Man shoots himself in Notre Dame Cathedral over Gay Marriage Law

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Omega Vision
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22614994





I suppose it could have been worse--he could have used the gun to kill a homosexual before committing suicide. As much as I don't want to care about people like him, it's hard not to feel bad for a person who's so trapped by their own hatred that they'd rather die than live in a world where their prejudices are no longer law.

Tzeentch._
It's not hard for me at all. stick out tongue

One less whacko. Glad he offed himself before he became crazy enough to harm others.

siriuswriter
Well, that's one really disturbing way to make your point.

Lestov16
Maybe it's because my brother is gay, but even I, who empathized with the Boston Bombers, really feel nothing for this jackass. Good riddance. It was close to his death day anyways.

Symmetric Chaos
Now we can start a gun control debate!

Omega Vision
The NRA should send redblooded, gun-toting American citizens to guard every church and cathedral in France.

Ascendancy
Originally posted by Lestov16
Maybe it's because my brother is gay, but even I, who empathized with the Boston Bombers, really feel nothing for this jackass. Good riddance. It was close to his death day anyways.

In what way did you empathize with them? They attacked the country that gave them asylum.

I'm sure this will mess with some people's heads, but at least this guy kept it to only taking himself out of this world instead of directing his anger to others.

Bardock42
Well, it's better than shooting others. But he's still traumatizing bystanders by doing this.

Robtard
Now if only more of the clownshoe "it's going to ruin the sanctity of marriage" haters would follow his lead.

Anyhow, societies in 50 years or so are going to look back and think 'we' were a bunch of stupid assclowns for having "gay marriage" issues, just like we do now when we look back at pre anti-miscegenation laws.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's better than shooting others. But he's still traumatizing bystanders by doing this.

Missed that the first time I read it. Apparently this was one of the busiest times for the building. What an *******.

ArtificialGlory
Lived like a moron, thought like a moron, died like a moron. Godspeed.

Omega Vision
The fact that a country such as Argentina is ahead of America in terms of LGBT rights is offputting, to say the least.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The fact that a country such as Argentina is ahead of America in terms of LGBT rights is offputting, to say the least.

It's France.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It's France.
I was responding to Robtard, but Argentina also passed their laws before France did, and with less opposition (IIRC) despite being an even more thoroughly Catholic nation than France.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I was responding to Robtard, but Argentina also passed their laws before France did, and with less opposition (IIRC) despite being an even more thoroughly Catholic nation than France.

Ahh, I must have missed that. Anyway, another very Catholic country, Spain, passed those kind of laws quite some time ago.

Bardock42
I have to say, the extreme and violent reaction to this in France surprised me a lot. I did think European countries were more progressive on this issue (or most issues). Now I feel like I may just be living in a bubble.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Bardock42
I have to say, the extreme and violent reaction to this in France surprised me a lot. I did think European countries were more progressive on this issue (or most issues). Now I feel like I may just be living in a bubble.

Well, that really depends on which European country we're talking about.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The fact that a country such as Argentina is ahead of America in terms of LGBT rights is offputting, to say the least.

The Conservative Prime Minister of Canada has won awards for his efforts on gay marriage. For instance, pushing for recognition of gay people married in Canada if they went abroad or moved.

... you know.... just sayin is all

Bardock42
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Well, that really depends on which European country we're talking about.

Elaborate with lists and figures

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Bardock42
Elaborate with lists and figures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Europe

Bardock42
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Europe

Well, that's the thing though. While France now has legal same-sex marriage, there has been immense public outrage against it.

So that chart doesn't really tell us that much.

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's the thing though. While France now has legal same-sex marriage, there has been immense public outrage against it.

So that chart doesn't really tell us that much.

Has there been an immense public outrage, though? Some sad old fart blowing his brains out does not constitute an immense public outrage. I could be wrong, of course, as I have not been following the whole thing.

Oliver North
there have been huge protests, if I'm not mistaken

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Oliver North
there have been huge protests, if I'm not mistaken

I see. Regardless, public opinion on gay issues varies considerably across Europe.

Oliver North
it varies considerably within nations

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Oliver North
it varies considerably within nations

Hell, it varies considerably within families.

Omega Vision
So, Marie Le Pen is praising the man and calling the suicide a "wakeup call"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22620143

Robtard
If there's one thing we've learned, someone who makes it their mission to vehemently hate on gays, is probably a closet sausage-jockey themselves.

Also, being French doesn't help there either.

Lestov16
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, Marie Le Pen is praising the man and calling the suicide a "wakeup call"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22620143

Now if only the WBC follows by example smile

dadudemon
I had a thought: what if the "rapture" really did happen and it happened because all the "righteous" people blew their brains out like this old man?


313



Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Hell, it varies considerably within families.

Mmhmm.

I think marriage and marriage rights should be abolished. **** everyone including the LGBT community (you can take that literally, too, if you're a pansexual).

I think things like marriage should be purely private (no government or rights involved). The solution to the legal issues would be resolved with a social contract between the individuals. "But dats marriage with a different name!" Not really. You could extend that social contract to tons of more stuff like legal guardian of a minor (similar to all marriage rights...with obvious differences). Friends could draw one up, etc. It could be part of the standard life process. Hey...I know! Call it a Will and Power of Executorship! smile

Just talked to my wife about it, today. She said she didn't care who got married as long as they are adults.

So even married couples can differ in their opinion on the topic.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by dadudemon
I had a thought: what if the "rapture" really did happen and it happened because all the "righteous" people blew their brains out like this old man?



fine by me.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by dadudemon






Mmhmm.

I think marriage and marriage rights should be abolished. **** everyone including the LGBT community (you can take that literally, too, if you're a pansexual).

I think things like marriage should be purely private (no government or rights involved). The solution to the legal issues would be resolved with a social contract between the individuals. "But dats marriage with a different name!" Not really. You could extend that social contract to tons of more stuff like legal guardian of a minor (similar to all marriage rights...with obvious differences). Friends could draw one up, etc. It could be part of the standard life process. Hey...I know! Call it a Will and Power of Executorship! smile






Agree with this point of view totally. There should be no such thing as a marriage license, for ANYONE.

On a side note there was a recent protest in left wing France involving 250,000 people against their new gay marriage law.

Robtard
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Agree with this point of view totally. There should be no such thing as a marriage license, for ANYONE.


Why should people have to let go of something because you personally don't like it?

Your stance is little different than the 'marriage only for some' haters.

Oliver North
To be fair, the state offering special rights to people who live together or buy property/cars/other major purchases together sort of makes sense.

Like, what would happen with insurance, visitation rights or inheritance in a system where marriage is outright abolished for everyone? The institution of marriage is as much secular as it is religious.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
To be fair, the state offering special rights to people who live together or buy property/cars/other major purchases together sort of makes sense.

Like, what would happen with insurance, visitation rights or inheritance in a system where marriage is outright abolished for everyone? The institution of marriage is as much secular as it is religious.

I discussed that very question, already:

Originally posted by dadudemon
The solution to the legal issues would be resolved with a social contract between the individuals.

Oliver North
so we rename "marriage" and get rid of restrictions...

it seems identical to what homosexuals are pushing for, with the exception of allowing for contracts between more than 2 people.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
so we rename "marriage" and get rid of restrictions...


Originally posted by dadudemon
"But dats marriage with a different name!" Not really. You could extend that social contract to tons of more stuff like legal guardian of a minor (similar to all marriage rights...with obvious differences). Friends could draw one up, etc. It could be part of the standard life process. Hey...I know! Call it a Will and Power of Executorship! smile

Originally posted by Oliver North
it seems identical to what homosexuals are pushing for, with the exception of allowing for contracts between more than 2 people.

That's definitely false. Gay-marriage rights activists are pushing for gay-marriage rights. I'm proposing the exact opposite: the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage.

Oliver North
I fail to see the real difference, other than semantics

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's definitely false. Gay-marriage rights activists are pushing for gay-marriage rights. I'm proposing the exact opposite: the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage. Unless I misunderstood your meaning, are the rights they're pushing for any different than the marriage rights that exist barring the same-sex issue?

IIRC, they're not asking for any special tax breaks, custody issues, insurance coverage etc. beyond what is already covered in a hetero marriage.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
I fail to see the real difference, other than semantics

Marriage becomes a non-legal, unrecognized institution and social contracts would replace the legal aspects of marriage (and this would also allow for more granular control of what really happens in those agreements rather than just a blanket of "marriage" rights that we have, now).

"Real" marriage would be reserved for whatever you wanted but has no meaning other than sentimentality (religious, celebratory, whatever).

Disassociating "marriage" from the legal aspects of the social contracts solves all the problems people have with "gay marriage" while solving all the legal problems the gays have about marriage. Those are hardly "semantic" issues because we have protests for and against gay marriage and my solution solves many of those parties' problems.

While you may consider those issues sementical, those directly involved in the issues do not.


Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, they're not asking for any special tax breaks, custody issues, insurance coverage etc. beyond what is already covered in a hetero marriage.

I want to get rid of "Marriage" as a legal contract and have a "new way" which would allow for you to pretty much itemize your agreement and then also extend that to friends, godparents, etc. No reason the married straight people should be able to hog all of those rights.

Then I slyly indicated that that shit already exists and this marriage argument is pretty shit. Just get rid of it and use the other systems already in place.

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
Marriage becomes a non-legal, unrecognized institution and social contracts would replace the legal aspects of marriage (and this would also allow for more granular control of what really happens in those agreements rather than just a blanket of "marriage" rights that we have, now).

"Real" marriage would be reserved for whatever you wanted but has no meaning other than sentimentality (religious, celebratory, whatever).

Disassociating "marriage" from the legal aspects of the social contracts solves all the problems people have with "gay marriage" while solving all the legal problems the gays have about marriage. Those are hardly "semantic" issues because we have protests for and against gay marriage and my solution solves many of those parties' problems.

While you may consider those issues sementical, those directly involved in the issues do not.




I want to get rid of "Marriage" as a legal contract and have a "new way" which would allow for you to pretty much itemize your agreement and then also extend that to friends, godparents, etc. No reason the married straight people should be able to hog all of those rights.

Then I slyly indicated that that shit already exists and this marriage argument is pretty shit. Just get rid of it and use the other systems already in place. What rights from marriage are you talking about being given friends and such?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
What rights from marriage are you talking about being given friends and such?

1138 of them as defined by DOMA.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
1138 of them as defined by DOMA.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf That pdf only stats what DOMA is not what rights it grants people under marriage?

And in particular are there any right you feel more strongly about then others?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
That pdf only stats what DOMA is not what rights it grants people under marriage?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Defense+Against+Marriage+Act mad mad mad

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Originally posted by Newjak
And in particular are there any right you feel more strongly about then others?

I don't want to get into that. I'm sure you could look over the list and determine which ones you liked more than others.

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Defense+Against+Marriage+Act mad mad mad

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples



I don't want to get into that. I'm sure you could look over the list and determine which ones you liked more than others. How does some of that work with friends?

If you have a friend in another country are you saying you should be able to enter a social contract with that friend and they should get a green card because of that?

Edit: I wanted to clarify what I mean. Some of these rights were made with the thought of marriage in mind and not all of them seem suited for everyone in a social contract situation and creates the potential for widespread abuse.

Of course I generally believe most of it is crap anyways. I don't care who gets married to whom as long as they are consenting adults.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
How does some of that work with friends?

If you have a friend in another country are you saying you should be able to enter a social contract with that friend and they should get a green card because of that?

Why not? Security reasons? Is not the same problem there with marriage laws as they are, now?

What about scrapping those aspects of marriage rights?

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why not? Security reasons? Is not the same problem there with marriage laws as they are, now?

What about scrapping those aspects of marriage rights? Except people have to be at least married for 7 years or the spouse gets deported. How is that going to work with a friend?

Mind you I think immigration laws should be lax than what they are I'm just saying.

The same goes for spouses collecting benefits. If you have a friend collecting benefits from you when does it end how does it end?

Like I said some of these rights come with marriage explicitly in mind.

Of course personally I feel most benefits people get from marriage should be erased anyways but that's just me.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
Except people have to be at least married for 7 years or the spouse gets deported. How is that going to work with a friend?

Like this: "...people have maintain that social contract for at least 7 years or they get deported."

Originally posted by Newjak
The same goes for spouses collecting benefits. If you have a friend collecting benefits from you when does it end how does it end?

When do benefits end for a spouse collecting benefits?

Originally posted by Newjak
Like I said some of these rights come with marriage explicitly in mind.

Does that automatically exclude the social contracts I am describing, though?

Originally posted by Newjak
Of course personally I feel most benefits people get from marriage should be erased anyways but that's just me.

As do I? smile thumb up

Darth Jello
I didn't think the old Antifa meme would work...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm6itxtHy11qkhjido1_400.jpg


Yes, this is definitely the kind of demonstration by bigots I can get behind.

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
Like this: "...people have maintain that social contract for at least 7 years or they get deported."



When do benefits end for a spouse collecting benefits?



Does that automatically exclude the social contracts I am describing, though?



As do I? smile thumb up And what does that social contract mean? That you must remain friends with them for 7 years?

So you would have to legally become friends with someone to maintain that social contract?

I'm not quite sure when spousal benefits end but typically I think it's with marriage. So once again does that mean when you and your friend stop being friends is that when it ends? How do you legally determine that, how do you determine how to divide the benefits after friendship has ended?


So yes I do think these types of things exclude the types of social contracts you are talking about. They were made with marriage in mind to give benefits to married people. Not all types of relationships have the same needs built into them. So some of the benefits don't work imo with the types of social contracts you are describing.

And some of the benefits only work because marriage itself is a currently legalized institution. You would have to legalize all forms of social relationships to make your social contracts work and to me that makes things worse instead of better.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
And what does that social contract mean? That you must remain friends with them for 7 years?

So you would have to legally become friends with someone to maintain that social contract?

Why does "friends" have to be anywhere in that legal paperwork? Why does the notion that the "friendship", which would be independent of the contract for the most part, have to be forced to be maintained for the 7 years? Why could they just not forget about it and everything takes its natural course?

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not quite sure when spousal benefits end but typically I think it's with marriage. So once again does that mean when you and your friend stop being friends is that when it ends?

What did you stipulate in the legal binding agreement? Is not that question left unanswered in your scenario? Does that not make your question impossible to answer as it is currently posed?

Originally posted by Newjak
How do you legally determine that, how do you determine how to divide the benefits after friendship has ended?

How is a marriage legally determined to end and the benefits divided after the marriage has ended?


Originally posted by Newjak
So yes I do think these types of things exclude the types of social contracts you are talking about.

The opposite is true. They exist already.

Originally posted by Newjak
They were made with marriage in mind to give benefits to married people. Not all types of relationships have the same needs built into them. So some of the benefits don't work imo with the types of social contracts you are describing.

So it would appear you did not see the portion in my posts that discussed just that notion: not all social contracts would have the same exact legal provisions just the same as not all marriages have the same exact legal provisions and those provisions even vary from state to state.

Originally posted by Newjak
And some of the benefits only work because marriage itself is a currently legalized institution.

This is never a good argument to make. "We cannot make a change to law X because, currently, law y works this way."

Originally posted by Newjak
You would have to legalize all forms of social relationships to make your social contracts work and to me that makes things worse instead of better.

There's your problem: provisions like I'm describing already exist and in a myriad of forms. smile

You do know that I am not proposing new laws be made but, rather, the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage and forcing people to make agreements within the current confines of government, right (with the exception of anything having to do with foreigners/aliens which includes business accommodations, as well)?

Now that you know that, you opinion changes drastically, no?

Newjak
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why does "friends" have to be anywhere in that legal paperwork? Why does the notion that the "friendship", which would be independent of the contract for the most part, have to be forced to be maintained for the 7 years? Why could they just not forget about it and everything takes its natural course?



What did you stipulate in the legal binding agreement? Is not that question left unanswered in your scenario? Does that not make your question impossible to answer as it is currently posed?



How is a marriage legally determined to end and the benefits divided after the marriage has ended?




The opposite is true. They exist already.



So it would appear you did not see the portion in my posts that discussed just that notion: not all social contracts would have the same exact legal provisions just the same as not all marriages have the same exact legal provisions and those provisions even vary from state to state.



This is never a good argument to make. "We cannot make a change to law X because, currently, law y works this way."



There's your problem: provisions like I'm describing already exist and in a myriad of forms. smile

You do know that I am not proposing new laws be made but, rather, the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage and forcing people to make agreements within the current confines of government, right (with the exception of anything having to do with foreigners/aliens which includes business accommodations, as well)?

Now that you know that, you opinion changes drastically, no? So I'm trying to sum this up without getting caught up on minor points.

I'm not trying to say we can not change law X because law Y exists. You are right that is a stupid argument. What I'm saying is law X is dependent on Law Y and there are reasons for that.

Without getting stuck up on the word marriage let's look at why marriage rights work. They work because marriage itself is a legalized institution.

It has defined parameters that both state when it begins and can be terminated which is why law x works with them. That in mind there are certain rights like spousal benefits, access to health care, rights to half of the married couple's assets that are designed with the marriage in mind.

Now what you're proposing is to abolish the legalized institution of marriage and have everyone just have access to all the rights of marriage through social contracts.

So in theory friends will be able to enter into a social contract and all of a sudden a friend can in theory have access to half the assets of one of their friends if said friend is willing to enter into that social contract for that particular right.

Will the legal start and termination of said contract be considered on a contract by contract situation? That presents it's own problems. Mostly because there is the chance for a lot of self defined social institutions to be horribly written and allow for abuse. Do you take the time to legally define all types of social contracts that are allowable? Once again has it's own problems.

Of course most social change is pretty much judgement calls. Most marriage rights to me stems from the fact that there is a lot of interdependence among the couples that can leave one person incredibly screwed over and this goes for all marriage including gay marriage.

So to me in most other situations that interdependence doesn't exist naturally it almost has to be forced into other social institutions for those rights to work. So it doesn't make sense to me to give those rights to all long term social interactions.

So your idea can work but not all rights from marriage are as easily transferable and each solution to change that comes with it's own problem and hassles. So it comes down to the idea do I believe these solutions solve more problems than they create? No I don't

Does it solve the main problem being addressed of equality among gays? I don't think it does it well.

I think if we want to do this you either straight up allow gays to get legally married


or you completely destroy legalized marriage and get rid of all the extra rights given by marriage and allow the legal system to handle the legal mess of divorce and splitting up assets on a case by case scenario. An I'm wondering is the that basically what you are trying to say?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not trying to say we can not change law X because law Y exists. You are right that is a stupid argument. What I'm saying is law X is dependent on Law Y and there are reasons for that.

They are not dependent upon each other as I have illustrated.

Originally posted by Newjak
Without getting stuck up on the word marriage let's look at why marriage rights work. They work because marriage itself is a legalized institution.

"This is correct because it is correct." That's not a good argument.

Originally posted by Newjak
It has defined parameters that both state when it begins and can be terminated which is why law x works with them. That in mind there are certain rights like spousal benefits, access to health care, rights to half of the married couple's assets that are designed with the marriage in mind.

You're definitely getting hung up on "marriage" because marriage is not necessary for any of that.

Originally posted by Newjak
Now what you're proposing is to abolish the legalized institution of marriage and have everyone just have access to all the rights of marriage through social contracts.

Which already exists which people already do. No problem, there. smile

Originally posted by Newjak
So in theory friends will be able to enter into a social contract and all of a sudden a friend can in theory have access to half the assets of one of their friends if said friend is willing to enter into that social contract for that particular right.

1. Which already exists which people already do. No problem, there.
2. If that's what they want to do, they can do it. There are many other possibilities, too. smile

Originally posted by Newjak
Will the legal start and termination of said contract be considered on a contract by contract situation? That presents it's own problems. Mostly because there is the chance for a lot of self defined social institutions to be horribly written and allow for abuse. Do you take the time to legally define all types of social contracts that are allowable? Once again has it's own problems.

Yeah, because marriage litigation is a smooth, easy, process, right?

Basically, you're arguing that these contract break-ups would be messy and arduous.

Now let's re-write that previous sentence:

"Basically, you're arguing that these marriage break-ups would be messy and arduous."


http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A2270/2270082/300_2270082.png


Originally posted by Newjak
Of course most social change is pretty much judgement calls. Most marriage rights to me stems from the fact that there is a lot of interdependence among the couples that can leave one person incredibly screwed over and this goes for all marriage including gay marriage.

So to me in most other situations that interdependence doesn't exist naturally it almost has to be forced into other social institutions for those rights to work. So it doesn't make sense to me to give those rights to all long term social interactions.

You're correct: not every social situation, ever, will require the entirety of all contemporary marriage rights. That's why I said this:

"...not all social contracts would have the same exact legal provisions just the same as not all marriages have the same exact legal provisions and those provisions even vary from state to state."

Basically, your argument against my position is a strawman: at no point have I ever argued that every single social contract, ever, will get the same 1138 marriage right provisions. Not even current marriages get all 1138 provisions.

Originally posted by Newjak
So your idea can work but not all rights from marriage are as easily transferable and each solution to change that comes with it's own problem and hassles.

You're wrong: I checked. There is nothing in there about sexual rights to each other. So, yes, all the rights could transfer over in one form or another in a social contract and the content of those rights would depend upon the contract.

Originally posted by Newjak
or you completely destroy legalized marriage and get rid of all the extra rights given by marriage and allow the legal system to handle the legal mess of divorce and splitting up assets on a case by case scenario. An I'm wondering is the that basically what you are trying to say?

I'll say it again: there is nothing special about marriage as all those rights can be drawn up (besides all those related to aliens), now, in a social contract and they already ARE drawn up in legal agreements.

You want this "idea" to no work but too bad: it already exists and people already make these agreements. Marriage is literally archaic and outdated: it is unnecessary to the gay-marriage debate. The problem is marriage itself being recognized as a legal institution.

Ascendancy
Seems like that would be way too easy to abuse. "We're socially bound, so give us shared benefits." I think a lot of companies would have to change their health/benefits coverage if this were to become the norm.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Seems like that would be way too easy to abuse. "We're socially bound, so give us shared benefits." I think a lot of companies would have to change their health/benefits coverage if this were to become the norm.

They'd have to have their own specific requirements on what type of contract could be drawn up: their employee would have to meet a certain level for it to "count." On the positive side, you could get non-family members covered that might be living with you. Currently, it is kind of difficult to get that. Mother-in-law come to live with you? Too bad: not covered...unless you divorce your wife and marry your mother-in-law. no expression

rudester
I can go to france and get married... Yahoo. Lol

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.