Totem wrote:
with the notable exceptions of gays and young people said with their vote gay marriage is wrong.
It. Is. Over.
Totem
It. Is. Over.
Totem
Great news...in a few more years the old bigots will die.
Nexa
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read
The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow
Great news...in a few more years the old bigots will die.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Medically proved infertile, heterosexual couples, still qualify for these marriage benefits. They are just as incapable of producing children as a homosexual couple.
Sigh... And how much are we going to spend to test every heterosexual couple prior to granting them the legal status in question?
I've already addressed this. We can't know which heterosexual couples can or will produce children. We automatically know that *no* homosexual couples will produce children.
You're approaching this from the wrong direction. Just because I can't prove that every heterosexual couple will produce a child is a ridiculous argument for expanding the qualification to couples who we know can't.
for a transman to marry a biological man, assuming his uterus is left functional? Progress! It's awesome.Totem wrote:
Look, it's a dead issue.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
Look, it's a dead issue. Regardless if you think Prop 8 is immoral, wrong, or homophobic, it doesn't matter. The majority of people said marriages do not apply to gay couples. Geographically, statisically, numerically, demographically, genderically, and racially, every catagory of person with the notable exceptions of gays and young people said with their vote gay marriage is wrong.
It. Is. Over.
Totem
It. Is. Over.
Totem
Nexa wrote:
Totem wrote:
with the notable exceptions of gays and young people said with their vote gay marriage is wrong.
It. Is. Over.
Totem
It. Is. Over.
Totem
Great news...in a few more years the old bigots will die.
Nexa
Ya. 18-25 were all in favor, what... 60-40 average? All those old people were more along the lines of... 30-70
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
I have to add that it's pretty ******* gauche to gloat over other peoples' pain.
Mindel wrote:
The point is that we have a Right (with a fancy big "R") to equal treatment under the law. That is the underpinning of the equal application application of the law, be it a penalty, a requirement, or a grant of benefits.
Irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you are arguing that the state cannot discriminate in any way when determining the qualifications for state funded or mandated benefits.
And I think that's a super hard argument to make given how often it's done.
Quote:
And yet the government provides all kinds of benefits to people who have kids regardless of marital status. Are you arguing they're both incentivizing marriage-for-reproduction and reproduction outside of marriage? And that actually makes sense to you?
Ah. And the slippery slope rears it's ugly head!
Many conservatives opposed those child benefits outside of marriage for exactly the reason that they could be construed as an incentive (or lack of disincentive) for single mothers to raise children on their own. And the statistics for children born to single mothers would appear to show that concern to have been correct.
Arguing that we should accept that marriage isn't relevant or necessary in this regard because we lost that earlier argument over benefits to single parents is pretty insulting really.
You're correct. It doesn't make sense. In an ideal world, we'd simply provide massive tax breaks and other benefits for heterosexual couples who were married and allow that to help out with child raising. It would certainly get a whole lot of people to get married, and would likely improve things for a whole lot of children, wouldn't it?
But the women's rights folks insisted that it was somehow unfair that they be saddled with relationships with men, so this is what we got. We can debate it another day if you want, but don't use that as an argument for taking the next step in said slippery slope.
Quote:
This is the purpose of the FMLA:
I see it doesn't mention anything about encouraging people to get hitched and make more babies.
Title 29, Volume 3, U.S. Code wrote:
FMLA is intended to allow employees to balance their work and family life by taking reasonable unpaid leave for medical reasons, for the birth or adoption of a child, and for the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition.
Yet it mentions "child" twice. Didn't you start by asking what this had to do with children?
The issue is confused because over the last 50 years or so the liberals in this country have slowly changed the laws so that child rearing is no longer associated with marriage the way it used to be. But some of us believe that's the wrong direction to go and that we're hurting ourselves doing this.
In any case, you're again arguing a slippery slope. That since we've already detached aspects of child care from concepts of marriage and men and women as parents, that there's no reason not to put that final nail in the coffin and just re-define marriage entirely. Afterall, it no longer really has to do with two people getting together and starting a family, right?...
Quote:
So perhaps that's the intent behind marriage benefits, yet strangely no one's thought to include that intent in the descriptions and statements of purpose of the underpinning laws.
No one? It may not appear because it's so obvious that it need not be written. It's like needing to write down why murder should be illegal.
Marriage throughout history commonly required consummation before it was "official" and could be annulled if not. In some cases, it could be annulled if no children were produced, or even children of the wrong sex. The underlying assumption of marriage has pretty much always been procreation. Arranged marriages certainly make no sense if there's no assumption of children being involved, and were incredibly common for most of history across most of the globe.
You'd have a hard time finding much evidence that marriage customs throughout history didn't rely almost entirely on the assumption of having children. Heck. The Bible is full of stories about women failing to provide children for their husbands and the legality of using a sister or other female relative to do the job.
Let's turn it around. If not for procreation, then why did marriage come to exist? There's pretty much no reason for the custom to exist without procreation being involved. You can argue that modern cultures have changed that, but that's again a slippery slope argument. You're saying that since we've already changed things this much, there's no reason not to change things a bit more...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Totem wrote:
/waves at BastokFL
/savors his cup o'**** and grins through dooky stained teeth
Nope, ain't dyin' yet. What I said still is the truth: We all have the same rights, no more, no less. Not my problem you aren't satisfied with them. You've had several opportunities to make your case to the state of California, and each time the voting public has resoundingly said marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Period.
Lern2livew/it.
Totem
/savors his cup o'**** and grins through dooky stained teeth
Nope, ain't dyin' yet. What I said still is the truth: We all have the same rights, no more, no less. Not my problem you aren't satisfied with them. You've had several opportunities to make your case to the state of California, and each time the voting public has resoundingly said marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Period.
Lern2livew/it.
Totem
Totem shows no understanding about the history of the civil rights advancement. It's not over. It's just a setback. I would respect your viewpoint more if you didn't seem to derive such obvious pleasure from seeing people being deprived from their equal rights--their right to marry someone of whatever gender they choose without discrimination-- when in reality, having it legal or not doesn't affect you at all. You can disagree all you want. That's part of democracy but the pleasure you get from it for what seems to be purely partisan spitefulness is what is dispiriting.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Mindel wrote:
It is not reasonable for a man to feel discriminated against by a law requiring a breast-cancer screening benefit.
Sure there is. And I've already argued this. It's the same as the "cost" differential associated with the blue spaces in the parking lot. If you and I both pay the same for the medical coverage, but you receive something I do not, then that's inherently discriminatory.
Your counter here is that women get breast cancer while men generally dont, so it's reasonable to provide this benefit for women, but not for men. And I completely agree.
I'm just asking you to see that the same argument works for gay marriage. Heterosexual couples tend to get themselves pregnant, while gay couples don't. See how those are similar?
Quote:
If, perhaps, that law required that prostate-cancer screening benefits must not be provided, he'd have a case.
Sure. And when the law requires that gay couples cannot enter into socio-economic contracts, and can't live together, or share finances, or have power of attorney with each other, or inherit eachother's property, then you can call it discrimination. But you can do all of those things. They just aren't provided for you "for free" by some state mandated or funded program.
See how that's the same?
Quote:
Because it excludes, as a class, a subset of the population based on an inherent and immutable characteristic. Thus, wrong.
No. It doesn't. Or I should say, it doesn't do it to any greater degree than mammograms provided only for women, or handicapped spaces only for those who are handicapped, or extra points towards college admission if you're the correct skin color, or any of a hundred other sets of discriminatory criteria upon which government benefits are provided.
This does not by itself make it "wrong". Each is an individual case and must be assessed on its own merits. I keep saying this, yet you keep insisting that it's not the case.
You're selectively applying your own rules. To me, that means that it's not always wrong. It's only wrong some of the time. I'm asking you to actually look at the things that make these things wrong some of the time and right some of the time, and then apply that to gay marriage.
Can you humor me and do this?
Quote:
Are you asking me to defend why I, as a gay woman, believe I should be treated equally under the law? Because I'm a @#%^ing citizen of this country and a human being. That's all it takes, or should take, to have equal access to the basic civil rights afforded by our nation.
No. I'm asking you to explain how not granting you special benefits equates to not being treated equally under the law in this context.
Again. You're applying a selective standard. It's either always wrong, or it's not. If it's always wrong, then all those other examples should be wrong as well. Period. No discussion. Since you clearly don't believe that, then this automatically invalidates your argument that using the sexual makeup of a couple to determine qualification for the legal status of marriage is automatically wrong.
Thus, you need to explain to my why this particular qualification requirement is wrong. Why is it wrong to restrict that legal status to couples consisting of one man and one woman?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Thus, you need to explain to my why this particular qualification requirement is wrong. Why is it wrong to restrict that legal status to couples consisting of one man and one woman?
If the point of legalized marriage is to promote the legitimacy of the family unit, then why would you not want to strengthen same sex marriages?
Quote:
No. I'm asking you to explain how not granting you special benefits equates to not being treated equally under the law in this context.
It's not special benefits. It's asking for the removal of gender discrimination in terms of who someone can marry.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 9:51pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've already addressed this. We can't know which heterosexual couples can or will produce children. We automatically know that *no* homosexual couples will produce children.
Sigh. And I expected this as well.
I get tired of writing "as a natural consequence of being a couple" over and over, and drop it and what happens? OMGZ! A gay couple could adopt or be artificially fertilized.
Look. The marriage benefits apply to couples. Not individuals. It's what that couple does or may do that matters. So artificial insemination. Out. Adopting. Out. Those are choices you may do, but it has nothing to do with those two people being a couple.
We're talking about marriage and which combinations of couples qualify for the state benefits of that status. Arguing that it's discrimination against homosexuality is incorrect since it's the state of being a couple that is being measured, not whether one is gay or not. If a gay man and a gay woman get married, they gain the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. It's not the sexual orientation of the individuals that matters, but the combination of the two sexes involved in the couple that does.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's really this simple. If you're not a bigot and against gay marriage, why aren't you against regular marriage?
What is more important for a marriage? A gender, or the love, devotion and commitment of the union? Look at it this way:
Couple A has 2 adopted children. They work good jobs, pay their bills, pay their taxes, and are upstanding citizens. They are in love with each other. They are raising their children to be upstanding citizens too.
Now, tell me why that couple is suddenly drastically different or has a worse impact on the world/country because it's two women instead of a man and a woman? What actions do they perform that hurt the country more than a heterosexual couple?
Or is it just the mere fact that they're gay and you just don't like gays? Not anything they actually do; just their very existence bothers you. I'm sorry, but that's bigotry.
What is more important for a marriage? A gender, or the love, devotion and commitment of the union? Look at it this way:
Couple A has 2 adopted children. They work good jobs, pay their bills, pay their taxes, and are upstanding citizens. They are in love with each other. They are raising their children to be upstanding citizens too.
Now, tell me why that couple is suddenly drastically different or has a worse impact on the world/country because it's two women instead of a man and a woman? What actions do they perform that hurt the country more than a heterosexual couple?
Or is it just the mere fact that they're gay and you just don't like gays? Not anything they actually do; just their very existence bothers you. I'm sorry, but that's bigotry.
gbaji's justification is ********* Supporting the family in the US does not mean ever only supporting the biological children of the parents. That doesn't even make sense and it doesn't play itself out in any other fashion in terms of acknowledging family bonds, otherwise, being an adoptive parent wouldn't give you full parental rights. The logic doesn't play itself out.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
I'm just curious, Gbaji. Why do you think so many people are against gay marriage? Drop your ideas about children and everything, what is the reason that you feel the average citizen is voting against gay marriage?
Commander Annabella wrote:
Quote:
Thus, you need to explain to my why this particular qualification requirement is wrong. Why is it wrong to restrict that legal status to couples consisting of one man and one woman?
If the point of legalized marriage is to promote the legitimacy of the family unit, then why would you not want to strengthen same sex marriages?
Because the purpose is to reduce the rate at which children are born to single mothers. Using a modified definition of "family unit" kinda misses the point.
There's nothing wrong with gay couples getting married. But there's no reason for the state to subsidize those relationships. Have them. Don't have them. Your choice.
Let me put it another way. As a taxpayer there is no inherent burden placed on me if no gay couple ever gets married. It doesn't cost me a penny either way, so there's no sense to me spending money if they do.
As a taxpayer (and a citizen of the society) there's a huge "cost" to me if no heterosexual couples ever get married. You do see that, right? Imagine if no one ever got married. How much more would that cost us? What would be the effect on women? How much tax dollars would be required to help raise those children? And what effect would this have on the next generation? Would crime rates go up? Education levels go down (barring yet more government expense of course)? How many negatives are there?
We can debate the degree of cost, but can we please agree that there is one? While there is zero cost to me if same-sex couples don't get married.
I just think that you're looking at this backwards. You're starting with a benefit that exists and asking "why not give it to them too?". But before asking that, you should first ask: "Why give it to the people we give it to now?". What does it do for us? What happens if we don't have it?
If you don't take the time to think through those questions, you're not going to really understand this issue IMO.
Quote:
It's not special benefits. It's asking for the removal of gender discrimination in terms of who someone can marry.
Of course it's special benefits. No one's preventing same-sex couples from marrying in the traditional sense. We're saying that only opposite-sex marriages should qualify for those benefits. It's all about the benefits. Because that's what you're getting when you change the law to include same-sex couples in the marriage status requirements.
And once again, someone ignores points I've made repeatedly and spins the circle around again. Let me clarify. We're talking about the legal status called "marriage". It happens to share a name with a social institution called "marriage", but they are not one and the same. You can get married without having your marriage qualify for the legal status. You can go to a church, invite guests, make your vows, have a reception, etc. You can enter into the full set of contracts involved with marriage as you wish as well. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples can do this if they wish. The *only* difference is that if an opposite-sex couple does this, then they can qualify for some state funded and mandated benefits.
That's it. I've explained this several times, but it appears like your argument depends on confusing the two things. You're not being prevented from doing something. You're just not being granted benefits for doing it.
That's not the same thing.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Because the purpose is to reduce the rate at which children are born to single mothers. Using a modified definition of "family unit" kinda misses the point.
Your definition of a family unit, first of all, is incredibly culturally biased and for most of the world, it is usually an extended family unit with multiple parents so don't act like there is something inherent about the nuclear family unit. Psychologically and cross culturally, it is not really considered the most beneficial or prevalent model--and our support of it is a mid-20th century, post industrial age invention. So we have a model in our culture than two people marrying occupy the nucleus of a little extended world that has a complex array of lesser or greater social and legal bonds-- all we are doing is strengthening that nucleus. There is no real specific reason to have it be an opposite sex couple other than this traditional discrimination against homosexual behavior that has cropped up in certain eras and cultures.
Quote:
Of course it's special benefits. No one's preventing same-sex couples from marrying in the traditional sense. We're saying that only opposite-sex marriages should qualify for those benefits. It's all about the benefits. Because that's what you're getting when you change the law to include same-sex couples in the marriage status requirements.
No,again, it's gender discrimination by deciding who I may or may not marry--not on the basis of any legal issue but merely their gender. You say special rights only b/c it makes you uncomfortable to have to argue what is really going on. it's okay pumpkin, you too will one day accept same sex loving too.
maybe literally?
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
CBD wrote:
I'm just curious, Gbaji. Why do you think so many people are against gay marriage? Drop your ideas about children and everything, what is the reason that you feel the average citizen is voting against gay marriage?
I'm sure that there are a number of reasons. People use logical fallacies for a reason: They tend to work. On any issue, you're going to get a lot of people who follow an idea or agenda or position for the wrong reasons. That does not make the idea wrong though. It just means that most people will follow a knee-jerk appeal to emotion more easily than a well thought out argument.
So yes. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that it's a sin or something. I'm sure that some do it because they are homophobes. Some may understand that it has to do with protecting marriage, but may not understand exactly how, so they'll say something like the "sanctity of marriage" or some such thing. And I couldn't tell you how many oppose it for each or any of those reasons any more than you could tell me how many people voted for Obama because he's black.
But it's a strawman to argue against those other reasons. If you want to prove your case, you have to argue against the strongest opposing position, not the weakest. It's easy to take some bigot's statement about how gay people shouldn't have rights and proclaim yourself the winner, but that really doesn't fly. Or it shouldn't, but of course, that would be yet another logical fallacy, and as I said, those tend to be used because they work.
So. If you want to print bumper stickers with a short slogan about rights and gay marriage, by all means go for it. But if you want to actually debate the issue, then be prepared and willing to face the toughest arguments and not fall back on simplistic rhetoric to make your case. Repeating bumpersticker slogans just isn't enough IMO...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji is bitter that he hasn't found anyone to make a baby with and get married to yet. And he'll be damned if you dirty gays beat him to it! 
Also, he hasn't really addressed the reality about why is he legally allowed to marry a woman but I'm not and why he does not consider that gender discrimination? All I want is the right to marry a woman just like a man does.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 10:24pm by Annabella
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 10:24pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Commander Annabella wrote:
Your definition of a family unit, first of all, is incredibly culturally biased and for most of the world, it is usually an extended family unit with multiple parents so don't act like there is something inherent about the nuclear family unit.
You're the one who introduced the term "family unit" into the discussion Anna. I didn't. I've been pretty clear that I'm talking about marriage benefits, and couples who may produce children. If you want to start another topic about the definition of "family unit" and how extended it can be and what legal relationships are involved, that's great.
But you haven't shown where your inclusion of the term serves any purpose other than to artificially broaden the scope of the discussion and allow you to argue on that broadened scope. Extended family units don't get "married" either, do they? I don't get to file taxes with my cousin, or my grandmother. So this is all irrelevant isn't it?
Quote:
There is no real specific reason to have it be an opposite sex couple other than this traditional discrimination against homosexual behavior that has cropped up in certain eras and cultures.
Also irrelevant. Unless you're introducing some argument about how unfair it might be for your family to seat the gay uncle at the bad end of the table at Thanksgiving dinner or something...
Quote:
No,again, it's gender discrimination by deciding who I may or may not marry--not on the basis of any legal issue but merely their gender.
I'm going to ignore for the moment the use of the term "discrimination", given that we do this all the time. Mammograms and such, remember? But ignoring that...
No. It's not. You are free to marry a man, just like any other woman. And a gay woman is just as free to marry a man as a straight woman is. It's only discrimination if you're treated "differently" based on your gender.
I assume what you meant to say is that it's discrimination against your sexual orientation. But that's not directly true either (as I pointed out earlier you have the same capability of qualifying for those benefits as a straight woman does). So what you really mean is that because you are gay the existing qualifying criteria for the state benefits of marriage doesn't reward you for marrying someone who is your personal sexual preference.
Well. I'll go back to the point I've made repeatedly. Those criteria exist for a reason. Despite how much the gay-marriage activists want to paint it otherwise, that criteria does exist for a reason. It's not just an arbitrary exclusion designed to punish gay people or something. In fact, I doubt very much that gay couples were even considered when the law was written in the first place (born out by the fact that it wasn't even codified in the original laws in California. It was just assumed that everyone understood that marriage benefits should only apply to opposite-sex couples).
The benefits don't exist to help you diversify yourself or something. They are not about social engineering. They are not about being pro or against gay people. They exist to provide an incentive for couples to marry, based on the assumption that they're going to statistically produce children whether they get married or not. This was so obvious that it never even occurred to anyone that someone might try to apply this to gay couples. Until they did...
You're inventing a persecution that does not exist. The rules weren't made to exclude you. They were made with a specific combination of circumstances in mind (men and women having sex and producing children). That you happen to prefer a relationship combination that doesn't meet that criteria is your own business, but insisting that we expand the criteria for a set of benefits to include you for no real reason other then that you're currently excluded is just plain silly...
Explain to me why I should subsidize your relationship? I've already explained at length the thinking behind this for opposite-sex couples and why I'm ok with doing so. You need to convince me that there are equivalent arguments for same-sex couples to be included. And frankly, no one has come remotely close to doing that...
Quote:
You say special rights only b/c it makes you uncomfortable to have to argue what is really going on. it's okay pumpkin, you too will one day accept same sex loving too.
You say that because it makes you more comfortable to assume that people disagree with you because they hate you for who you are, then because you're just plain wrong. It's easy to just dismiss people's arguments by declaring them bigots, and hard to actually listen to what they have to say and consider their point of view.
Just a thought...
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 8:02pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I get tired of writing "as a natural consequence of being a couple" over and over, and drop it and what happens? OMGZ! A gay couple could adopt or be artificially fertilized.
Look. The marriage benefits apply to couples. Not individuals. It's what that couple does or may do that matters.
Look. The marriage benefits apply to couples. Not individuals. It's what that couple does or may do that matters.
Quote:
So artificial insemination. Out. Adopting. Out. Those are choices you may do, but it has nothing to do with those two people being a couple.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 9:43pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
No. It's not. You are free to marry a man, just like any other woman. And a gay woman is just as free to marry a man as a straight woman is. It's only discrimination if you're treated "differently" based on your gender.
But you are confused--that is saying i have equal rights regardless of my sexual orientation. I am saying I want the same rights as a man. You are saying that as a woman, I don't have the same rights as you do b/c i'm not allowed to marry a woman like you are.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 10:50pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#174REDACTED,
Posted: Nov 05 2008 at 7:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, he has, you just keep ignoring it and repeating the same rhetoric over and over. This argument is tired, you won't convince us, we won't convince you, you won't get gay marriage with state benefits, no one's stopping you from conducting a "traditional" marriage even though I too oppose them no one is stopping you. You fail to comprehend that, so be it.
AmorTonight wrote:
Quote:
Also, he hasn't really addressed the reality about why is he legally allowed to marry a woman but I'm not
Yes, he has, you just keep ignoring it and repeating the same rhetoric over and over. This argument is tired, you won't convince us, we won't convince you, you won't get gay marriage with state benefits, no one's stopping you from conducting a "traditional" marriage even though I too oppose them no one is stopping you. You fail to comprehend that, so be it.
I also am glad that women who wanted the right to vote and to have job protections also didn't back down. I too want my equal rights as a woman. :D It's okay, history will march forward. It already has.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
The idea that marriage benefits are because of hypothetical children doesn't really hold water. When you have children you get direct tax breaks because you have them (at least in Canada) If there are no children you don't get those benefits, you only get the ones that pertain to a married couple with no children. That's the incentive to have children, if you get the benefits anyway, then there is no financial reason to have children.
I like how you have this in depth knowledge of the exact reasons people developed laws etc, just intuitively or something. Must be nice to have so much confidence in your ***.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 10:05pm by Xsarus
I like how you have this in depth knowledge of the exact reasons people developed laws etc, just intuitively or something. Must be nice to have so much confidence in your ***.
Edited, Nov 5th 2008 10:05pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Recent Visitors: 467
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (467)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC