A moral victory in California. [Archive] - Theology Forum

Frank Ernest

March 15th, 2005, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Somebody needs to start telling these rogue judges that their job is not to legislate, but rather to enforce the law.
That somebody is We the People! Since our legislators, whom we elect, are not following their state or federally constituted power to rein in rogue courts, it falls to us.

The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1820

Art Deco

March 15th, 2005, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Somebody needs to start telling these rogue judges that their job is not to legislate, but rather to enforce the law. Good point. I have often wondered where the checks are on the State Court Justices. The Federal courts have Article III section 2 of the U.S. constitution which allows the Congress to limit the jurisdiction of all Federal courts and the Supreme Court which is supreme over all other federal courts but not over the people's reps in the Congress.

Sozo

March 15th, 2005, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Mr Jack

A victory for justice and morality over prejudice and bigotry - it'll be interesting to see whether this one stands.
We certainly know where Mr Jack stands, and it is clear that Mr. Jack is off on this one.

Skeptic

March 16th, 2005, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Mr Jack

A victory for justice and morality over prejudice and bigotry :thumb:

Frank Ernest

March 16th, 2005, 04:56 AM

:darwinsm: :mock::skeptic:

Art Deco

March 16th, 2005, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic

:mock:...:thumb:...:chuckle:

keypurr

March 16th, 2005, 08:37 AM

Time to replace some judges.

Granite

March 16th, 2005, 12:50 PM

Let's vote them out!

Oh, yeah.:rolleyes:

Art Deco

March 16th, 2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by keypurr

Time to replace some judges. Amen, From your mouth to God's ear... :angel:

Art Deco

March 16th, 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by granite1010

Let's vote them out!

Oh, yeah.:rolleyes: What are you affraid of? How else can the people make their collective will known except by voting in a President who espouses their views and vows to change the philosophical complexion of the Supreme Court? Better the ballot box than the cartridge box. Give Democracy a chance... :think:

Frank Ernest

March 17th, 2005, 05:23 AM

What the lie-berals are afraid of is the rule of law. They would rather have their black-robed buddies legislate from the bench.

It's obvious that the :Commie:s can't get their way in the various legislatures, so they've decided on judicial tyranny. Worked pretty well so far. Now comes GWB whom the lie-berals hate passionately. He believes that the Constitution says what it says and means what it means. Lie-berals believe that the Constitution says whatever they want it to say according to their current whims.

Hence the latest SCOTUS ruling (death penalty for minors) relying on "foreign opinion" and the usual atheist socialist :blabla:. Not one single Constitutional principle was used to come up with that ruling.

GWB is trying to get people on the federal benches who actually know what the law is and respect it. The lie-berals want their namby-pamby pretence of "law" to prevail. So far, we have been able to erode the :Commie: power base in the Senate by electing more Conservatives.

By the way, Art, The very LAST thing the :Commie:s want is effective representative government. By going to "friendly" judges, they have overturned the will of the people on more than one occasion.

Art Deco

March 17th, 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

What the lie-berals are afraid of is the rule of law. They would rather have their black-robed buddies legislate from the bench.

It's obvious that the :Commie:s can't get their way in the various legislatures, so they've decided on judicial tyranny. Worked pretty well so far. Now comes GWB whom the lie-berals hate passionately. He believes that the Constitution says what it says and means what it means. Lie-berals believe that the Constitution says whatever they want it to say according to their current whims.

Hence the latest SCOTUS ruling (death penalty for minors) relying on "foreign opinion" and the usual atheist socialist :blabla:. Not one single Constitutional principle was used to come up with that ruling.

GWB is trying to get people on the federal benches who actually know what the law is and respect it. The lie-berals want their namby-pamby pretence of "law" to prevail. So far, we have been able to erode the :Commie: power base in the Senate by electing more Conservatives.

By the way, Art, The very LAST thing the :Commie:s want is effective representative government. By going to "friendly" judges, they have overturned the will of the people on more than one occasion. Frank, you nailed it. More and more people have come to realize the tyranny of the Judicial System. Judges are now coming under attack in more ways than one.

When Congress uses its Constitutional right to restrict the jurisdiction of the Federal Bench in a major way (abortion, gun rights, God in the Public Square) Then the tyranny will come to an end. Congress can stop the judicial activism. It's about time... :think:

Granite

March 17th, 2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Art Deco

What are you affraid of? How else can the people make their collective will known except by voting in a President who espouses their views and vows to change the philosophical complexion of the Supreme Court? Better the ballot box than the cartridge box. Give Democracy a chance... :think:

Nothing you said guarantees you will get YOUR way, Deco.

If you don't, all you'll do is whine and complain about how the Democratic baby-eaters turned out more votes.

Majority rule is great till it turns on you.

Gerald

March 17th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Art Deco
Better the ballot box than the cartridge box.But if the ballot box doesn't work, the cartridge box is always available, right...?

Art Deco

March 17th, 2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

But if the ballot box doesn't work, the cartridge box is always available, right...? It did in 1776...:D

Gerald

March 17th, 2005, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Art Deco
It did in 1776...:D So...when do you anticipate the next armed uprising?

I shouldn't need to remind you that pistols, deer-rifles and shotguns (which are what the vast majority of US gun owners have) are pretty much useless against tanks and Bradleys...

Of course, there are South American drug lords and Muslim extremists who might sell you a Stinger missile or three...

Talk about strange bedfellows...

Art Deco

March 17th, 2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

So...when do you anticipate the next armed uprising?

I shouldn't need to remind you that pistols, deer-rifles and shotguns (which are what the vast majority of US gun owners have) are pretty much useless against tanks and Bradleys... You are assuming that the tanks and Bradleys will not turn against your side. There are military units ready to clean house...:chuckle:

Gerald

March 17th, 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Art Deco
There are military units ready to clean house...:chuckle: And what do you mean, exactly, by "clean house"? Are we talking gunning down dissidents in the street?

Rounding up prominent opposition leaders and imprisoning or executing them?

Which military units are these? I'm betting you don't know, and are just engaging in a demented revenge fantasy...

BTW: "The Bush Administration has engaged in acts which are short-sighted and reckless."

Is that a treasonous statement, in your opinion?

Granite

March 17th, 2005, 01:32 PM

They're listening.
:noid:

Zakath

March 17th, 2005, 02:09 PM

Whenever I read conversations like this, a line from the Who song, "Won't Get Fooled Again" runs through my mind...

"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss..."

Skeptic

March 17th, 2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

The very LAST thing the commies want is effective representative government. By going to "friendly" judges, they have overturned the will of the people on more than one occasion. Here's one occasion:

"Until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, states were constitutionally permitted to ban mixed-race marriages. And many did. More than half of the states had antimiscegenation statutes in 1945; 19 still had them in 1966. A 1965 Gallup Poll found that 42 percent of Northern whites supported such laws, as did 72 percent of Southern whites."

From: http://www.aei.org/include/news_print.asp?newsID=6690

"JUST three decades ago, Thurgood Marshall was only months away from appointment to the Supreme Court when he suffered an indignity that today seems not just outrageous but almost incomprehensible. He and his wife had found their dream house in a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., but could not lawfully live together in that state: he was black and she was Asian. Fortunately for the Marshalls, in January 1967 the Supreme Court struck down the anti-interracial-marriage laws in Virginia and 18 other states. And in 1967 these laws were not mere leftover scraps from an extinct era. Two years before, at the crest of the civil-rights revolution, a Gallup poll found that 72 per cent of Southern whites and 42 per cent of Northern whites still wanted to ban interracial marriage."

From: http://www.uky.edu/StudentOrgs/AWARE/archives/sailor.html

In his 1967 Loving v. Virginia majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren argued that the Virginia law violated the equal protection clause and fundamental privacy.

Here's more:

"In one of the most substantial race-related changes ever noted in a Gallup poll, a majority of members of both races, especially those less than 50 years old, now say they approve of interracial marriage between blacks and whites. In 1972, only 25 percent of whites and 61 percent of blacks approved of black-white marriages. The number who approve in 1997 is 61 percent of whites and 77 percent of blacks. Gallup officials said the major predictor of a positive reaction to marriage between blacks and whites is age, not race, with high approval noted among younger Americans and lower approval among older Americans. The age effect is found among both whites and blacks."

From: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0897/ijse/gallup.htm

What do you think would have happened in 1967 if majority opinion (i.e. the will of the people) ruled the day?

Then again, perhaps you think whites and blacks should not be allowed to marry.

Art Deco

March 17th, 2005, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

And what do you mean, exactly, by "clean house"? Are we talking gunning down dissidents in the street?

Rounding up prominent opposition leaders and imprisoning or executing them?

Which military units are these? I'm betting you don't know, and are just engaging in a demented revenge fantasy...

BTW: "The Bush Administration has engaged in acts which are short-sighted and reckless."

Is that a treasonous statement, in your opinion? Ever seen the movie "Seven Days In May"? Check it out...

Gerald

March 17th, 2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Art Deco
Ever seen the movie "Seven Days In May"? Check it out... Yeah, I saw it. The general dropped the ball.

Your point?

Art Deco

March 17th, 2005, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

Yeah, I saw it. The general dropped the ball.

Your point? Given the right set of circumstances it could happen in the near future. Everyone in the military swore an oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. :think:

drbrumley

March 17th, 2005, 06:27 PM

Yep, too bad it wouldnt be the United States Constitution they would be defending.

Art Deco

March 17th, 2005, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by drbrumley

Yep, too bad it wouldnt be the United States Constitution they would be defending. You really think card carrying Americans are going to sit on their hands while the globalists eliminate or borders, send all our jobs off shore, and watch the Supreme Court trample on the constitution by using foreign law to defend their unconstitutional decissions? :nono:

drbrumley

March 17th, 2005, 06:45 PM

Well Art, I would hope not. But it has been happening and noone seems to really care.

Frank Ernest

March 18th, 2005, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Art Deco

You really think card carrying Americans are going to sit on their hands while the globalists eliminate or borders, send all our jobs off shore, and watch the Supreme Court trample on the constitution by using foreign law to defend their unconstitutional decissions? :nono:
I don't. Slowly, but surely, the trend toward socialist tyranny is being slowed down. Just ain't happenin' fast enough to suit some folks.

We are in the "just a damn minute" phase of eventual reversal.

Art Deco

March 18th, 2005, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by drbrumley

Well Art, I would hope not. But it has been happening and noone seems to really care. Doc there are many state militias (not national guard units) that are well aware of the liberal attack on the constitution. There are those on active duty who would side with those who will not cave to the globalist agenda.

It's time to re-read John Locke Treatise on Civil Government (1688) Hear Locke's reasoning: Locke argued that all men are by nature, free, equal, and independent, and all enjoy the rights to life liberty and property. These laws of nature are self-evident to those who make use of reason. People consent to enter into a social contract and accept the bonds of government in order to better protect their rights.

People unite in a commonwealth especially for the preservation of their property. Government is based on the consent of the people. An absolute monarch (Tyrannical Supreme Court) is inconsistent with civil society because people retain the ability to judge for themselves whether their rights are truly being protected by government. The only justification for government is its ability to protect life, liberty and property.

It follows that any government that transgresses on these rights, either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption. breaches the social contract and forfeits the power the people had put into its hands.

The people then have the right to resume their original liberty, dissolve their bonds with the government, and create a new government such as they think fit. Thus Locke endorsed the right of revolution the moral right of a people to dissolve a government that violates their fundamental rights.

But he advised that people should not undertake such an action unless confronted with a long list of serious grievances and many fruitless attempts to redress them. And he reassured rulers that a good government has nothing to fear from acceptance of his theory of the rights of revolution. (Excerpt from Thomas R. Dye, "Politics In America" Texas Edition)

Gerald

March 18th, 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Art Deco
Given the right set of circumstances it could happen in the near future. Everyone in the military swore an oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. :think: Too bad the general in "Seven Days" decided the only way to save the Constitution was to destroy it.

You seem to think that the military would only hold onto power "for the duration of the present emergency." For someone who's pushing 70, you're awfully naive.

One need look no farther than the regimes of Pinochet and Musharraf to see what happens when the military decides to run the civil government.

"But wait!" you'll say. "Those leaders are corrupt, and our guys wouldn't be!" To which I answer: "For someone who's pushing 70, you're awfully naive".

Art Deco

March 18th, 2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

Too bad the general in "Seven Days" decided the only way to save the Constitution was to destroy it.

You seem to think that the military would only hold onto power "for the duration of the present emergency." For someone who's pushing 70, you're awfully naive.

One need look no farther than the regimes of Pinochet and Musharraf to see what happens when the military decides to run the civil government.

"But wait!" you'll say. "Those leaders are corrupt, and our guys wouldn't be!" To which I answer: "For someone who's pushing 70, you're awfully naive". Pushing 70 has given me the knowledge of right and wrong which you in your younger years are completely deprived of. Inexperience and ignorance of youth is no match for the wisdom of those advanced in the human life cycle. Be patient Gerald, wisdom comes through maturity. You may yet see the light, if God grants you the privilege. :angel:

Granite

March 18th, 2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Art Deco

Pushing 70 has given me the knowledge of right and wrong which you in your younger years are completely deprived of. Inexperience and ignorance of youth is no match for the wisdom of those advanced in the human life cycle. Be patient Gerald, wisdom comes through maturity. You may yet see the light, if God grants you the privilege. :angel:

Well this explains a lot.

Hey Crankshaft, newsflash: a pack of nuts in uniform supplanting the constitution is not exactly something we should hope for.

Your brand of "wisdom" includes fascism and boot-stomping. If this is the "wisdom" seven decades gives you, I'll pass. Turning into a Jesus-shouting brownshirted prune who fantasizes about coups in America is not what I want to become.

Art Deco

March 18th, 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Well this explains a lot.

Hey Crankshaft, newsflash: a pack of nuts in uniform supplanting the constitution is not exactly something we should hope for.

Your brand of "wisdom" includes fascism and boot-stomping. If this is the "wisdom" seven decades gives you, I'll pass. Turning into a Jesus-shouting brownshirted prune who fantasizes about coups in America is not what I want to become. Thanks bro, your always good for a laugh... :chuckle: :BRAVO: :darwinsm: :first:

Granite

March 18th, 2005, 10:03 AM

:yawn:

Art Deco

March 18th, 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by granite1010 and edited by Art deco:

:mock::yawn:

Granite

March 18th, 2005, 10:12 AM

Another thread bites the dust.

:devil:

Art Deco

March 18th, 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Another thread bites the dust.

:devil: It all comes down to mocking...What's left? :confused:

Granite

March 18th, 2005, 10:24 AM

Ummmm...a duel?

Gerald

March 18th, 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Art Deco
It all comes down to mocking...What's left? :confused: You're the one who started mocking. Who are you to holler foul when you get mocked in return?

So how about addressing my post, instead of being a patronizing jerk.

BTW, I know conclusively that I am not one of the Elect™. God told me to tell you to give up all hope on me.

Gerald

March 18th, 2005, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Ummmm...a duel? Shotguns from three paces. :D

On Fire

March 18th, 2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Gerald
God told me to tell you to give up all hope on me. :ha: God is not in your calling plan.

Gerald

March 18th, 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by On Fire
:ha: God is not in your calling plan. Shaddap, you, I'm busy smacking Deco around.

Of course, if you're a Calvinist, then get in line, and I'll get to you.

:chuckle:

BillyBob

March 18th, 2005, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

Shotguns from three paces. :D

Perfect! You can be the referee and stand right in between them.

:dead:

the Sibbie

March 18th, 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Mr Jack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4349201.stm

A victory for justice and morality over prejudice and bigotry - it'll be interesting to see whether this one stands.

The Lord = justice
The Lord = righteousness

Psalm 89:14
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 37:28
For the LORD loves justice,
And does not forsake His saints;
They are preserved forever,
But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off

Unrighteousness = abomination

Deuteronomy 25:16
For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Homosexuality = abomination

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

The wicked = perversion of justice

Habakkuk 1:4
Therefore the law is powerless,
And justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
Therefore perverse judgment proceeds.

The wicked = perversion justice = unrighteousness = abomination = homosexuality

The Lord loves justice. The Lord hates the wicked. The wicked pervert justice. Homosexuality is wicked, unrighteous, and an abomination. Therefore the Lord hates homosexuality and sees it as a wicked, unrighteous, abomination and a perversion of justice.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous,
But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

A word of advice, Mr. Jack:
Exodus 23:2
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice

Justice and morality = acceptance of homosexual marriage/lifestyle? :ha: In your dreams, Mr. Jack! :cloud9:

Granite

March 18th, 2005, 11:48 AM

:chuckle:

Gerald

March 18th, 2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob

Perfect! You can be the referee and stand right in between them.

:dead: Fine. It isn't like buckshot will penetrate ceramic-reinforced Kevlar... :chuckle:

BillyBob

March 18th, 2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

Fine. It isn't like buckshot will penetrate ceramic-reinforced Kevlar... :chuckle:

Funny, I always pictured you as a little taller.....

Crow

March 18th, 2005, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

Fine. It isn't like buckshot will penetrate ceramic-reinforced Kevlar... :chuckle:

Assuming they don't just say to heck with it and go for a headshot.

You have plates in the back of a vest? Cool!

Gerald

March 18th, 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Crow
Assuming they don't just say to heck with it and go for a headshot.That's what the custom ceramic/polycarbon helmet is for!

The whole suit seals against nuclear, chemical and biological warfare agents, can withstand hard vacuum, and carries life support for up to two weeks.

The Y-rack and smartshells cost extra, though... :chuckle:

Art Deco

March 18th, 2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

You're the one who started mocking. Who are you to holler foul when you get mocked in return? I enjoy being mocked it builds character and lets you know how effective you are in your argument.

Posted by He who is above reproach ( In his own mind): So how about addressing my post, instead of being a patronizing jerk. Good grief Gerald give me the post # at the very least...:doh:

Posted by Gerald, God's wayward child:BTW, I know conclusively that I am not one of the Elect™. God told me to tell you to give up all hope on me. Gerald, If God wants you, you can't escape. He will melt your heart of stone and give you a new heart of flesh. I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over. :angel:

Mr Jack

March 21st, 2005, 05:06 AM

Sibbie,

I've read the bible; I know what your favoured translation says about this. But, strangely, I really care little what some bloke wrote about his prejudices two thousand years ago and still less what a bunch of bronze age herders thought constituted morality and justice.

Frank Ernest

March 21st, 2005, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by :mock:Mr Jack

Sibbie,

I've read the bible; I know what your favoured translation says about this. But, strangely, I really care little what some bloke wrote about his prejudices two thousand years ago and still less what a bunch of bronze age herders thought constituted morality and justice.
:darwinsm: BLOTD!

Mr Jack

March 21st, 2005, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

BLOTD!

BLOTD?

julie21

March 21st, 2005, 06:33 AM

BLOTD?...Possibly... Blatant Lie Of The Day? :think:

Mr Jack

March 21st, 2005, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by julie21

BLOTD?...Possibly... Blatant Lie Of The Day? :think:

Could be. How can an opinion be a lie, though?

julie21

March 21st, 2005, 07:09 AM

Maybe it was pointed not at the opinions stated but the statement re having read the book Sibbie's translation came from?
I don't know...I'll wait for Frank's confirmation. That will be certainly worth waiting for, I am sure! :)

ACTUALLY..just had another quick look at it and as Spock would say, "logically" it is most likely...
Biggest Laugh Of The Day!!!

Art Deco

March 21st, 2005, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by the Sibbie

The Lord = justice
The Lord = righteousness

Psalm 89:14
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.

Psalm 37:28
For the LORD loves justice,
And does not forsake His saints;
They are preserved forever,
But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off

Unrighteousness = abomination

Deuteronomy 25:16
For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Homosexuality = abomination

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

The wicked = perversion of justice

Habakkuk 1:4
Therefore the law is powerless,
And justice never goes forth.
For the wicked surround the righteous;
Therefore perverse judgment proceeds.

The wicked = perversion justice = unrighteousness = abomination = homosexuality

The Lord loves justice. The Lord hates the wicked. The wicked pervert justice. Homosexuality is wicked, unrighteous, and an abomination. Therefore the Lord hates homosexuality and sees it as a wicked, unrighteous, abomination and a perversion of justice.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD tests the righteous,
But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

A word of advice, Mr. Jack:
Exodus 23:2
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice

Justice and morality = acceptance of homosexual marriage/lifestyle? :ha: In your dreams, Mr. Jack! :cloud9:

Excellent Post: :e4e: :bow: Keep up the good work...:thumb: