It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

I'm wondering whether gay sexuality is the issue for you, or if it's all sexuality.

Some Christian churches (certainly not all) teach that sex for any purpose other than procreation is sinful. That would make most of us sinners, in which case sin is not limited to a particular segment of the population, as you seem to be saying.




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


xmotex....thanks for pointing out how the obvious lone 'gunman' on these threads seems to spread hate that is very similar to the Fred Phelps and his ilk....

ATS is a small community....I know, I know....there are many thousands of members, but on a particular thread, it is usually a contribution of just a few members at a time.

I know that the vast majority of ATS members are here to learn....again, there are a minority who wish to carry an agenda, regardless.

That is their right, of course.

As it is every member's right to deny ignorance.

AND, if I haven't said it on this thread yet...."ignorance" is not a pejorative!! It is, simply, lack of knowledge.

Hate to sound like a broken record....(oh dear, showing my age....).....



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Sestias....is it like, because I masturbate instead of seeking lustful, heinous sexual encounters, that I am somehow sinful???

Aermacchi...!!!! Are you listening????

OOPS....edit....topic.....The topic is, really....at its core, the recent passage of Prop 8 in California, and attempts to derail that particular miscarriage of justice.

Two straight guys, in College, suggested this, the Proposal To Strike the term "Marriage" from California Law. As I've said, it makes for a great thesis idea....although, they will have to share, unless they can branch off....

But hey!!! Still, the ramifications are profound. I doubt anyone will argue.

Irrespective of what you think about sexuality....it isn't the point, really.

This is about Humans being in love, and being able to enter into the same stupid system that most people in love enter into, only to regret it after a few years, and pay a tremendous financial penalty for it.

OOPS....that was sexist....because, historicaly, in a divorce, guess who gets the lion's share? Yup...the woman.

Oh, my....the dillema, if the 'divorce' is now between two men, or two women.....

Maybe THAT is what the lawyers are concerned about.....


[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Most of Aermacchi's cooked statistics come from Paul Cameron, a guy that is a well-known anti-gay activist who uses flawed methodologies to come up with the kind of results he wants. He's an activist, not a scientist.

They're also passed around by the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the weirdos that protest at soldier's funerals?) under a title that would probably be a TOS violation here on ATS.

[edit on 3/18/09 by xmotex]


They come from neither one and westboro baptist church gets thrown around here everytime someone needs a reason to discredit religion I have not seen anything from them regarding this. I wouldn't mind elaborating as to HOW and WHY these studies are important but everytime I am asked I get criticized for bringing them into the discussion as off topic usuallly by the same person who asked,, so, I won't .




He's an activist, not a scientist.


That is what I used to say to every atheist in here claiming to know what "science" says and by the way we are all activists on these boards for the most part. The reasons I gave for the logical fallacy that this is NOT an equal rights issue are without a logical rebuttal. This is about equal access like men not using the womans restroom or girls suing to join the boyscouts or gays wanting to join an all straight Christian dating service or pedohiles suing to have conjugal visitation rights with consenual children. You know,, things the ACLU has given a platform for a voice protecting freedom of speech like the patriotic heros they are defending all those poor poor victims who were accosted by the unexpected nativity display or someone offering to suggest a minute of prayer during the news of a colleague dying in a government office setting or someone insulting another after sneezing being offended by some insensitive barbarian saying God Bless you after the sneeze. Those people don't have freedom of speech according to the ACLU but I doubt very much, in fact I doubt it was what the forefathers meant freedom of speech was about at all and when they wrote it,, I think they assumed people would have common sense when defending it for the very monsters our laws are made to protect us from. It seems to me we get all this backwards anymore.

The separation powers were never meant to be what the are being used for today and the freedom of speech was never intended so that pedophiles could proselytize their repugnant gay sex with boys that are only children. Now I will tell weed the method to my bringing pedophilia and the ACLU into this discussion and as usual, whenever I do it is to expolit the monumental hypocrisy of my interlocutors here in this thread.

I have given what I believe are facts and naturally I am told they are from some extremist baptist christian church or some website against gays but they are factual nevertheless.

I have been told I cannot equate what is taught in schools regarding evolution and why Gay serial killers like Jeffery Dahmer and John Wayne Gacey's obsessions were fostered by the speech of people like NAMBLA and Dick Dawkins, Sam Harris who offered a reason to not only dis religion but HATE it

I have been told THAT kind of free speech should be protected!

Read how many gay and Lesbian websites including Atheist websites are FOR the decriminalization of Pedophiles, why is that I wonder? Why is it when these same Gays attack Christianity by castigating Pedophile Priest's they think it is Christianity that is the evil and not some gay child loving homosexual getting in a position where his access to children using the authority of his adulthood like they do as teachers in public schools?

They use it against the church but not the public schools and that is curious to me.

While Christian Philosphy may teach us to love our enemy I know that doesn't mean have sex with them but if I were to understand some of the Gay and Atheist posts on these Boards I am to believe that Jesus was gay and that is what he meant and several other so called mis quotes we dumb Christians do not really understand while still others call them contradictions of the bible. Recently an elderly woman was attacked for holding up a Cross where gays assembled to voice there freedom of speech regarding prop 8 and while they were saying some of the most vile and hatefull things about Christians, this little frail old woman whose voice we could not even hear over the loud beligerant yelling from those gays at this public place even though she had a microphone being held to her mouth, she held up a cross and was summarily shoved and her cross stepped on by Gays who were screaming about religious intolerance.

My question?

Where was the ACLU for her?

The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith anti-religious taliban of American religious secularism

The ACLU is an elitist organization bent on the social engineering of our Country in defiance of both the legislative and executive branches. What they are involved in is secular cleansing of American History.

This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.

We are told that we are wrong, that this country was founded by quakers and deist's and atheists.

Ok,, I won't say that is NOT true but I won't deny the whole truth and Christianity has been such a HUGE part of this Nations history and this Nations laws throughout that history and continues to be to this day. Or am I only to hear about that when it gets in the way of Gays wanting to parade half naked down the street while expecting tolerance and respect in the same voice by a common people with a common distinction they all share.

NOT one of color or gender, or infirmity or poverty and wealth.

But by the sexual desire they have for another.

We all have sexual desire so what is so unique about that?

What is so SPECIAL about THEM?

We all know people that are into sex we are NOT into

so what is so special we have to be told we hate them for theirs?

NOTHING!

Nothing at all, infact it is that gays insist on making that which is none of our business put down our throats in displays that test the temper and patience in bad taste and at in-appropriate times. It is the BEHAVIOR that most people dislike. It is the code finger reaching under the divider in a public restroom, the exhibitionist at a state park, the handshake at conventions that make ones skin crawl. They insist on introducing their freind as their "Lover"


We don't know who they are untill they want to have it on their dogtags or their drivers license or their College Entrance exams or their "marriage liscense" and that is just what we are going to get if this kind of push gay lifestyles in all our faces continues. You don't want the Government or the Church in your bedrooms GREAT! Then when you want to have a parade you'll understand why I don't see how that would matter when you will show us in the streets!

The fact is most boys that are accosted by adults are gay and that is undeniable. The percentage of the gay population that are prone to pedophilia compared to straights is significantly higher so using heterosexuals preying upon children when they are used in the way you have by blending females and males of the majority compared to the smallest segment of gays in our population is disengenuous and my statistics are correct.

The ACLU would defend your right to call websites that defend family values's hate speech and those of us who support same are now legally titled hate groups. Yet you ask theat I don't use a broad brush when speaking extemporaneuosly about gays. I am derided by weed saying I am vile a monster of hate and bigotry when I am here in a thread few straights have the nerve to post in and usually results in a post ban.

The ACLU defends child pornography and its ditribution and you don't think that kind of freedom of speech swimming around in a gay mans head who is entertaining ideas fostering the fruition of his fantasy being carried out has NOTHING to do with the resulting crime and that is the kind of freedom of speech the Constitution is talking about?

For example, the Ten Commandments in Court Houses. I don’t think this is an “endorsement” of religion. It is an acknowledgment of our history. I don’t care if it causes discomfort to Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist sympathizers, or Hindus and their holy cows.”

Inspite of this Country being founded on Christian Philosophy and Christian Ideals, The ACLU has been busy and so have those they support. We now have movies out that teach Christ didn't exist and the holocaust never happened and I am offended but I am a Christian and the ACLU will not defend me for being offended as i have asked them.

We are told the founders were NOT Christian and speeches that I had remebered seeing as a kid had mentioned phrases like "So Help Me God" as in the famous end of FDR's speech during WWII, I am now told he never said that. Yes HE DID and I have seen both the documents by the ACLU and the original text of that famous speech where that part was taken out because it "offended" "certain" individuals and the religion of political correctness was now being sold a a means to bash Christians while our language has never been embellished to mean so many awefull things yet I am amazed the sensitivities of some of you hear while you have so much understanding for the ACLU defending free speech for the pedophiles of the Gay men and boys love,, that is no more about love than love is about sex when they say Jesus was gay here is what he says etc.

Whenever I mention our country and its Christian heritage I am reminded what Deist's are as if they HAD to believe in something Atheists cannot deny they did, then they must at least have been Deist's.


I am told that inspite of our agreement regarding NAMBLA the fact is that somehow someway I am the one who is wrong in this regard nevertheless and that The ACLU is representing NAMBLA PRO BONO. Their official position: “In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.” I am repulsed. Repulsed by the idea that my children may not be able to say “…one Nation, under God” in school some future day .. thanks to the ACLU .. but this disgusting, vile organization is supported due to freedom of speech?


I find it Ironic that when I talk about Gays I am threatened with being alerted by Mods and told what I am saying is considered "Hate Speech" in an effort to force me to compromise my position. I am "warned" of the ATS T&C's and what I say even if it is true, cannot be said.

I respect free speech and ATS's TC's and I forgive a mans hypocrisy where the church I attend we have lots of hypocrites there in attendance.


and any of you gays are welcome to join


for that same reason



[edit on 18-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

I'm wondering whether gay sexuality is the issue for you, or if it's all sexuality.

Some Christian churches (certainly not all) teach that sex for any purpose other than procreation is sinful. That would make most of us sinners, in which case sin is not limited to a particular segment of the population, as you seem to be saying.




Asked and answered on the previous page

second line



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I am proud of you, Aermacchi.

You stand your ground....I do not have to agree with you to admire your stance.

It takes guts.....



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Sestias
 



OOPS....that was sexist....because, historicaly, in a divorce, guess who gets the lion's share? Yup...the woman.

Oh, my....the dillema, if the 'divorce' is now between two men, or two women.....

Maybe THAT is what the lawyers are concerned about.....


[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]


I think this is already beginning to change a teeny tiny bit as women start approaching something within a mile or two of parity in income, and I don't think that gay divorces would be a particular problem.

The logic behind the woman receiving the lion's share of the divorce settlement has to do with the assumption she will raise any children, and that her potential earnings are less than those of the man. If in a gay couple one has sacrificed having a career to be the "housewife" I imagine that person would be entitled to a settlement similar to what a female in the same position would get.

Same deal in the increasing case of couples where the woman earns more than the man; if he has sacrificed potential earning increase to support the woman non-financially, he could fight for a divorce settlement.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I am proud of you, Aermacchi.

You stand your ground....I do not have to agree with you to admire your stance.

It takes guts.....


I know I said this in a u2u but if it is good righteous to criticize in private is as right to praise in public.

Thank you very much weedwhacker for what you said back there, it means more to me than you'll ever know.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

I agree with weedwhacker in that you have an unusual amount of the courage of your convictions and you're willing to stand your ground and defend it. Many people would give up in the face of so much opposition.

I would, however, like to point out again that you don't appear to have been censored or reprimanded by the mods at any point--at least I haven't seen any warns or other such comments on your posts. Your freedom of speech has not been officially challenged in any way, so it doen't seem justified for you to claim persecution. You are, I think, voicing a majority opinion as far as the whole of the population goes even though you may not feel like it in a thread like this. The majority has a responsibility to listen to the voices of the minority, even as they are outnumbered, otherwise you have mob rule.

As for the ACLU, I am amazed and sometimes appalled too at some of the issues they take up. But they are defending the rights of minorities and free speech in general and they do more good than harm, IMO.

I do not agree with your opinion, as the famous quotation goes, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

I agree with weedwhacker in that you have an unusual amount of the courage of your convictions and you're willing to stand your ground and defend it. Many people would give up in the face of so much opposition.

I would, however, like to point out again that you don't appear to have been censored or reprimanded by the mods at any point--at least I haven't seen any warns or other such comments on your posts. Your freedom of speech has not been officially challenged in any way, so it doen't seem justified for you to claim persecution. You are, I think, voicing a majority opinion as far as the whole of the population goes even though you may not feel like it in a thread like this. The majority has a responsibility to listen to the voices of the minority, even as they are outnumbered, otherwise you have mob rule.

As for the ACLU, I am amazed and sometimes appalled too at some of the issues they take up. But they are defending the rights of minorities and free speech in general and they do more good than harm, IMO.

I do not agree with your opinion, as the famous quotation goes, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Well that isn't true, I DID get warned by MoD Maria Stardust, she tempered her reprisal with mercy however and I appreciate the lattitude.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then I was warned in this post which was probably the one Ms. Stardust responded to.:


watch it, aermacchi. you have now been reported to the mods. ATSs' hate speech standards are more strict than ever and you are walking a very fine line.

i will not be baited into arguing with you, but to be sure: i have some bile i would like to spit in your general direction.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then a general warning again by Ms. Stardust to remind all of us to observe civility and decorum. All in all howver and as the kind of volatility this topic can generate, it went better than most in my experience.

I also extend a thankyou to you sestias, I don't think I can ever remember a debate like this coming to such a civilized conclusion and I respect you for your polite considerate thoughts.

Take care and

warm regards

-Aermacchi



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I don't like this idea, I use to support it. Religion infact did not create marriage or any such union. This is a huge popular myth even among the educated, I use to believe it before I did more research. Why should people give in to religion and make civil unions available for those who are not religious, and give religion the opportunity to have people married after obtaining a civil union or domestic partnership license? Why should religious people only get this title of marriage? The religious right in this country needs to get over itself and let other consenting adults live their lives when something IS NOT legally affecting them.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I don't like this idea, I use to support it. Religion infact did not create marriage or any such union. This is a huge popular myth even among the educated, I use to believe it before I did more research. Why should people give in to religion and make civil unions available for those who are not religious, and give religion the opportunity to have people married after obtaining a civil union or domestic partnership license? Why should religious people only get this title of marriage? The religious right in this country needs to get over itself and let other consenting adults live their lives when something IS NOT legally affecting them.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]





Why should people give in to religion and make civil unions available for those who are not religious, and give religion the opportunity to have people married after obtaining a civil union or domestic partnership license?


They aren't giving in to religion and they do make civil unions available to those who want them. They (who ever they are ) do not tell Religions how to operate no more than any of those people were forced to give in to religion. It doesn't matter what you think about marriage origin. It is what it is NOW and has been. Their are lots of arguments done this way where someone finds out something cane after the original and they think that gives them a premise to argue it gone, like the in god we trust on money or the under god on the pledge, Christmas having pagan roots etc.

Why don't you start at the beginning and when you get all caught up with the arguements already waged, Ill be more than happy to debate this with you.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

Marriage now is not at all a sacred union, I can marry whoever I want for less than 24 hours if I see fit or for money, long as I am an adult or old enough for parental consent. Marriage now is a lawful union and by allowing gay people to take part in this union no straight people are legally affected.


They aren't giving in to religion and they do make civil unions available to those who want them.


Civil Unions are different, they do not give the same priviledges that marriage does on a nation wide basis. The only main argument that holds any water against gay marriage is religion. But marriage was not created by religion and is not moderated by religion, it is part of our rights and law. It is a legal issue. There is no reason to change our entire system, simply including gays in marriage is a completelty reasonable idea, unless you have some sort of personal opposition that has no legal standing.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



Why don't you start at the beginning and when you get all caught up with the arguements already waged, Ill be more than happy to debate this with you.


Lol, you replied to me, I did not post that for you, if it isn't worth your time then don't bother.

I've actually debated this several times on ATS and yes it does get tiring debating the same issue but no one is holding a gun to your head. Just because you believe pieces of my argument, while repetitive, are not important does not make it so. We're all dealing with opinions here, I know ego gets in the way of that truth a bit but something always manages to remind us.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Marriage now is not at all a sacred union, I can marry whoever I want for less than 24 hours if I see fit or for money, long as I am an adult or old enough for parental consent. Marriage now is a lawful union and by allowing gay people to take part in this union no straight people are legally affected.


I agree with all of this and if you are gay and you find someone of the opposite sex who will have you, you can get married also. What makes you think one has to be legally affected as the only reason for a premise to the debate? This was explained in more detail in the thread and I won't go into it twice so again I ask READ THE THREAD. You obviously have not




Civil Unions are different, they do not give the same priviledges that marriage does on a nation wide basis.


Sounds like they need to change THOSE laws then.




The only main argument that holds any water against gay marriage is religion. But marriage was not created by religion and is not moderated by religion, it is part of our rights and law. It is a legal issue. There is no reason to change our entire system, simply including gays in marriage is a completelty reasonable idea, unless you have some sort of personal opposition that has no legal standing.


Asked and answered READ THE THREAD



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 



What makes you think one has to be legally affected as the only reason for a premise to the debate? This was explained in more detail in the thread and I won't go into it twice so again I ask READ THE THREAD. You obviously have not

Because otherwise what consenting adults do is none of your business.
I do not have time to read the thread, if you do not wish to reply to me then DON’T. I don’t know who you think you are but barking (typing) these orders while hilarious is getting tedious.

Sounds like they need to change THOSE laws then.

Why change the laws so that everything is the same except the name? That’s just silly, it makes more sense to just include gays in marriage unless you have personal issues with it. Again I don’t care if this is a personal issue for you; right now in the US marriage is a LEGAL issue, so any argument that does not stand up legally is irrelevant.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I have always had an issue with how the government does not divide church and state for tax status in regards to marriage, awhile back, I offered my solution to this Prop H-8. I believe that We should do away with marriage, Because it DOES have its origins in religious rites and customs. I believe that the new standard for tax status and employee benefits in the workplace should be civil unions. Now I know this sounds like a demotion of sorts from "marriage" but I believe that there are some flaws in the tax deductions alotted Married couples. "Married" couples get tax breaks where civil unions dont, which shouldn't mean much....except gay couples CANT get married so they are forced to settle for civil unions which offers virtually NO benefits or tax breaks. I am sure I will get flack for this like I did in my recently written thread about company's whom do not respect gay civil unions enough to consider them for benefits.....among other things (10 companies that hate gays), but I am not asking the government to restructure the tax and benefit system around gay rights, I am asking them to reform the systems to be more close to what they should have been from the start, that including the very important issue of seperating church from state in such issues. If you want the title of "married" you can seek out such a ceremony through which ever religious sector you should so choose, but the status of "marriage" would then remain a status not relevant to tax or benefits, yet still protected against discrimination ofcourse just as color, creed, and gender (and hopefully sexual preference as well). Civil Unions would be what you base your taxes off of and your benefits from because thats how it should have been from the start but meddling religious factors had quite the excessive amount of influence over our government as we developed all the tax laws for marriage and such.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Because otherwise what consenting adults do is none of your business. I do not have time to read the thread, if you do not wish to reply to me then DON’T. I don’t know who you think you are but barking (typing) these orders while hilarious is getting tedious.

Yes I agree what consenting adults do is none of my business but that doesn't apply here does it not with what I said.



I don’t know who you think you are but barking (typing) these orders while hilarious is getting tedious.


Then quit typing them I don't follow orders from you anyway


Sounds like they need to change THOSE laws then.






Why change the laws so that everything is the same except the name? That’s just silly, it makes more sense to just include gays in marriage unless you have personal issues with it. Again I don’t care if this is a personal issue for you; right now in the US marriage is a LEGAL issue, so any argument that does not stand up legally is irrelevant.


Exactly why same sex marriage has no legal foundation and I have given those reasons on this thread. For some one not interested in reading the thread, that sure doesn't stop you from making statements and false assumptions the thread has answers to refute them all anyone has to do is read it. You can give me your best argument from a legal standpoint and Ill show you the reason why it is not something you can argue that way. Civil Rights being violated?
Equal Rights ?
Discrimination?

any angle you've got Ill have most likely gone over and they all look silly when you look at it from a "legal standpoint"

I suggest you read the thread, of course you don't have to but when you keep posting without reading the thread then I know you're not REALLY interested in a debate or getting answers to questions already asked. You're only interest is in making me look like I am barking at you and ordering you around which is something you find hilariously funny


and so do I



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

I agree with AverySmallFox; it's pretty much what I've said but it's probably said
better here.

Leave religion to the religious. Anyone can have a marriage ceremony if they find a clergy-person or other meaningful individual to administer it, and anyone can use the term "married" to apply to their union. For both hetero and gay couples, the legal term for their union would be "domestic partnership" or some such other civil term, and it would apply to both equally.

I understand Annee's position and the one taken above, though. There should be no distinction at all between those of different sexual orientation. However, I believe the proposal in the OP would satisfy that requirement.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I used to work with plenty of straight guys who would, sometimes say, "Well, I just met my future ex-wife." This, after several failed marriages previously....

Or, and this is a gem, "I proposed to my girl-friend, and gave her half the house already, just to keep the paperwork simple".

With all of the legal/financial ramifications of a 'marriage' contract, barring any pre-nup....I just don't see why anyone would want to do it!

I mean, of course....the possiblity of the break.

Regardless of Hetero/hetero, or Homo/homo....the 'marriage' industry is a boon to the Legal profession, when it comes to 'divorce'....wouldn't you say? Not to mention the ENTIRE 'marriage' Industry!!!

One final personal anecdote....I once flew with a guy who was telling me about his third daughter's upcoming wedding....and how he (jokingly) told the couple he'd pay them $20,000 just to elope!!!!

I laughed long and hard at that!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join