Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2012, 12:12 PM  
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Same sex marriage, social conservatives, and the future

This article is written by a social conservative who recognizes that same sex marriage (SSM) is inevitable and who recognizes dangers for those who value religious freedom if social conservatives don't find a way to make peace with that reality.

SSM, Social Conservatives, & The Future

By ROD DREHER • November 8, 2012, 12:27 PM

After the 2008 election, I wrote a Dallas Morning News column (now behind the paywall) in which I contended that social and religious conservatives had lost the argument over same-sex marriage, and that we would be smarter to retreat behind defensible borders.

By that I meant the following:

1) We should understand that this was not an argument we were going to win, in part because the elites, especially in the media, were dead-set against us, but mostly because SSM makes sense given how most people today, especially younger Americans, think about marriage and sexuality. In short, they believe marriage and sexuality has no intrinsic value, that it only has expressive value. In other words, sex and marriage are seen primarily, and perhaps entirely, as an expression of emotions partners have for one another.

For traditionalists — and remember that this was virtually everybody until very, very recently — it’s not that same-sex couples do not and cannot love each other; obviously they can, and do. It’s that their love cannot be marriage, in the same way the mail carrier cannot be Napoleon. It’s possible to explain this, and it has been explained by smart trads, but by this point, doing so is useless. If gay people did not exist, the culture would still have reached this conclusion about the meaning of sex and marriage. If it had not, we wouldn’t have the divorce culture. But because the culture has already accepted that this is what sex means, and this is what marriage means, it is perfectly logical that gay folks would want to participate in it, and that many people, especially those younger people raised post-Sexual Revolution, would see no rational basis for denying them.

On my most charitable days, I tell myself that this is why the cultural left, and even younger adults on the right, call trads “bigots”: because they cannot understand how anyone in his or her right mind could disagree with them. Therefore, disagreement can only be a sign of irrational prejudice and bad character.

Besides, even more consequential to this debate than the shift in sexual and marital mores, we have become a culture in which the pursuit of happiness is valued far more than the pursuit of virtue. Specifically, the pursuit of individual happiness is more important than the pursuit of communal virtue. This is what social conservatives have had to argue against, and it has been a losing proposition. Support for privileging traditional marriage is collapsing so quickly because the cultural revolution of the postwar period washed away the philosophical and psychological foundations for traditional marriage. The point I wanted my fellow social conservatives to grasp is that this is not a winnable argument.

2) The Republican Party is not going to do anything significant to protect traditional marriage. The high water mark of anti-SSM feeling was the 2004 election. In its aftermath, Sen. Rick Santorum and other social conservatives once again brought forth a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. It never made it out of the Senate, and despite campaigning on supporting it, and mild public statements supporting it, President Bush never really got behind it. If, in the wake of Bush’s re-election, with Republican control of both houses of Congress, this amendment couldn’t even make it out to the states for deliberation, because the GOP wouldn’t prioritize it — well, that was the handwriting on the wall. The Republicans were happy to run opposed to gay marriage, but when they had the only truly meaningful opportunity to stop it, they balked.

3) SSM opponents would do well to abandon the fight against SSM, and instead focus on the threat SSM poses to religious liberty — this, while there is still the prospect of energizing a majority of people to protect religious liberty.

Though it is repeatedly, even hysterically, denied by SSM proponents, SSM is a clear threat to religious liberty. It is virtually impossible to argue about this with SSM backers, because they insist religious liberty begins and ends with preachers being able to voice opposition to homosexuality, and having the right to refuse to marry gay couples in their houses of worship. This is a straw man, and always has been. The thing to read is this 2006 piece surveying prominent legal scholars, including some who favor SSM, explaining why there is an irresolvable clash between gay civil rights and religious liberty. Something’s got to give.

Nobody, least of all journalists, wants to hear it, but the clash is built into our legal framework. Marriage touches all kinds of laws. Anthony Picarello, general counsel of the Becket Fund For Religious Liberty (which defends religious liberty cases involving all religions) said of same-sex marriage:
“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.”
The truth of all this will be made apparent to everyone when SSM becomes constitutionalized, and religious organizations and religiously devout employers are compelled to offer benefits to their gay employees and their spouses, or face government sanction, including loss of tax-exempt status. For many churches, charities, and religious organizations operating on tiny financial margins, that tax-exempt status means the difference between existing and not existing.

I was not at the time, and still am not, a lawyer, but I wrote in 2008 that social conservatives ought to be putting their money, their strategizing, and their public activism behind building some kind of legal firewall to protect religious liberty once SSM becomes the law of the land. It was my guess that most Americans who favor SSM don’t want to punish churches and religious charities who disagree. We should appeal to them while they still exist.

(Incidentally, by no means do I believe this irenic view is held by all pro-SSM folks. For some, it is not enough that gay couples gain the right to marry; religious “bigots” must be made to suffer, as payback. You hear this week that conservatives could have had peace with the SSM movement if only they had granted civil unions a few years ago, but they refused. Anybody who believes that revisionist nonsense need only look at California, where gay couples had civil unions, and all the legal benefits of marriage, without calling it marriage. That wasn’t good enough. They wanted it all, because to deny it all would be to give some quarter to Bigotry, and we can’t have that.)

The bottom line is that we are fast reaching a place in which before the law, churches that adhere to traditional religious teaching on homosexuality in practice will have the same status under federal civil rights laws as racist churches. Religious conservatives may argue that discrimination against homosexuals is not the same thing as racial discrimination, because there is, in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic teaching, a moral aspect to sexual behavior that is not present in race — they can argue this, and they would be correct, but nobody cares, because the culture in general is coming to accept that there is no particular moral status inherent in homosexual behavior. Nor, for that matter, in most heterosexual behavior.

This is what it means to live in a post-Christian culture. We may wail and moan and gnash our teeth, but we had better get used to it.



In short, I argued in 2008 that social conservatives ought to take sober stock of the battlefield, and use the time we had to carve out some living space for ourselves in the America that was fast coming into being. For this, Maggie Gallagher, who really has been brave and tireless in fighting for traditional marriage, called me a defeatist. I can understand why she felt that way at the time, but what she called defeatism looks today, in 2012, like realism. For the first time ever, three states have legalized same-sex marriage. This is the wave of the future. The people who most strongly oppose SSM are literally dying off. Social conservatives like to tell ourselves that young people will become more socially conservative as they get older, and maybe that’s true. But I see no reason to believe that they will change their mind on same-sex marriage, even if they become more socially conservative in their habits. The fact is, gay marriage is becoming a normal part of bourgeois life. If young people do get more socially conservative as they age, that will likely express itself not in an embrace of traditional views on marriage, but rather in a sense that their gay friends really ought to settle down and marry their partner and lead a more stable, respectable life.

What does this mean going forward? Religious and social conservatives cannot abandon what we believe to be true. What we can do — what we must do — is stop trying to turn back a tide that started rushing in half a century ago, and instead figure out how to ride it without being swamped or drowned by it. Our best legal minds need to figure out the best possible, and best possible, legal protections for religious liberty in the coming environment. Our most able socially conservative politicians need to start talking all the time about religious liberty in relation to same-sex marriage, and not in an alarmist way (“We’ve got to stop gay marriage before they destroy our churches!”) but in a sober, realistic way that opens the door to possible political compromise with Democrats of good will.

It may already be too late for that. Any attempt by moderate Democrats to compromise on religious liberty will be denounced by many liberals as selling out to bigotry. And for all I know, it really will be impossible, under the US constitutional framework, to carve out meaningful exceptions for religious liberty within civil rights law.

But we have to try. What else is there? Republicans can’t join the SSM crusade without alienating us social conservatives, who constitute a huge portion of their base. Choosing to remain silent on the issue is cowardly and stupid, if only because it allows the liberal, pro-gay narrative that all we are is troglodytic bigots to go unchallenged. Now is the time for creative reappraisal of our position, and the most prudent way to advocate for our interests within a changed, and rapidly changing, political and social context.

There are practical political benefits from this exercise too, benefits that go beyond the SSM issue. I fear that strong socially conservative Republican leaders like Bobby Jindal, my own governor, may be fatally compromised at the national level precisely because they have been so strong on the gay marriage issue. If Republicans like Jindal spend the next few years thinking and talking about the issue in terms of religious liberty, and in terms of the need to find a live-and-let-live compromise that maximizes religious liberty within a marriage-law culture that accepts SSM, then this might neutralize the issue as something that can be used against them. To be clear, I’m not talking about Republican pols adopting this strategy as a cosmetic approach; they would have to be sincere, because I see no realistic possibility that the country is going to come around to the socially conservative position on same-sex marriage.

To put it another way, at the political level, social conservatives are going to have to start thinking and talking about gay marriage in a libertarian way. As a general matter, the way you succeed in American politics is by framing issues in terms of expanding liberty. This is not how conservative traditionalists (versus libertarians) think, but if we are going to protect our churches and religious institutions, we are going to have to start approaching SSM in this way. This is not a matter of sleight of hand; it really is true. The expansion of gay civil rights inevitably means a retraction of religious liberty rights for tens of millions of Americans who belong to and practice traditional Abrahamic religion. The media doesn’t talk about this, for obvious reasons, but there’s no reason why Republican politicians shouldn’t talk about it. Highlight the illiberality of SSM proponents who demand that religious folks give up a significant degree of their liberties. The dominant narrative — the only narrative — in American public discourse today is that gay people only want the same liberties that others have, and that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, want to deny them liberty. Republican politicians must start talking about the other side of the liberty story, and position themselves as being the more liberty-minded, in that they are willing to forge a strong and meaningful compromise. Even if that compromise proves elusive, at least it will change the image of conservative Republicans as implacably opposed to SSM, by shifting them to a position of conditional acceptance. We social conservatives don’t have to like SSM, but we are fooling ourselves if we don’t recognize that it is inevitable in post-Christian America, and we had better figure out the best possible arrangement to protect ourselves and our institutions while there is still time.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 10:20 PM   #376
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The bitch is BACK!
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $23467
Well you'd have to define boundaries. Suppose the government told them to take down all pictures of Jesus and all scripture references and bar Priests. You think they still have a responsibility to adhere to things that go against their entire mission? And of course it's different from a regular hospital, nobody argues otherwise.
Posts: 16,039
Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 10:31 PM   #377
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwards Masking View Post
When the church makes money for their private business they don't pay shit in taxes. I, on the other hand do. IMO that gives me the right to discriminate, something I don't think your tax evading church shouldn be allowed to do as long as they aren't giving anything back in the way of tax dollars (and please don't bring up charities, thats another argument and one persons charity is anothers liablity)

You're making the argument that private citizens and the catholic church/hospitals rely equally on the gov. even though you know they don't.

When the church starts paying taxes and funding their hospitals with taxed income the way I fund my house with taxed income, they can discriminate. Until then, they aren't special and don't deserve special priviledges IMO.

I like to think Jesus would agree with me, but obviously catholics haven't been keen on what he would do in quite some time, as evidenced by the existance of this thread.
I'm not making an argument that it's equal, I'm making the argument that you aren't justifying the distinction. The government has expanded to the point that it's subsidizing tentacles are involved in all of our lives to a great degree whether it be through guaranteeing student loans or food stamps or tax credits for installing energy efficient windows on your home or any of a gazillion other things. If we say that the mere receipt of financial benefit from the government is the trigger that allows the government to control your life/business (particularly in the case of a religious organization that is supposed to be protected from governmental micromanagement by the 1st amendment), we're all subject to that control. If there's a more nuanced case to be made, you haven't made it yet.

I'm not sure how much Catholic hospitals rely on the government, but I am sure that if the government removed itself completely from the health care industry, Catholic hospitals would continue to care for the sick regardless of the lifestyle or the religious beliefs of the patient.

BTW, the reason religious institutions are tax exempt is precisely because the government isn't supposed to be able to have control over them. They are special. They've got a specific pair of clauses in the first amendment that make them special.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 10:35 PM   #378
Backwards Masking Backwards Masking is offline
Bustle in your hedgerow?
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: NOT Missouri
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
You think they still have a responsibility to adhere to things that go against their entire mission?
If they agreed to it in writing by contract before taking the money, ****ing a

its better than thinking they have no responsibility to honor their word when billions of taxpayers dollars are at stake. they're just liars and crooks and con artists at this point
Posts: 2,417
Backwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking aboutBackwards Masking is the dumbass Milkman is always talking about
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 01:08 AM   #379
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The bitch is BACK!
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $23467
The money didn't go to the Catholic Church, it went to care. Money that wouldve otherwise been spent at another place. I don't think you grasp that concept.
Posts: 16,039
Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:42 AM   #380
FishingRod FishingRod is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Casino cash: $8939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Not even close. It doesn't fly because stoning is already covered by other laws (assault, murder, etc). Therefore they can't claim any right to this because there is existing law contradicting it. Not so with SSM. There is in fact laws on the books in most of our states actually condoning a restriction.



Also, there is absolutely zero way to shoe-horn "equal protection" into the debate so long as Civil Unions or comparable accomodations exist for teh gayz. Marriage is a deeply rooted in religious tradition. Ergo forcing people to drop their views on marriage and comply with a directly contradictory religious principal (gay marriage) IS ABSOLUTELY restricting people's religious expression.
I am not following your logic at all. It seems that you are saying that if we have laws on the books that are contrary to religious beliefs that’s ok but we can’t make any new ones?

No one can be made to “drop their views”. Opinions are still legal in this country , No one has to “comply” it is not like you can be forced to Marry a dude. Likewise the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize divorce yet the Government does. It doesn’t invalidate the Catholic church.

Everyone is all bogged down on the sex part of the thing. Why can’t two people that actually are not having sex with one another( you know like real married people) join in a civil partnership and divided the duties, expenses and benefits as a married couple regardless of their sex and regardless if they are boinking one another?
Posts: 3,376
FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:50 AM   #381
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The bitch is BACK!
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $23467
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingRod View Post
I am not following your logic at all. It seems that you are saying that if we have laws on the books that are contrary to religious beliefs that’s ok but we can’t make any new ones?
Our laws are based largely (at minimum, in part) on Christian beliefs so you're going to have quite a bit of overlap. The 10 Commandments become everday law and so forth. Christianity has no belief in "stoning" people and it's reflected in our laws. If Muslims or some other relgion comes into the USA and starts stoning people they will be arrested for assault and murder if it occurs.


If and when Christian values leave the USA then you might see some swing towards accomodating stoning and cannibalism and other customs not known to the West. We shall see. But breaking laws and then hiding behind religion hasn't ever been accepted in our legal system.
Posts: 16,039
Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 12:09 PM   #382
FishingRod FishingRod is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Casino cash: $8939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch View Post
Our laws are based largely (at minimum, in part) on Christian beliefs so you're going to have quite a bit of overlap. The 10 Commandments become everday law and so forth. Christianity has no belief in "stoning" people and it's reflected in our laws. If Muslims or some other relgion comes into the USA and starts stoning people they will be arrested for assault and murder if it occurs.


If and when Christian values leave the USA then you might see some swing towards accomodating stoning and cannibalism and other customs not known to the West. We shall see. But breaking laws and then hiding behind religion hasn't ever been accepted in our legal system.
Well The 10 commandments are much older than Christianity but, to Quote Hillary, what does difference does it make? If a marriage not recognized by one religion or subset of a religion but, is by the government, how does that somehow infringe on the rights of those who do not believe the marriage to be valid? If one were to follow that logic anyone who has divorced and then remarries is somehow trammeling on the rights of the Catholics.
Posts: 3,376
FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 01:45 PM   #383
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The bitch is BACK!
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $23467
If I read you correctly, you're asking why Catholics would care if the Government allowed gay marriages since Catholics wouldn't be affected and wouldn't even have to recognize it. Is that correct?



What's the point of having gay marriage in the first place then? If anyone can ignore it where's the teeth. If people cannot ignore it (companies forced under EEOC for example) then it matters.
Posts: 16,039
Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.Prison Bitch 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:30 PM   #384
FishingRod FishingRod is offline
Veteran
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Casino cash: $8939
We don’t seem to be having the same conversation at all. I’m not sure if you are intentionally going off in some odd direction or I’m failing to articulate my points. As tired as my brain is the latter is very possible. In either case I just don’t have enough give a crap to continue on right now. Perhaps we can revisit this next week or something. Right now I’m just looking forward to a couple hours from now when Icy cold beverage starts.
Posts: 3,376
FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.FishingRod Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.