BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Bush, that sick fuck...

 
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:48 / 06.09.05
It (marriage) could also be necessary in order to procure a visa, were someone to take the- ah- helpful advice upthread that if they didn't like the way things were, they should move somewhere where they were different... or so I hear.
 
 
Ganesh
21:48 / 06.09.05
What, in fact, are the non-religious reasons for having a wedding? An excuse to throw a big party? Getting a pat on the head from the government? What? I just don't see it.

Who said anything about a wedding? We're talking about marriage, aren't we? For little ol' secular me, it'd be about equal rights under the law regarding state pensions, taxes, inheritance, next-of-kin status, etc., etc. - all of which can be put in place legally, by the same-sex couple willing to spend time and money on the benefits automatically available to heterosexual marrieds.

For more religious gay people, I guess it'd be about equality in the eyes of God, or whatever.

Perhaps you'd like to start a separate thread on this?
 
 
Aertho
21:52 / 06.09.05
Cause this aint Bush-bashin no more, why don't we build an all-purpose "Liberal Agenda" thread somewhere so we can educate these fools.

And get back to Bush-bashin.
 
 
Cherielabombe
21:53 / 06.09.05
Solitaire Rose, I tip my hat to you. You're a better man than I.

On principle I've got no problem with Libertarians, Conservatives, and many other isms. I myself am not a libertarian or a conservative, and I believe to some extent that is because I believe society has a responsibility to help those in need. OK, fair enough, not everyone agrees.

Still though, I am kind of surprised that you don't see that your version of Libertarianism is a rather narrow view of the world. Do you not see that a restriction on the rights of gays and women and people of color also affects people who are not those things? Do you not see that such laws shape everyone's attitudes? If it was legal to beat women caught going to school, would you allow that because 'it doesn't affect me?' And what do you propose to those who can't just 'move somewhere else' because of economic, legal and social factors?

I think we saw a glimpse of what this 'it's not my problem, it doesn't affect me' world you seem to want would be in reality last week in New Orleans. Is that the kind of world you truly want? I find that difficult to believe.
 
 
Ganesh
21:55 / 06.09.05
But hey, what am I complaining about? I'm not in a concentration camp - hooray! And, theoretically at least, I'm perfectly able to detach myself from family/friends/career to move to the Netherlands.

So... assuming these are the parameters of caring about the rights of other people (are they in a concentration camp? is it theoretically possible for them to move to another country?), why am I giving a shit about the New Orleans refugees? Stop whining, non-concentration campees!
 
 
Ganesh
21:59 / 06.09.05
I have never in my entire life witnessed any of the homosexual people I've known being discriminated against. MY ENTIRE LIFE. The closest I have come is when my friend Jeremy refers to his uncle as "Aunt Dan". Aside from what I perceived to be idle grumbling, I've never known any of them to seriously complain about the illegality of same sex marriage.

Bully for you and what you perceive, then. I guess if I reframed inequality as "idle grumbling", I'd stop encountering it too.

Alternatively, you ought to get out more.
 
 
Char Aina
22:02 / 06.09.05

I have never in my entire life witnessed any of the homosexual people I've known being discriminated against.


so it doesnt happen?
have you ever experienced racially motivated killing?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
22:04 / 06.09.05
I don't care about dead Iraqis; no, that's not true. But I do care about them less than I care about the Libertarian party eventually getting legitimate third-party rights

Says it all really. Welcome to Barbelith, I hope you're treated with all the courtesy and respect that you deserve.

Also: I have never seen any of the women I know give birth. Does this mean it does not happen?
 
 
w1rebaby
22:04 / 06.09.05
Be serious, Ganesh, you can't expect anyone to care about gayers when they're not gay. What a bizarre world that would be, where people gave a shit about other people's circumstances. Positively communist.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:07 / 06.09.05
Apparently there's a bunch of people somewhere who can make the case for libertarianism without sounding like the biggest bunch of selfish fucks there ever were. I've never seen it happen, though, so I'm inclined to treat it as a load of old pretending.
 
 
Ganesh
22:08 / 06.09.05
Not one of the Iraqi people I know is dead. How do we know dead Iraqis even exist? And should we care about them as much as we care about fnords?
 
 
ibis the being
22:08 / 06.09.05
To continue, let me ask another question: I am not gay, and I am not a pregnant woman. It is very unlikely I will ever get a woman pregnant with a baby I don't want, seeing as how I am both careful and willing to raise a kid (even by myself, if the mom doesn't want the poor bastard).

Why shouldn't I rank (video game) censorship, and censorship in general, as more important than abortion rights and gay rights? I don't give a flying fuck if two men or women can get married.


Oh my Gaaaaahhhhd!
*Falls dead.*
Wait - *rising from dead* - wait just a minute. Wouldn't the Libertarian position on gay marriage be 'it's not of the government's business what they do, let them marry' - ? And similarly, 'it's not the government's decision on whether a woman gets an abortion' - ?? Even if YOU don't care, who's to say the default position is NO on abortion and gay marriage? That has got to be the least thought out political position I have ever heard. And definitely NOT Libertarian as I understand the definition of Libertarianism. You, my friend, appear to be an unwitting Republican.

Libertarians generally believe that governments should be held to the same moral standards as individuals. Thus, they oppose most or all governmental initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority. Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others, then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they oppose criminalization of victimless acts (or as the ancient common law maxim says: Volenti non fit injuria --to the willing person, no legal wrong is done).
 
 
Cherielabombe
22:09 / 06.09.05

Do you feel marginalized, or somehow inferior, to the rest of the populace because you can't get married?


I think quite logically, if you couldn't marry someone that you wanted to marry because it was illegal, while the rest of the populace could marry who they wanted to marry, then yes, you would feel marginalized.
 
 
Char Aina
22:10 / 06.09.05
i'm not a catholic child, so i dont care about those priests fiddling the kids.

sorry, that wasnt very helpful, was it?
 
 
erisian
22:17 / 06.09.05
Last I checked, you were allowed to get a VISA even if you're NOT married, which ignores the fact that SSMs are legal in Massachussets. Maybe you're referring to some part of the process I don't know about where married couples can get VISAS together? As someone with no interest in marriage, again, I don't know or really care much about the procedure of a married couple getting a VISA. I really want to thank you, Stoatie, for reading my post just well enough to get everything you disagree with out of it and ignoring the part where I specifically said I was NOT reccomending that anyone who wants to get married to someone of the same sex should move. What I did write was something along the lines of: Why SHOULDN'T someone do that, instead of trying to get a bunch of people to think the same way they do?

Ganesh, it's true, there are legal aspects of marriage I had no idea about. It ties back in to me not caring much about marriage in general. But I still have the same basic question:

Considering that (the reality of our country being evidence) a majority (to even the slightest degree) of Americans believe (or at least don't disbelieve enough to vote differently) that marriage is a religious instutitution (or is, in some other way significant as a rite enacted by a culture or group that is inherently exclusionary) that would be damaged (to even the slightest degree) by altering it to allow homosexual people to engage in it (it being marriage), what makes them WRONG?

If there were a vote for a bill legalizing same sex marriages in my town county state or country I'd put my yae on it. If there were a Libertarian candidate for Presidency who wanted to legalize gay marriage, it'd make me want to vote for them slightly more. I am inclined to say that gay people being allowed to marry is not harmful or damaging or in any way bad. I am not phrasing it like this to marginalize the issue; I am trying to accurately describe how important the issue of homosexuals being able to marry is, to me.

What I am even MORE inclined to say is that the world is on the verge of rejecting the human race and we might all die soon. We have two political parties, one of which wants to censor video games, music, basically anything objectionable in the pursuit of political correctness and fariness to all so that we all have basically the same homogenized rights across the country, reaching out from a big smiling father 1/3rd of the way down our east coast; on the other side we have a party which thinks EXACTLY THE SAME THING but with a different set of rules for us; gays can't marry, guns are good, evolution is insane, etc.

The reason the world is going to shit is because we are all trying to get everyone to agree on the same thing instead of allowing that PEOPLE AREN'T ALL MEANT TO GET ALONG and it's better to let people bugger off with people they agree with than it is to try to get everyone to play by the same rules. Not everyone wants nor deserves nor NEEDS the same rights, save maybe the right to make their own choices and even that's debatable, probably.

I voted Libertarian; I've said this. I did it because I didn't see the overall Democratic, Republican, Green, Communist, or whatever else parties as being more in synch with my worldview than the Libertarian party. I think people should be allowed to make whatever laws they want for themselves, and it should only be limited by what they can agree on with their immediate neighbours. It is more important to me that the Libertarian party have the potential to prosper and hopefully change the world than that homosexuals be allowed to marry.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:23 / 06.09.05
Yeah, I was a little hasty... to me it read like you were saying "if you don't like it here then fuck off somewhere else" which was, I admit, an oversimplification.

I'm still seeing a lot of "I'm all right Jack"-ness to the whole position, though.
 
 
Cherielabombe
22:24 / 06.09.05
I think Stoatie meant Visa the document that allows foreign nationals to stay in a foreign country, not VISA the card that allows you to spend spend spend..
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
22:25 / 06.09.05
Just to make it clear, are you arguing that you prioritise the interests of the Libertarian Party over the basic tenents of libertarian philosophy (that the state has no business interfering in people's personal lives in the first place, and yes, stating who can and can't marry qualifies)?

If so, how are you different from the worst of the party hacks of the Republicrats?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:26 / 06.09.05
Yes... unless you happen to be Mandelson's boyfriend, marriage is kind of important for foreign homosexuals wishing to join their partners...
 
 
Char Aina
22:26 / 06.09.05
so...
you arent saying "if you dont like it then you can leave" but you are saying "you can leave if you dont like it"? i dont get the sutleties of your point, obviously.



also, people dont vote for the party that agrees with them.
they vote for the best fit party.
if you cant see that, you should have a better look at the number of parties available.
 
 
Aertho
22:29 / 06.09.05
The reason the world is going to shit is because we are all trying to get everyone to agree on the same thing instead of allowing that PEOPLE AREN'T ALL MEANT TO GET ALONG and it's better to let people bugger off with people they agree with than it is to try to get everyone to play by the same rules.

Does that mean you're a troll and part of the problem? Cause by your above logic, you should be gone already.
 
 
erisian
22:33 / 06.09.05
Toksik: in the last paragraph of what I wrote, I explicitly said that no party fit my worldview better than any other, so you saying I need to explore my options better doesn't make much sense. Also, I am not saying "you can leave if you don't like it." I am asking: If you have the option to live the way you want to live somewhere, why should the people of the place you are in HAVE to accomodate the way you want to live? This is pretty much the last time I am going to rephrase this question because something is obviously being lost in translation; perhaps I am not expressing myself adequately. Why should other people have to allow you to live the way you live when there are people already willing to let you somewhere else? Yes, leaving jobs and family is bad... wait, no it's not. Pretty much the whole world has the same culture no matter where you go and the only real barriers are language. What kind of job might you have that a person couldn't get in Canada or Holland or Massachussets? Who's to say your friends wouldn't go with you? PEOPLE DRIFT APART! The most common aspect to everything on earth is change. I am not saying anyone should HAVE to move to have what they want, but if you CAN have what you want by moving, why not?

Figroll: What I said was, if I had the option to vote for gay marriage being legalized and vote for the Libertarian party at the same time, I would. In fact, I am willing to bet cash that if Michael Badnarik were president right now, gay marriage would be much closer to being legal than it is right now. Would you agree? So, I did in fact vote in support for gay marriage. However, it was much less of an influence in why I voted for who I did than some other issues which you are telling me are less significant.

I disagree, but it doesn't mean I don't think homosexuals don't deserve the rights they want; I just think it's silly and wasteful and pointless to try to get them in manner A when they could get them easier in manner B.
 
 
Ganesh
22:34 / 06.09.05
Ganesh, it's true, there are legal aspects of marriage I had no idea about. It ties back in to me not caring much about marriage in general. But I still have the same basic question:

Considering that (the reality of our country being evidence) a majority (to even the slightest degree) of Americans believe (or at least don't disbelieve enough to vote differently) that marriage is a religious instutitution (or is, in some other way significant as a rite enacted by a culture or group that is inherently exclusionary) that would be damaged (to even the slightest degree) by altering it to allow homosexual people to engage in it (it being marriage), what makes them WRONG?


Ah, okay, we're talking Americans. I'm UK-based, and answered your "basic question" about what motivates same-sex couples to get married. Your "basic question" appears to have mutated into 'who's to say X-whatever Americans are wrong?' - which is rather a different question.

What ever makes a majority (of whatever percentage turns up to vote) wrong?

What I am even MORE inclined to say is that the world is on the verge of rejecting the human race and we might all die soon. We have two political parties, one of which wants to censor video games, music, basically anything objectionable in the pursuit of political correctness and fariness to all so that we all have basically the same homogenized rights across the country, reaching out from a big smiling father 1/3rd of the way down our east coast; on the other side we have a party which thinks EXACTLY THE SAME THING but with a different set of rules for us; gays can't marry, guns are good, evolution is insane, etc.

Ahhh, "political correctness", eh? Perhaps you'd like to search for one of the many threads devoted to this perplexing movement, and attempt to define it?

The reason the world is going to shit is because we are all trying to get everyone to agree on the same thing instead of allowing that PEOPLE AREN'T ALL MEANT TO GET ALONG and it's better to let people bugger off with people they agree with than it is to try to get everyone to play by the same rules. Not everyone wants nor deserves nor NEEDS the same rights, save maybe the right to make their own choices and even that's debatable, probably.

The problem would appear to arise when one set of people firmly believes their rights are being infringed by allowing another set of people access to the rights they enjoy? Doesn't that bother you in any sense?
 
 
w1rebaby
22:34 / 06.09.05
The Libertarian party is not going to change the world.

Trivially, the Libertarian Party is not going to win anything. I don't think that's in doubt. All it can offer to the existing political process is the chance of perhaps influencing some successful candidates on an ideological basis, with the hope that that ideology will not be beaten out of them by a party machine that is designed specifically to do that. You voting Libertarian will do nothing; you can tell that by the simple fact that they are happily participating in the system, and relentlessly backing up the positions held by their corporate friends.

Meanwhile, we're left in a situation where the President rates religious conformity over reality, where pharmacists are allowed to reject prescriptions because they're "against the Bible", where the continuing economic rape of another country will go ahead with the same beneficiaries.

Cheers for that.

I'm not even a US citizen. I've just developed this irrational interest in the political system there.
 
 
ibis the being
22:35 / 06.09.05
Dude, Erisian, I hate to tell but no matter how you voted, you're not a Libertarian. You're just selfish. And you're exactly the kind of person who gives the Libertarian party a bad name.

Please research "your" party. "Your" party is pro-gay marriage.

Finally, you may still have someone who agrees with you on all these issues regarding George W. Bush, but who still wants to vote Republican because of that party's opposition to gay marriage.

You may want to point out that this would give the government a back door to start regulating religious ceremonies and what those ceremonies mean. Remind them that those who like Bush's interpretation of marriage may not like the version that comes from the next Democrat elected.

The Constitution gives you the freedom of religion, the right to interpret Christianity -- or any other religion -- in your own way. If the Republicans succeed in getting some interpretation of marriage passed, then it will be politicians who define marriage -- and not you in your own home or church.


"Your party" favors abortion rights.

Conventional wisdom says Libertarian candidates -- with their focus on property rights, free markets and limited government -- appeal to conservative Republicans. But Libertarians' laissez-faire philosophy can extend to social issues such as abortion, marriage and drug policy, which means they can appeal just as strongly to liberal Democrats.

I'm not a Libertarian myself, but it wasn't hard to logically infer, and then to back up with factual information, the idea that Libertarianism is more than "I only care about that which directly affects me," and has more to do with "the government must not interfere with personal liberty." It's kinda right there in the name of the party.
 
 
Aertho
22:36 / 06.09.05
Eris, have you ever read the "Invisibles"?
 
 
Ganesh
22:37 / 06.09.05
I disagree, but it doesn't mean I don't think homosexuals don't deserve the rights they want; I just think it's silly and wasteful and pointless to try to get them in manner A when they could get them easier in manner B.

Manners A and B being...? A silly, wasteful, pointless homosexual wants to know.
 
 
Bed Head
22:42 / 06.09.05
Pretty much the whole world has the same culture no matter where you go and the only real barriers are language.

Bloody hell. Another gem. You’re unbelievable, man.
 
 
Scrubb is on a downward spiral
22:44 / 06.09.05
Pretty much the whole world has the same culture no matter where you go and the only real barriers are language.
Erisan, my little rosebud, out of idle interest - exactly how many different continents have you lived in in your life? How many diffent countries? States? Cities? Streets?

Exactly which "same culture" are you refering to? Democracy? The freedom to vote? McDonalds for all? Gaysexual marriage?

I'm really too tired to pull out the same level of criticism at your statements as other posters, but as someone who's lived in 3 different countries and 6 different cities in her lifetime I respectfully say - you have *no* fucking idea what you're talking about.
 
 
Char Aina
22:50 / 06.09.05
you saying I need to explore my options better doesn't make much sense.


...and that isnt what i said.


Also, I am not saying "you can leave if you don't like it." I am asking: If you have the option to live the way you want to live somewhere, why should the people of the place you are in HAVE to accomodate the way you want to live?


sorry, i was no doubt being lazy in my phrasing.
you are saying "if there is a highway, how can you complain about my way?" not "my way or the highway".
still sucks, dude.
its still pretty much the same thing, too.


Why should other people have to allow you to live the way you live when there are people already willing to let you somewhere else?
why should 'my way' change when there is a 'highway', you mean?

Yes, leaving jobs and family is bad... wait, no it's not.
in your humble opinion, surely?

Pretty much the whole world has the same culture no matter where you go and the only real barriers are language.
i dont agree, but you might want to examine your earlier point about moving to escape dicrimination being an option in light of your beliefs.



What kind of job might you have that a person couldn't get in Canada or Holland or Massachussets?


my dream to be a nessie hunter notwithstanding, i dont think that's really the issue.


I did in fact vote in support for gay marriage.


dude, that line of shit isnt going to work.
you have told us pretty clearly that you dont care about rights that dont directly affect you.
any support for gay marriage, etc is incidental.
 
 
Liger Null
22:56 / 06.09.05
For example, if Gore had been elected president with that jackass Leibermann as his vice, can you even fathom the amount of videogame censorship laws that'd probably be enacted at this point? Wasn't Gore's wife one of the people behind these stupid CD warning labels we have now? I am much more worried about censorship than I am about anti-abortion legislation or gay rights, being that I am a straight male.

Really? Who do you think is behind the Great FCC Crackdown? The Easter Bunny? The democrats would have just put labels on everything rather than fine it out of existence entirely...
 
 
erisian
23:00 / 06.09.05
Ganesh: I didn't call you silly, wasteful or pointless. I was referring to the manner in which homosexual rights is being pursued as those things. I think it is silly, wasteful, and pointless to try to convince people to think the way you do. The best you can hope for is to remove limits on people doing what they want and find people who think like you do.

Also: What ever makes a majority (of whatever percentage turns up to vote) wrong?

Nothing, thanks for asking me, that's what I am trying to say. Everyone IS allowed to have whatever view they want, no matter how stupid-ass you think it is. Why? Because there is room in the world for people who think different things to live apart from each other and marry and abort whoever and whatever they want.

Perhaps you'd like to search for one of the many threads devoted to this perplexing movement, and attempt to define it?

Do I need to define it to convince you that any definition of it must, at it's root, include that it is an attempt to get all people to play by the same rules in order to be accurate?

The problem would appear to arise when one set of people firmly believes their rights are being infringed by allowing another set of people access to the rights they enjoy? Doesn't that bother you in any sense?

Yes, but I think that in virtually every case (the exceptions being where your ability to live is threatened) you are better off just going away from those people who want to infringe on your rights. There's room!

The Libertarian party is not going to change the world.

%Not with that attitude, mister.% It's entirely possible, but I hope they will. Are you saying I shouldn't act on what I want? I vote Libertarian because I have a vote to use and the Libertarians are the ones I agree with.

Dude, Erisian, I hate to tell but no matter how you voted, you're not a Libertarian. You're just selfish. And you're exactly the kind of person who gives the Libertarian party a bad name.

Again, I don't see what makes me selfish. I think what I think, and that is that people should band together with people who think similarly to them and avoid people who disagree. At it's base, I believe that everyone has the right to think what they want. In what way is that selfish? The fact that I don't agree that Bush must be put out of office at all cost, is that what makes me selfish? The fact that I have different priorities than you does not make me selfish. The fact that I think it's more important that people be allowed to do whatever they want on TV or in video games or music or books than it is that gays be allowed to marry does not make me selfish. The fact that I don't care as much about dead Iraqis as you do doesn't make me selfish, that's what happens when you live in one of the most contested regions of the world. Also, people in Louisiana: STOP LIVING IN A SWAMP IN HURRICANE ALLEY AND HURRICANES WILL STOP DESTROYING YOUR HOUSES! I have sympathy for anyone who has ever had something bad happen to them, but in almost every case that person played SOME PART in what happened to them.

Every person has the capacitiy to uproot themselves and go somewhere else. Yes, it's hard. So what? Life is hard. People were migratory once; I'm not saying it's the right way to live, but if you don't like what things are like where you are, there are better ways to fix that than telling people to think like you do.

Anyhow, I am going to close my browser and think about this for a while and who knows, maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow, but I doubt it. If I have anything to say tomorrow, I'll say it then.
 
 
erisian
23:11 / 06.09.05
Erisan, my little rosebud, out of idle interest - exactly how many different continents have you lived in in your life? How many diffent countries? States? Cities? Streets?

Exactly which "same culture" are you refering to? Democracy? The freedom to vote? McDonalds for all? Gaysexual marriage?


Oops, I apologize, I do have ONE more thing to say; this post went up while I was typing.

I am referring to the culture where you get a job and a paycheck. I am referring to the culture where you can build a McDonald's and have people recognize the arches. I am referring to the culture where food is kept under lock and key and you have to dance to get it. I am not a fanatical Ishmael spouter or anything, but I do think that Daniel Quinn has a pretty good grasp of defining our culture.

Anywhere where you have to buy food instead of being able to just take it from where it lies, whether in convenient fruit or more challenging animal form.

I have lived in 2 countries, 1 province and five states, all on one continent. Surely, experienced world traveller, you can answer me this: have you ever lived anywhere where you didn't have to work for a living?

Anyone who thinks government is a good thing is supporting the idea that we should have to work to get what we want. The reason a government exists is to decide what standards we all agree to live by in order to do our hours in exchange for food. Government rose up as the people who control who gets what food, and I say fuck that. That is, at it's root, the basis of everything I am saying in my support of the libertarian party and my total lack of interest in getting gay marriage legalized in America: who cares? Whether you can marry your same sex lover or not, you still have to spend 8 hours a day doing something most likely unpleasant simply in order to get the nourishment you need to live unless you are willing to go homeless and scavenge or can come up with something else.

There, now I truly AM done. I am drained. If I said things that sounded angry of inflammatory, it's because I am kind of a jackass, but I believe at this point I have clarified everything I've written to a degree that I can say I mean everything I have said.
 
 
Ganesh
23:30 / 06.09.05
Ganesh: I didn't call you silly, wasteful or pointless. I was referring to the manner in which homosexual rights is being pursued as those things. I think it is silly, wasteful, and pointless to try to convince people to think the way you do. The best you can hope for is to remove limits on people doing what they want and find people who think like you do.

Not knowing what Manner A and Manner B actually were, it was difficult to know if you were calling me silly, wasteful and pointless, or merely denigrating what I do (ie. stay in the country and lobby for equal rights). I'm still unsure, because I don't seem to fit within your dichotomy: I'm not attempting to convince people to think the same thoughts as me; I'm attempting to convince them to allow me the same rights as them to think what I want to think and, crucially, do what they do, ie. make a legally binding commitment to my partner of many years, and be extended the array of consequent benefits they take for granted. I don't necessarily have to find people who think like I do; I merely have to find people willing to extend me equal rights.

And, as a UK gayer, that appears to have happened. Silly, wasteful and pointless as it may seem to you, we BritHomos have apparently convinced sufficient numbers of people we're worthy of equal marriage rights to be granted equal marriage rights under the law, this coming December. Imagine that! By your account, it would've been more sensible, efficient and purposeful for us to have fucked off en masse to Amsterdam and founded Gaytopia. I'm not sure I agree.
 
 
Ganesh
23:34 / 06.09.05
So, in essence, the fact that one is, generally speaking, obliged to work for a living (inherited wealth, welfare, etc. aside) = all cultures being the same, other than linguistically, and also = who cares about gay rights?

Not following the logic.
 
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
  
Add Your Reply