REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

First California gay couples wed

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6107
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 2:17 AM

PONYXPRESSINC


Thanks for the Amen Rue.,

Back to the debate at hand...

I went straight to bed after making my post with something niggling at the back of my mind. A little research this morning confirmed the niggle.

Being faintly offended by the suggestion that my my marriage wasn’t one because it was a civil ceremony my mind was on that rather than the specific ins and outs of same sex unions.

Much as it irritates me to add grist to Wulfenstars mill, (though it’s UK grist rather than US grist, so maybe it doesn’t count in this argument) a civil partnership (which is all that is available to same sex couples in the UK) is not considered to be a marriage.

From the Citizens Advice Bureau Website (A free form of legal advice available to all in the UK)

Quote:

"Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example,
• a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words.
• Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure."



It seems that despite my union with my husband being completely godless I am married, yet two people of the same sex are not regardless of having the same rights and obligations from the union.

Simply because I got to say my vows.

I think this is completely bonkers. If I'm married then as far as I am concerned they are.

Wulfenstar might argue that I’m not married because of the lack of religion in my ceremony, however the Church of England would not agree. They recognise civil marriage ceremonies. If I was to divorce and wanted to remarry in church (perish the thought) the Church of England reserves the right to refuse my request as have already been married. It seems I am a little bit godly and righteous even though I didn’t want to be. If it wasn’t for my personal commitment to my marriage and the fact that the idea gives me the heebie jeebies I’d make a lifestyle choice and go shag the first girl who’d have me just out of sheer contrariness (to be clear I don’t give a hoot who anyone else wants to bed as long as they are consenting adults, I just… no, not for me).

If the church wants to reserve the word Marraige for religious unions only then fine, once they have convinced everyone to go along with this I want another word to define my legal and personally binding relationship with my husband.

I did a little reading about the situation in California and as I understand it this right to a same sex marriage may be repealed. I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.

Care to guess which side I'm rooting for?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:46 AM

STORYMARK


So, what's the count on the number of times that Wulfenstar has been asked to back up the "marriage is soley a religious institution" point, and refused to provide anyting but a "because I said so"?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:30 AM

PONYXPRESSINC


Also, to contradict the suggestion that a marraige ceremony is purely a religious thing...

Quote:

MARRIAGE

To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

These marriage vows have been recited at church weddings since 1552, whenever two individuals have willingly pledged to enter into a relationship for life. But before the wedding service was written into the Book of Common Prayer, marriages were much more informal: couples could simply promise themselves to one another at any time or place and the spoken word was as good as the written contract.



No religion involved, a civil matter.

Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20020321.shtml

Wiki says the same thing but I thought everyone might be more inclined to believe the BBC.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:55 AM

DIGIFICWRITER


Okay, joining the discussion:

To start, let me make it clear. I'm a Christian (I won't say which denomination because I don't want to spark a 'you're not Christian' argument, since there are some people out there who believe that the members of the faith to which I belong AREN'T Christians despite the fact that we believe in Christ), and, although I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and that God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman, I also believe that it is not my place to judge a person's choices. Every person who has ever lived on this planet has been given the gift of freedom of choice, and that includes the people on the California Supreme Court. Although my religious beliefs may tell me that the choice those judges have made is wrong morally, they nevertheless have the right to make the choice and judgment they have, as do the people who are taking advantage of the benefits given to them by that decision.

At any rate, for me this issue isn't about whether or not the word 'marriage' is attached to what's happening in California and has already happened in the home state of the new NBA champions (I'm not gonna even attempt to spell it, and can't look it up right now); it's about equality. I think it's a positive thing that at least some people are recognizing that we need to have equal treatment for everyone, even if they are engaging in conduct which could be considered immoral (which is all that can be said about the practice of homosexuality). Since the term 'marriage' has become irreversably connected with certain legal and social rights, that is the term that the Supreme Court in California is using to ensure that a certain portion of the population of this planet receive said rights.

Check out the continuing adventures of the Big Damn Heroes of Joss Whedon's Firefly in [url= http://www.stillflying.net]Virtual Firefly: Here's How It Might Have Been[/url]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:42 AM

WHODIED



On the other hand, maybe we should just coddle the zealots for another generation or two.

It's no different, really, than waiting for bigots to die off.

--WhoDied


_______________________


Okay. Blah, blah, blah, misogynistic. Blah, blah, 'I do however entrust you ... um, with my heart. Take care of my heart, won't you please? Take care of it because, it's all that I have. And, if you let me, I'll take care of your heart too.'



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:59 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:14 AM

WHODIED


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.



Ha Ha! Funniest thing all day! Nice marriage of the unrelated and off topic...

--WhoDied


_______________________

The walls separating realities will crumble. Dimensions will bleed into each other. Order will be overthrown and the universe will tumble into chaos ... all dark ... forever.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:21 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.

Oh sweet irony.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:39 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.



Uh... you realize you are the one saying what some people should and should not be able to do. We're all saying equal rights for everyone, you are the one being exclusionary based on what YOU want.

So, take your own advice, and grow up.


(Appologies to Citizen - but I think your irony comment might have flown right over, under the circumstances.)

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:51 AM

PONYXPRESSINC


DigificWriter wrote:

Quote:

I also believe that it is not my place to judge a person's choices.


And I have to respect you for that even if I don't agree with your religious standpoint on homosexuality. I agree that personal ethics should be between the individual and God or in my case my own conscience as long as they do not negatively effect anyone else.

Someone at this point is bound to argue that same sex marriage negatively affects others but I don't see how.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:52 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


No, and I will explain what I meant...so that even the slowest here can understand.

So called liberals do not mind taking away the rights of people, on issues they disagree with. These include (but are not limited to) guns and smoking. As in gun and smoking bans.

I live in D.C. and get to listen about how "great" those bans are from the mouth-breathers here.

I AGAIN do not have issue with gays being together. I just don't believe it should be called "marriage"...but rather a "civil union".

Jeebus....

You don't mind curbing some rights, and boosting others...but God help anyone who either disagrees with what you are doing, or says let everyone have true liberty.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:07 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, and I will explain what I meant...so that even the slowest here can understand.

So called liberals do not mind taking away the rights of people, on issues they disagree with. These include (but are not limited to) guns and smoking. As in gun and smoking bans.

I live in D.C. and get to listen about how "great" those bans are from the mouth-breathers here.

I AGAIN do not have issue with gays being together. I just don't believe it should be called "marriage"...but rather a "civil union".

Jeebus....

You don't mind curbing some rights, and boosting others...but God help anyone who either disagrees with what you are doing, or says let everyone have true liberty.



Yeah... we got what you meant. You just don't seem to get it yourself.

One - You are generalizing far too much. Not all Liberals support limiting rights. I do not, nor do many others in this discussion, so your generalization undermines your point.

Two - Those other topics are not the issue at hand. We are discussing Gay Marriage (not guns or cigarettes, M'kay?). In which case, we're all saying equal rights - you are the one wanting rights limited for a small segment of the population - because of your personal views on their lifestyle.

Limiting them to "civil unions" and restricting them from "marriage" is still infringing on their rights. You are the one arguing against "true liberty".

You can't be the only one in a thread in favor of limiting rights - and then say we're the ones trying to take away their liberties.

Do you seriously not get the irony of standing up, and insulting others here, claiming that they are not supporting liberty - when you are the one going "Just not for these people"? Honestly? Can you really be that thick???

Do you grasp this? Shall I type more slowly?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


Wulfenstar,

I don't get exactly what you're saying...

if marriage is solely a religious institution then states have no business even recognizing it...that's a pesky first amendmant issue.

So everything is a civil union under the courts.

But, on the other side of the coin, if gay people can find a church that is willing to join them in holy matrimony, then that would make their marriage legit right? Because that would be a religious institution using the term marriage to bind those two people together. By the way there are such churches...or are we supposed to only accept marriages performed by some demoniations over others? Maybe catholics are more married than Jahovas Witnesses?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:24 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Hmmm... Can't say as I know what the hell you're talking about, Wulf. I'm about as liberal as anyone here, and I'm a smoker AND a gun enthusiast. I'm getting ready to pop for my Concealed Handgun License here in Texas (in Austin, the most liberal city in the state, where they STILL let you not only have guns, but carry them!).

I don't really go to bars any more since the city outlawed smoking in ANY establishment (pretty much, pool halls and bingo parlors are okay, which I find more than a little ironic, since most bingo parlors are located in churches...), but I'm still allowed to smoke in my house, outside, or in my car (but I don't smoke in my car, because I can't stand the smell).

So, to me, your attempt at clarification makes no sense whatsoever.

You're pissed because you can't smoke in public buildings any more? Man up, you whiney little bitch! Isn't that exactly the kind of pussified behavior you were pissing and moaning about earlier?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:27 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Like children, you must have your way and ONLY your way....

Smoking? Carrying a gun? HELL NO! Freedom of self and liberty only apply to those things WE want!

Grow up.



Whoa, whoa, whoa...same-sex couples smoking AND carrying guns?! Now you've drawn a line that even I won't cross...I said "marry 'em," not "arm 'em and impair their respiratory systems".

EDITED out of some ill-defined sense of circumspection.


It was an inch given and a mile taken when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:16 AM

EVILDINOSAUR


Let me explain the difference between the issues you raised and the issue being discussed in this thread. The bans you speak of are to protect people from things others may use to harm them (guns and second hand smoke)

Gay marriage offers no such danger, 2 gay people being married will certainly not cause any harm whatsoever to passerbys.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Don't you know ? Gays getting married somehow makes Wulfie unmarried. I'm still working on how that happens, but it must be true. Wulfie said so.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

So called liberals do not mind taking away the rights of people, on issues they disagree with. These include (but are not limited to) guns and smoking. As in gun and smoking bans.
You know how they say the right to swing your fist ends at my nose? Well then, your right to smoke ends at my nose. Smoke all you want! Just don't expect me to breathe the crap that you foul the air with. AFA guns... carry one all you want.
Quote:

I AGAIN do not have issue with gays being together. I just don't believe it should be called "marriage"...but rather a "civil union".
Ah, so altho it IS considered a marriage by the State of CA, and is in fact legally a marriage -even tho no clergy was present- you do not "believe" it should be called a marriage.

Sounds like somebody went and looked up the law, huh?
Quote:

Jeebus....
Indeed


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

ou know how they say the right to swing your fist ends at my nose? Well then, your right to smoke ends at my nose. Smoke all you want! Just don't expect me to breathe the crap that you foul the air with. AFA guns... carry one all you want.


Kinda how I look at it. I smoke, and *I* don't like the smell!




Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:44 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION



So let me get this right, you are pissed that "they" are INSISTING that they be treated equally under the law, but you have no problem with the fact that BIG GOVERMENT actually enacted laws to prevent gay marriages.

I mean either you are agaisnt Government interference or you aren't




I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:05 AM

KHYRON


I haven't looked at too many posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been discussed already, but:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.

Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage.

As far as I know, what Wulfenstar said isn't the way it is, but in my opinion, it's the way it should be. The only type of "marriage" sanctioned by the state should be a civil union, which can hold between any two people of whatever religion or gender or whatever (as long as they're old enough, obviously). If these two people want their union to be approved by the church as well, they can then get married in a church, but in the eyes of the state, the only thing that counts is the civil union between the two.

This way, the whole stupid and pointless gay marriage non-issue gets transported out of the political sphere and the pressure to allow gay marriage is placed on the church, which is where it should be.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:23 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
I haven't looked at too many posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been discussed already, but:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, its a civil union. The "marriage" part comes from whatever church you are under. Despite what might be said.

Now, is that your definition, or do you have backing? Looking into it a bit, I find nothing that says a court marraige is anything less than a marriage.

As far as I know, what Wulfenstar said isn't the way it is, but in my opinion, it's the way it should be. The only type of "marriage" sanctioned by the state should be a civil union, which can hold between any two people of whatever religion or gender or whatever (as long as they're old enough, obviously). If these two people want their union to be approved by the church as well, they can then get married in a church, but in the eyes of the state, the only thing that counts is the civil union between the two.

This way, the whole stupid and pointless gay marriage non-issue gets transported out of the political sphere and the pressure to allow gay marriage is placed on the church, which is where it should be.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.




Thank you. This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one. While "civil union" is not.

Again, im not against gays having a "civil union"...but I am against them having it be called a marriage. As, I believe, marriage is a church sanctioned affair.

It not an "equal rights" issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:48 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



Wulfenstar...answer how you prevent a gay couple from being married if they find a church that will marry them?

You're just saying that you and your church wont recognize it as such?

there's no problem at all there, really, and they don't have to care a hoot what you recognize either, that's mutual freedom of religion,

so long as, as you seem to be saying, it is not a state officiated term.

you have a terminology issue with that because it seems to have a meaning beyond what the law can provide...I don't really care what its called, but as soon as the state uses the word it has to be allowed to be applied to gay and straight couples alike as a matter of equality.

still not sure how this logic is going to prevent gay marriages though, it just seems like a complicated addition where you get married and apply for a civil-union lisense I guess.

Under this logic, gays will do the same. NO problem there.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:50 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one.

Except it isn't. And even if it was, all they'd have to do is start the "non-denominational church of gay-marriage".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:13 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
This is more along the lines of what I meant. The term "marriage" is a religious one.

Except it isn't. And even if it was, all they'd have to do is start the "non-denominational church of gay-marriage".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.



No shit. All this guy is doing is keep coming back with the same tired BS. Hey, Wulfenstar, just because you say it does NOT make it true. And most of the folks here won't believe you no matter how many times you say it. For that to happen you actually have to do thi sthing called bring up evidence, etc. Otherwise you got no chance.

But, then again, your response to this seems to have been a new thread with another nonsensical "argument" ( http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=34009). Seriously, if you've got nothing to add, then don't post.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:46 PM

PONYXPRESSINC


Wulfenstar wrote:

Quote:

The term "marriage" is a religious one. While "civil union" is not.


From "The Scottish Case That Led to Hardwicke's Marriage Act" by LEAH LENEMAN http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/leneman.html

Quote:

First, a quick review of the marriage law of England and Scotland at the time (1753) sets the case in context. The only thing necessary for a legal marriage was the free consent of both parties, as long as they were of age (twelve for girls, fourteen for boys), were not within the forbidden degrees of kinship, and were free of any other marriage. Neither the consent of parents nor the presence of witnesses were required. A marriage could be established by verbal de praesenti, that is, the statement of consent by both parties, or by verba de futuro, a promise of marriage in the future, followed by sexual intercourse. Because such things happened in private, various types of evidence came to be accepted in disputed marriage cases, such as letters in which the man wrote, or referred, to the woman as his wife, "habit and repute" (that is, the couple cohabited and were considered by their neighbors and relations to be husband and wife), and so forth.


A marriage ceremony could be conducted in front of a priest but was not considered in anyway superior to the private kind. Marraiges moved exclusively into church as a practical matter to ensure that marriages were properly recorded to avoid disputes over inheritance and legitimacy. Regardless of which way you did it you were married and had therefore undergone a marriage.

At least that is what my research tells me. If anyone has anything to contradict this I would be genuinely interested.

Anyway, this seems to support the idea that marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one. Our understanding of what constitutes a marriage has already changed a lot over history, I can't see why it can't change again.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:54 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by PonyXpressInc:

Anyway, this seems to support the idea that marriage was a civil matter before it was a religious one. Our understanding of what constitutes a marriage has already changed a lot over history, I can't see why it can't change again.




To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.



----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:56 PM

PONYXPRESSINC


SigmaNunki wrote:

Quote:

To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 21, 2008 6:53 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To paraphrase Wulfenstar, because.






More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 21, 2008 7:27 AM

SIGMANUNKI


That's absolutely beautiful

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:28 AM

MIIKE


good for them i hope they have a happy marridge just dont know why other people are so botherd about peoples pesonal lives

im a noob get over it

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:51 - 445 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:16 - 51 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL