What About My Religious Freedom?

Like we need another SSM diary, but this is starting to really tee me off.  A Southern Unitarian-Universalist is generally about the most laid-back person you can meet, but get one mad enough, and we'll go Julia Sugarbaker on your ass.

I'm just sick and tired of people using religious freedom as an excuse to justify their bad behavior and bigotry towards GLBTs.  I'm over it.  Separate from the fact that I'm gay, and that it is my life and my rights and responsibilities, privileges and obligations as a citizen and a member of this society, I'm sick and tired of religious conservatives speaking as though there is a religious monolith in this country.

I'm a UU (Unitarian-Universalist).  As much as any two UUs will agree on anything, we'll agree on the inherent dignity and worth of each individual, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Some member churches of the UUA have been performing ceremonies for same-sex couples for over twenty years.  Many congregations have voluntarily completed Welcoming Congregation training in order to better integrate GLBTs into the fold.

So what about our religious freedom?  Or the religious freedom of the Metropolitan Community Church? the United Church of Christ? the Quakers? Reform Judaism?  

The religious arguments leveled against same-sex marriage operate under the conceit that all religious traditions support the one man-one woman concept, rendering my religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of millions of others non-existent.  

I'll be completely frank - I think that any religious freedom arguments against the civil contractual arrangement labeled 'marriage' are irrelevant.  But if one is going to operate from the perspective that they are relevant, then it is time to pull the rug out from under groups like NOM and the Prop 8 people.  They do not represent my religious beliefs or the religious beliefs of millions of others, and I'm over and done with them presenting themselves as the guardians of my religious freedom.

Tags: First Amendment, religious freedom, same-sex marriage, SSM (all tags)



Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

Excellent points. Too bad that they won't be cogently argued against by anyone on this site who opposed gay marriage...oh wait, I forgot: it's because they actually have no answer for this.

by fsm 2009-05-08 04:19PM | 0 recs
Is This About Anti-Gay Bigotry or Gay Marriage?

You're kinda all over the place here; you seem to be conflating a general anti-LGBT bigotry or hatred with the successful Prop. 8 push.

Prop. 8 was strictly about gay marriage. It was not about devaluing any member of society. In fact, Prop. 8 elevated or lauded principles once held to be sacrosanct and incontrovertible.

So I'm confused here, because you seem to be pitting Christian denominations against each other when you state the more-so "laid back" groups, like the Quakers, etc. and obliquely attack the Mormons, and the Catholics, the Four Square people, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Southern Baptists, etc...

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish in this diary.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-08 04:39PM | 0 recs

They are one and the same.  Color me unsurprised that you don't get it.

by Dreorg 2009-05-08 04:43PM | 0 recs

When I voted for Prop. 8, I was not voting against my gay friends.

No, no, no.

Prop. 8 was a vote for values, not against anyone.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-08 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Your vote in favor of Prop 8 was a vote in favor of your religious values at the expense of the diarist's different religious values. That's the point (but I too am unsurprised you don't get it).

And accommodating the diarist's religious values wouldn't really have affected the exercise of your religion in the slightest, but of course, that was the claim made by a great many of the pro-Prop 8 side.

by fsm 2009-05-08 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: No

All Christian values are the same because they're all based on the Bible.

So it is you who don't get it!

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-08 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No

All Christian values are the same because they're all based on the Bible.

Wow.  I'm trying to think of a way you could be more wrong, but I'm really having trouble coming up with one.  What a ridiculous statement.

by mistersite 2009-05-08 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No
Why are you even here? Not all Christian values are the same. In fact, there are some out there that believe simply that God is love. Love thy neighbor and love thyself. What about that do you not understand? Get over yourself and your fears and realize that just because you feel that your love deserves more recognition than others' love, doesn't mean you are right.
by selfevident 2009-05-09 03:43AM | 0 recs

You mean that the Christian values of a slave owner who used the Bible to justify his slave owning are the same as the Christian values of an abolitionist who used the Bible to make slavery illegal?

or the Christian values of a polygamist who used the bible to marry 12-year old girls vs. the Christian values of anti-pedophile monogamists?

Jonathan and David's souls were knit together, just as Jesus described a married couple souls made into one.

by Khun David 2009-05-09 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Um...

Jonathan and David were as close as friends can get, but they were not lovers. Do not misinterpret Scripture to fit your point.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-09 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Um...

Two can play at that game.

You people always use the story of Lot's journey to Sodom to justify God's 'hatred' of gays.  However, the men of Sodom did not lust after men (other than the angelic companions of Lot, the men in Lot's party were not lusted after); in Jewish tradition, the union of men and angels produced giants.

Jesus said that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not for the depravity, but for being inhospitable to strangers.

Regarding David and Jonathan:  the story reads that their souls were knit into one; that is as close to Jesus' description of marriage as I can read.  Besides the fact that Jonathan stripped naked before David and declared his love for David exceeding that of his love for women can be read in more than one way.

by Khun David 2009-05-10 01:45AM | 0 recs
Re: No

It's patently false to say that all Christian values are the same, because Christians can't agree amongst themselves about how to faithfully interpret the Bible. According to my Christian denomination, I am in fact married, and I don't really care if your Christian denomination disputes that; God can sort that out.

But let's assume for the moment that you were correct: it (as usual) still doesn't address my basic argument, which is that you put your religious values ahead of the religious values of others (which need not necessarily be based on Christianity, unless you also believe that freedom of religion is something we as a nation no longer practice).

I don't expect you to follow my religious values in either your public or your private life. It's unfortunate that you continue to expect me and others to follow your religious values in our lives.

by fsm 2009-05-09 03:38PM | 0 recs
Apologies to Wolfgang Pauli

That is not only not correct, it is not even wrong.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-05-09 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: No

On gay marriage, your values are not my values, which is the whole point of the diary. Every religious group that I mentioned up above advocates for same-sex civil marriage and allows its clergy to perform same-sex religious marriages.  

by Dreorg 2009-05-08 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Yes you did.  

I would like to know the reaction your 'gay friends' had to your telling them you voted against the legal recognition of their relationships.

Not the reaction they gave you to your face.  The reaction they had amongst themselves after you left.

by Khun David 2009-05-09 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: No

The ironic thing about your comment about 'my gay friends':

Back in the 1970s, there was a LDS advertisement where there was a boy who talked about his 'black friend'.  His dad corrected him by saying you should refer to him as 'your friend.'

This contrasts to the 2000s, where the LDS forgot about the bigotry that they were against.

by Khun David 2009-05-09 05:45AM | 0 recs

When you voted for Prop. 8 you were voting to deny the civil rights (probably human rights) of another individual. I just don't understand why you think it is okay to use religious "values" to govern? Jefferson is rolling in his grave at your bigotry and ignorance. This is not a religious, or values question, this is a question of civil rights and civil liberty. The government has no business recognizing one religious value over another or lack thereof. How you can not separate religious beliefs from civil liberty is beyond me and frankly shows a lot more about yourself than it does about gay people getting married. Do you recognize the difference between a marriage recognized by the state and a marriage recognized by a religion? Or does your bigotry blind you?

by SocialDem 2009-05-09 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: No

I think people give people like you too much credit. I personally think you a liar who posts things like how you have gay friends when someone attacks you for your bigotry. Your ignorance about the First Amendment and Christianity, by the way, are appalling. Even if you were not a bigot, I would have a serious problem with the level of your knowledge about Christianity and about the Constitution.

by bruh3 2009-05-09 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No

bruh3, I personally am appalled that you think you have the moral highground on every subject.

First, debate me on any Christian topic, and I will bury you in two minutes.

Secondly, the Constitution does not apply to marriage because is a privilege, not a right.

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-09 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: No

a) I am not going to debate your ignorance. As a very conservative friend told me once about my talking to people like you online- if you wallow around with pigs in shit, you just end up with shit on you. In other words, you are not worth it.

b) The Constitution issues is your understanding of the First Amendment. It's already clear you are ignorant of the 14th, but given what you said in this diary, it's clear you are also ignorant of the 1st.

Finally, I don't care what you think of my morality. The only one who judges that is God. You aren't God. It's your arrogance on this matter that condemns you to the place you think I am going.

by bruh3 2009-05-10 01:19AM | 0 recs
Nobody is asking your religious institution
to recognize same sex marriage in one way or the other. Nobody is taking away any rights of your religion or your ability to practice your religion.
The question is whether the Government can continue to discriminate against a section of our society. The answer is a clear No!
by louisprandtl 2009-05-10 04:42AM | 0 recs
It's simply about demonizing the opposition

After Prop 8 passed, the efforts to demonize it's supporters were despicable....and would make Richard Nixon blush. Mormons, and to a lesser degree Catholics have been targets of bigotry throughout history. To demonize an at risk and much maligned minority group in this fashion reflects poorly on those activists making the slurs.

Not surprisingly, Prop 8 opponents are reluctant to mention that African Americans voted strongly for the measure---LA Times polling places the number at 70%. Two reasons this won't come up that often in their articles/propoganda:

1) African Americans have suffered more oppression than any other minority group in America's history. To suggest that their opposition to gay marriage is rooted in bigotry would show how nonsensical this line of reasoning about anti-gay bigotry really is. Most people come to their views via a reasoned and thoughtful approach.
2) Blacks are also the most reliable voting bloc in the Democrat coalition. Why risk offending them when you can go after Catholics and Mormons? A craven and cynical approach, which may ultimately backfire on those using it.

President Obama is as reasonable and thoughtful a politician as we've had in a long time--and he too opposes gay marriage. So we're not just a bunch of racist bigots, trust me.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-05-10 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply about demonizing the opposition

A poor attempt at revisionist history.  Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan were quoting the 70% figure left and right on any media that would let them for about two weeks after the election.  And then some serious demographers figured out that it was more along the lines of a 40 / 60 split and not too far off from other minority groups.

But hey, if you want to wave your ass around in public and jump up and down reveling in bigotry, go for it.

by Dreorg 2009-05-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
There you go again.

It's not bigotry; it's a reasoned and thoughtful judgment that I and others (in thirty states) have come to. If you want to believe that we're all bigots, then have at it.

President Obama--as well as Secretary of State Clinton--have the same position, and are opposed to same sex marriage. Are they also "reveling in bigotry?"

by BJJ Fighter 2009-05-10 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

It is true that Obama has taken the safe (or so most Democratic presidential candidates have felt since 2000) political position of saying he personally favors civil unions rather than same-sex marriage.  (He is, after all, a politician. Thus what he says about hot-button issues can have a major effect on his career, which is not true for most folks.) However, he has never said that if he were living in a state where marriage equality was instituted legislatively or by court order, that he would oppose it, which is your position.  

For both of these reasons (that he has political reasons for what he says, and that he hasn't said he'd proactively oppose it), it's a stretch for you to claim him as your philosophical soulmate on this issue.  That said, it's regrettable (albeit understandable) that he's provided you even enough material to stretch.

by Rob in Vermont 2009-05-10 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: There you go again.

Obama also stated his opposition to Prop 8.

I'm sorry that is painful for you to have to accept that you're on the same side of history as Rush and Palin and George Wallace.  But it doesn't make you right.

by Dreorg 2009-05-10 02:51PM | 0 recs
I didn't know that George Wallace had

weighed in on the issue of same sex marriage. Are you channelling him from the grave?

Sticking to reality, I'm on the same side of this issue as President Obama....I'm sorry that it's painful for you to have to accept that. It doesn't make you wrong, or right...it just means that we're on different sides of an issue.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-05-10 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't know that George Wallace had

As already pointed out, the verb you are doing to reality is "stretching", not "sticking to".

As for George Wallace, he contended that only members of his group should be allowed to enter a certain public institution, and that it was wrong for courts to say that members of a minority group should also be allowed to enter that public institution.  Times were changing, and he was (at that point in his career) very much on the wrong side of history.

It's an apt analogy. (Whether you choose to accept it not.)  

by Rob in Vermont 2009-05-10 07:30PM | 0 recs
Small mindedness is wrong

Being on two different sides of an issue...

this is not "Should I recycle or should I just put the aluminum in the trash?"

This is "Are gay people entitled to the same rights as straight people?"

Barack Obama is wrong if he says that civil marriage (or each and every civil right, privilege and obligation associated with civil marriage) is reserved only for opposite sex couples.

by Khun David 2009-05-11 01:31PM | 0 recs

In the 1940s, 90% of Californians opposed interracial marriage.  Was that bigotry?  Was it a thoughtful decision?  

The question that is better asked is:  Did it violate individual's rights?

by Khun David 2009-05-11 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply about demonizing the opposition

So we're not just a bunch of racist bigots, trust me.

Who said anything about racist bigots? Or do you believe that all bigotry must be racially-motivate?

If you have an argument against same-sex marriage that isn't rooted in religious bigotry, then by all means advance it. I've never seen one yet...

by fsm 2009-05-10 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

Just one nit to pick: the correct term is Reform Judaism not Reformed.  The Reform movement is the largest branch of Judaism in the U.S.

by Rob in Vermont 2009-05-08 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

I shall correct it.  Thanks for pointing that out.

by Dreorg 2009-05-08 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

On the subject itself: back in the pre-civil union days when Vermont was first debating same-sex marriage, the discussion/debate arose in our  (Conservative movement) synagogue, about same-sex marriage in the context of Jewish religious traditions. One of the great things about our rabbi has been his very pro-active welcoming of gay Jews in our community (not that our previous rabbi, also a very good and kindhearted person, was unwelcoming, or had any antipathy toward gays, but he was not of a generation that would even publicly talk about the subject - and therefore he was not welcoming, even though he was not unwelcoming.) Anyhow, when the debate was first perculating, our rabbi invited interested members of the congregation to meet one Sunday at the syngagogue to discuss the issue; he also invited the local Reform temple rabbi.  My wife and I attended. One of the interesting things was that the Reform rabbi was adamant that a same sex marriage was not the same thing as an opposite sex marriage, and therefore he asserted that the traditional marriage ceremony could not be performed for same-sex couples. My wife and our liberal friends were taken aback. "Um, how is it different?" we asked. He acted as if it was a ridiculous question and maintained that it was "obviously" different.  Well, there was no use pushing him on this; his mind was made up. The point is, even though he was a Reform rabbi, he was more conservative on this issue (and on lots of issues, I think!) than our rabbi. Individual congregations and individual rabbis tend to fall across the spectrum on issues, so it's not enough to know that a congregation or rabbi is "Conservative" or "Reform" - you really have to get to know them.  Heck, even Orthodox Jews are not monolithic in their thinking.  It's worth renting the movie "Trembling before G-d"; it's a really good documentary about gay Orthodox Jews.

by Rob in Vermont 2009-05-08 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

I developed a huge amount of respect for the intellectual independence of the Jewish faith during my freshman year of college.  I took a course in the Religion department called "The Hebrew Bible," which was taught by a Conservative rabbi.  One of the things I took always from that course was that (in his perspective, at least) one of the main responsibilities of any Jewish scholar was to interpret the texts within the context of the world in which he or she lived.

Coming from an evangelical, bordering on fundamentalist, Christian upbringing, that willingness - obligation even - to engage one's religious life intellectually with the world was a completely new perspective for me, one that I've cherished ever since.  

by Dreorg 2009-05-08 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

i think you might like this guy then ;)

by canadian gal 2009-05-08 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

in reading the comments i get the sneaking suspicion i have missed something.  in any case - rec'd.

much as i respect your religious views or lack thereof - keep them out of government institutions.

by canadian gal 2009-05-08 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

I would tell you to go find a different country to live in, but it looks like you're already there.


by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-08 08:11PM | 0 recs

and ironically enough - even though your constitution guarantees you this right of secularism, many today seem unable to get a basic concept guaranteed by the founding fathers.

even a country like israel which has a much more complicated relationship with religion/secularism than most accepts the legality of same-sex marriage (though still at this time does not allow for it to be performed on its soil).  

it would seem you are pushing an antiquated and silly idea - one which most of the people in the globe disagree with. the good news is though - if the gay tidal wave catches on (as it will) you can move to the isle of man.

by canadian gal 2009-05-09 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

As an American, I would tell YOU to go find a different country to live in, because the times-they-are-a-changin'.  Within a couple of years, gay marriage will be legal throughout the US.  And then what will your argument be?  That the majority, who will by then favor gay marriage, should leave the country so that you can inhabit this one by yourself?

by slynch 2009-05-09 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: What About My Religious Freedom?

When as America ever been a theoacracy?

by bruh3 2009-05-09 04:08PM | 0 recs
You're in the wrong place, in the wrong time?


by louisprandtl 2009-05-09 04:45PM | 0 recs
In this country, the people have spoken

California isn't exactly a hotbed of conservatism....it's the largest, and arguably the most liberal state in the country. In the most favorable election cycle for liberals in half a century--and the top of the ticket winning a lanslide--the people voted against same-sex marriage. Just as they've done in 29 other states.

Many on the left are in a state of denial, declaring that this country is four-square behind gay marriage. That makes about as much sense as a McCain voter challenging Obama's right to assume the Presidency...."you see...the voters really intended that John McCain become President!"

Elections have consequences. Beyond that, if this issue was as much of a slam dunk as many bloggers proclaim, Obama would be all over the issue in a heartbeat...he and his pollsters are obviously pretty smart people. The fact that he remains on record as being opposed to gay marriage/in favor of civil unions must tell you something.

by BJJ Fighter 2009-05-09 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: In this country, the people have spoken

Your comments have nothing to do with the subject matter of the diary. How many different names are you going to post under?

by bruh3 2009-05-09 09:24PM | 0 recs
The minority rights to equality is not a matter

of majority vote. You need to learn the essence of democracy unfortunately.

by louisprandtl 2009-05-10 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: In this country, the people have spoken

Prop 8 was not taken seriously by the idiots at organizations like HRC, which claims to be a gay rights organization, but instead is more of a cocktail party sort of organization.  

The HRC, as I found out, wanted to promote the closet mentality when they tried to solicit money from me.

Mormons, who are used to having the door slammed shut time and time again have a perserverence that groups like HRC can't withstand.  They organized and canvassed as much as of the vote as they could.

And they got a bare 52% vote saying that same-sex couples weren't entitled to the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

They did a good job at the job they had to do.  But it was only with that hard work that they were able to get a bare majority... If HRC had been proactive, and if the Mormons had been complacent, I wonder how the vote would have gone.

by Khun David 2009-05-11 01:46PM | 0 recs
outside the fray

As a gay agnostic, I too am a bit confused by some of the arguments proposed here.  I don't believe it is fair to ask someone to make a choice between their values as a religious person and as a citizen of a secular state.  If the person believes that abortion is murder, according to their religious beliefs, and murder is an issue governed by civil law in this secular state, it is preposterous to expect them to separate their religious beliefs from their actions as citizens.  

If the person believes that "sodomy" is evil, according to Biblical teachings, and the state governs sexual behavior such as prostitution, marriage, polygamy, and incest, it is also foolish to assume these "religious" people should not let their "morality" affect their behavior in the civil sphere vis a vis laws governing same sex marriage.

The problem is that the religious among us--in particular, the conservative religious--are unwilling to accept the relativity of values.  They must be led kicking and screaming against progress and enlightenment, because the basis of all religion is tradition.  Remember that the word "morality" derives from "mores," which are nothing other than the beliefs, habits and customs of our forebears.  How will change be effected?  Make the religious see the detrimental effects of their beliefs.  Make them see that the customs are outdated.  Make them see the folly of their morality when contrasted to the reality of modern day.  It is a slow and painful process, but I think we are getting there.

by candideinnc 2009-05-09 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: outside the fray

The difference is reducible to whether in a free society both are allowed to live according to their moral code or does the moral code requires everyone, even none believe, to live by the code.

When people say they are confused, frankly, I am confused by your confusion. You think requiring someone to live by your moral code is the same thing as having a system in which each person can individually choose their own moral system? My permitting gay marriage, it does not either establish or deny anyone's religious tenets. It allows for both those who do not believe in gay marriage and those who do to act freely in a civil society. However, by denying gay marriage you in effect are enforcing one belief system on all. One is a negation of the a right (the no on gay marriage). THe other is permissive, bu tnot required.

Now if, we required everyone to engage in a gay marriage, you might have a point. But, because we do not, it's not establishing a religion. It's allowing for all religions to be equal before the law as to how thel aw treats them.

You are right that this is not per se the legal standard under Lemon, but that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing whether voters should be making decisions that are going to limit the freedom of other American citizens when that limitation is based on establishing a religios principle into the law.

One sides approach allows for expression by all, and the other side does not.

by bruh3 2009-05-09 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: outside the fray

I respectfully disagree.  I, too, believe in separation of church and state.  I have long been a supporter of People for the American Way.  The problem I have with your essay is that it seems to suggest to me that you are asking for a clear separation of the beliefs of the religious community and their behavior as citizens.  

If I read you correctly, you are suggesting that when the fundamentalists, for example, lobby for prohibition of same sex marriage or lobby against abortion, they have in some way overstepped the line of separation of church and state because they want to impose their morality on others by inhibiting some form of behavior.  My response is, laws do that all the time.  Laws inherently limit the freedom of the people to steal, to kill, to cheat.  

You may argue, there is no "right" to lie, kill or steal.  I agree.  There is also no "right" to same sex marriage.  That is the problem.  What has to happen is that we gay people must establish that right to marriage through the courts and the legislatures.

My point is that it is pointless to argue against the frustrating and often obnoxious intrusion of religious moralists in political affairs.  The lines of demarcation between the sensible mores of the religious community and the unnecessary, irrelevant and harmful mores of the religious community are what are at issue.  It is the progressive's role to better define those lines, as has been done in the past over issues like slavery and interracial marriage.  The place to do this is in the courts and the legislatures.  I don't believe we can ask the misguided or superstitious among us to refrain from making an effort to enforce their standards of morality, no matter how misguided they may be.  

by candideinnc 2009-05-10 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: outside the fray

I am not arguing a legal point. I am arguing one about what we as citizens are responsible for doing. So, yes, I am arguing that we has citizens must operate on principles that are different than our faith. I am not arguing against it. I am making a point that I always make.

That Americans do not a) take their duties seriously becuase b) they do not understand those duties. They do not understand equal protection so they make arguments that are either a) ignorant about the meaning of equal protection or b) sophistry.  

They do not understand the First Amendment so they do not understand civil society, and how it differs from religious society. You are ultimately supporting and pushing for ignorance. I am not.
Let me give you a practical example. An argument that you will hear repeated ad nauseum is that by gay marriage existing, it will force churches to perform gay marriages. Yet, this clearly can not be the case because of the first amendment. However, people believe it anyway because they do not understand the first amendment.

They equate a law being permissive of other moralities with being the same as enforcing a rule that they practice that morality.

I understand why you disagree, but you can not address this argument by ignoring religion or its impact of discourse. It is important for people to hear that that not all Christians believe as they do. It's important for them to hear and understand the First Amendment  regardless of whether its gay rights or any other issues. We can not be good citizens if we are ignorant. Democracy depends on our engagement in the political process.

Without that engagement there is soon dictatorship or a democracy in failure. So many of our problems are based on this sort of lack of understanding of how our system works in any meaningful way. I do not see this issue any diffrently because I see how people view things. We should not accept this or avoid it. Know nothingism leads to bad results.

by bruh3 2009-05-10 09:50AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads