and the whole of its patrimonies would be tied and dedicated to the upbringing of the child.

If children are not involved, then we can start talking about the rights of the individuals. And all individuals have the right of establishing commercial unions such as companies, but also social unions as associations

If children are the motivation, I'd imagine this would be a compelling reason TO allow homosexual marriages. A quick search on google reveals an interesting FOXNews article which says the estimates for the number of kids (as of 3 years ago) being raised by gay parents is between 1 million and 9 million. Just numbers, but the entire point is that kids are already being brought up by homosexual couples.

The link with the number:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html

Yes, I know the article is about how previous studies were flawed. The left-out parts of the study, though, aren't terribly alarming to me.

there is a legal presumption that the purpose of the union is to have children (snip) in the divorce proceedings (snip)

I don't see such an assumption. Old people and infertile couples are allowed to wed, and said people cannot procreate. In divorce, children are important not because of the assumptions of marriage but because of the damage of divorce. Well, unless you have some court rulings arguing against these cases, in which case my arguments would have no weight.

Also, if the legal presumption of marriage is that it's for procreation, then explain what hospital visitation rights have to do with that? Being married, you have priveleges. Being unmarried and gay you can be denied the privelege to be with your dying lover. Hmmm...
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Tar-Herunole » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:19 pm

Well, procreation lays in the same essence of marriage and its as such compiled in law codes. it's regulation appears sometimes in it's whole in the "family chapter" and sometimes broken in two, and in that case the regulation of economical aspects come just near to the ones of heritage.

As explained before, there are some legal presumtions that do not need to be proved, and even when proved the opposite they still rule. That's why unfertile or old people can marry anyway, and not just make "unions". The legislator, or to be more precise, most legislators, decides that it is not worth to force the people who marries to present certificate of fertility. Besides, they can always adopt, and that something that is protected as well, for it assures the interest of the children.

About homosexual couples adoption, that is another topic, and I am again against it, as wherever it has been approved, it has been to satisfy "pretended rights" of the potential parents, not the interest of the children. In fact there is quite a lot of factual evidence from psycologs indicating the problems that arise in a kid brought up in an un-natural family. (and to avoid controversy in this point, I guess we will all agree that the natural form of procreation, and therefore parentage, is that that occurs betwen a male and a female, although in this forum all of us seeem to come from Elves, robots, vampires , worlves and even dragons (can you imagine the sexual act of an elven maid with a dragon?))

Visitation rights are well regulated for the marriage, as part of the protection given to the children is to faccilitate the creation of an environment proper to its psychical development. If visitation rights are not on the deffect of the spouse, extended to a brother, a close friend, or a lover, or whoever the dying person wants by his side, that is not a problem of the regualtion of marriage or of other unions, but a problem on the regulation of visitation rights (which by the way i doubt are regulated by any law, but by the particualr rules of every service or health institution (of that point I am not certain though))
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby Gigafrost » Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:11 pm

The legislator, or to be more precise, most legislators, decides that it is not worth to force the people who marries to present certificate of fertility. Besides, they can always adopt, and that something that is protected as well, for it assures the interest of the children.

So, this checking should be arbitrarily done to gays? Isn't that then becoming sexually discriminant? After all, if fertility is the issue at hand and it's not going to be checked, the entire point for not allowing homosexuals to marry for this reason is void.

Homosexual families could adopt as well, as you've already realized and argued against this in the next quote I deal with...

In fact there is quite a lot of factual evidence from psycologs indicating the problems that arise in a kid brought up in an un-natural family.
Depends. I've heard of the damage done by SINGLE parenting. The above article mentions more sexual experimentation for girls and less masculinity for boys, although I wonder if those constitute "problems". But on the issue of gay parents raising kids (which is and has been happening) all the studies I find indicate no "problems". Perhaps you could clarify what sorts of problems arise, and even give some insight as to what your sources are?

that is not a problem of the regualtion of marriage or of other unions, but a problem on the regulation of visitation rights

This does underly an important point...that society itself doesn't consider marriage to be solely for procreation. Besides, the entire method by which marriage bypasses these visitation-denial situations is by legally making the married into a close-family-member. Visitation rights or not, family rights comes into play and family members can deny you the ability to see a dying spouse.

Maybe it's a problem with visitation regulation, but the reason I don't think it is lies upon the reason said problems exist in the first place: protection of the family. So, in order to allow a homosexual partner in you'd have to either completely throw out the family-protection or put in a clause which allows people claiming to be their homosexual partner in (but this provides an easy shortcut through the system essentially destroying the entire protection concept in the first place). The only remaining option would be to allow the homosexual partners to become family. Marriage does this. Is there another way? I wouldn't be suprised if there is, but by forcing homosexuals to persue the alternative to marriage for this method means that EVERYTHING non-procreational about marriage would have to be obtained alternatively. In other words, we're forcing people to jump through loops because they're different...sexual discrimination.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Tar-Herunole » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:02 pm

Gigafrost wrote:So, this checking should be arbitrarily done to gays? Isn't that then becoming sexually discriminant? After all, if fertility is the issue at hand and it's not going to be checked, the entire point for not allowing homosexuals to marry for this reason is void.


Fertility is not the isssue at hand. Again, the issue at hand is the protection of the family as a mean of protecting the children that could potentially derive from the relationship. In the case of homosexuals the certificate is not needed because it is naturally impossible. It's not discrimination. Not allowing a 5 year old to drive is not "age discrimination" is a legal presumption (presuming he has not the skillrs and/or maturity to drive) based in natural facts.

Homosexual families could adopt as well, as you've already realized and argued against this in the next quote I deal with...

In fact there is quite a lot of factual evidence from psycologs indicating the problems that arise in a kid brought up in an un-natural family.
Depends. I've heard of the damage done by SINGLE parenting. The above article mentions more sexual experimentation for girls and less masculinity for boys, although I wonder if those constitute "problems". But on the issue of gay parents raising kids (which is and has been happening) all the studies I find indicate no "problems". Perhaps you could clarify what sorts of problems arise, and even give some insight as to what your sources are?


Well, I am a lawyer, not a psycologist and I am not specialized in family law, so I don't keep notes on my sources, but the sources were europena psicologists and psychiatrists and were not refered only to sexual experimentation or even tendency to become homosexual, but more to real personality problems.

that is not a problem of the regualtion of marriage or of other unions, but a problem on the regulation of visitation rights

This does underly an important point...that society itself doesn't consider marriage to be solely for procreation. Besides, the entire method by which marriage bypasses these visitation-denial situations is by legally making the married into a close-family-member. Visitation rights or not, family rights comes into play and family members can deny you the ability to see a dying spouse.

I think you make a mistake here by asscociating visitation rights to marriage. A brother or a father should have visitation rights, so the regulation of visitation rights is not exclusive to marriage, and therefore do not say anything about the purpose of marriage, but about what society considers a respectable "close-relationship" be it marriage or any other.

Maybe it's a problem with visitation regulation, but the reason I don't think it is lies upon the reason said problems exist in the first place: protection of the family. So, in order to allow a homosexual partner in you'd have to either completely throw out the family-protection or put in a clause which allows people claiming to be their homosexual partner in (but this provides an easy shortcut through the system essentially destroying the entire protection concept in the first place). The only remaining option would be to allow the homosexual partners to become family. Marriage does this. Is there another way? I wouldn't be suprised if there is, but by forcing homosexuals to persue the alternative to marriage for this method means that EVERYTHING non-procreational about marriage would have to be obtained alternatively. In other words, we're forcing people to jump through loops because they're different...sexual discrimination.
[/quote]

There is indeed another way, and this is to allow the registration of "cohabitation unions" that respect the wishes of both hetero and homo couples who want to tie (or not) their patrimonies but also register their mutual trust in order to give each other other representation rights and assistance duties, but without tying to other procedures typical from marriage that are orientated to protect the children and the family where they are supposed to develope (one of such regulations is divorce, that should not be as lengthy and complicated if the union was just a confluence of will of two persons and children were not involved)

I think overall there are two important facts to consider:

1) There is a tentation to idealize things and treat as equal things that are naturally different. Justice is achieved by giving each individual, or each situation its appropriate treatment, not by giving everyone the same (F.ex. paying more money to the one that works more or whose work is more useful is not discrimination, even if you treat two individuals differently) Even if both are respectable, homsexual and heterosexual couples are not the same.

2) Marriage, and matrimony is an institution that takes iits origin, even ethimologically, in the maternity, and therefore it is oriented to the creation of the family as a mean to protect the children.
High King of the Noldor in Middle-Earth
Honorary Knight of the Pointy Shiney
"... All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die"
User avatar
Tar-Herunole
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:01 am

Postby TerraFrost » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm

Well, I am a lawyer, not a psycologist and I am not specialized in family law, so I don't keep notes on my sources, but the sources were europena psicologists and psychiatrists and were not refered only to sexual experimentation or even tendency to become homosexual, but more to real personality problems.


homosexuality is only a problem in the eyes of those who would see it as a problem. as for the other "real personality problems" - assuming these problems are a tad more ubiquitous than kids being more likely to become homosexual themselves, then it also seems quite reasonable that the cause for this wouldn't be the fact that these kids are being homosexual parents, but that these kids are being teased by other kids because of this fact. as such, if same sex marriages were allowed, this teasing would probably die down in time, and people would grow to become more accepting of them as they become that much more common place. so, in one sense, we're doing harm to other children, by not doing all that we can do to breed bigotry out of them, so to speak. also, why should what kids do dictate who should get married? why not also ban marriages between minorities in racially tense areas? i mean, minority children in racially tense areas are also likely to get teased, too.

finally, disallowing gay marraiges because of what kids do is like punishing gay couples for things that not even their own kids do. if someone is to be punished, perhapes it is kids. perhapes harsher punishments should be made against teasing, or something, if it is truely worth having a policy after.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron