1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evangelical Protestants show largest increase in acceptance of gay marriages . . .

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Skwim, Dec 27, 2013.

  1. Skwim

    Skwim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,531
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    . . . although they still anchor the bottom of the chart.

    "For the first time, just over half (51 percent) of the public favor same-sex marriage, while 42 percent are opposed. The number of states allowing same-sex marriage doubled, from nine to 18. A Supreme Court decision required the federal government to treat legally married same-sex couples as it would treat heterosexual couples. The court also dismissed a California Proposition 8 appeal on procedural grounds, thereby allowing same-sex.​
    [​IMG]
    source
    Broken down by increase in acceptance over the last 12 years the five categories of religious affiliation are as follows
    Evangelical Protestants. . . . . 77%
    White mainline Protestants . . 45%
    Catholics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%
    Religiously unaffiliated. . . . . .21%
    Black Protestants . . . . . . . . .06%

     
  2. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    Skwim, I have never seen you before on RF, so I am not "following you around" and "trolling" you. Neither have I been bullying you, or anything of the sort; yet somehow,*edit*

    Homosexuality is defined in the Bible as an "unclean" thing. Does anyone here know what "unclean" means? Read a book on hygeine. When you stick your fingers in someone else's nose, then lick your fingers, this is called "unclean". In modern medical terms, we say it is unclean because it transmits germs. The Bible, on the other hand, understood about uncleanness long before anyone knew what a germ was.

    One thing considered "unclean" in the Bible, is when fluids that belong inside one person's body are exposed to another person, or to the public. That is why menstruating women are considered "unclean" during their periods, and not allowed into the temple. A person with any sort of a discharge is likewise considered "unclean", simply because he IS unclean.

    In male-female sex, there is an exchange of bodily fluids between two people only; and this exchange is meant to be confined to that couple or that marriage family (in the case of polygamy). Having sex within a marriage, then having sex outside of that marriage, is considered an UNCLEAN act, because it propagates bodily fluids to the public. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases understands this.

    Homosexuality is unclean -- not because of any "moral" or "religious" reasons. It is unclean, because bodily fluids are improperly exchanged and propagated.

    By your chart, you show that Evangelicals have in the past understood, and continue to understand, the very obvious and true nature of these things. The fact that they are beginning to lose sight of these basic facts is no cause for rejoicing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2013
  3. nilsz

    nilsz bzzt

    Messages:
    209
    Religion:
    Secular humanism
    I suppose you regard monogamous homosexuality as equally unclean as monogamous heterosexuality, then, BlandOatmeal, and could perhaps be encouraged by allowing same-sex marriage.
     
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,531
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I had absolutely nothing to do with your post being deleted. I only complain about posts when they involve plagiarism. Someone else is responsible for getting your post and my reply removed from the thread. :shrug:

    Please cite the passage and the Bible version you're taking it from.

    Please cite your source explaining why these body fluids (whatever they may be) are "improperly exchanged and propagated" when occurring between two women or two men.

    Obviously, in the face of absolutely no evidence, you love to read reason into results. So be it. As for myself, such self-serving exercises aren't worthy of further comment. Have a nice day.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
  5. dyanaprajna2011

    dyanaprajna2011 Dharmapala

    Messages:
    5,537
    It's good to see this trend. Hopefully it will continue. Maybe one day, we'll look back, and wonder why we didn't act sooner to have homosexuals given the same rights, that they deserve, as women and blacks, and everyone else.
     
  6. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    Hello, nilsz

    You make some interesting points about "monogamy", etc.; but if you had been privileged to see my original post, you would find that I did not even mention these things there. Rather, I referred to the physical uncleanness of homosexual acts, where organs intended for other purposes are used as sex organs.

    Unclean practices are unclean, period. Rectums are not vaginas, and never will be -- whether monogamously or polygamously or any other way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2013
  7. dyanaprajna2011

    dyanaprajna2011 Dharmapala

    Messages:
    5,537
    If this is the case, why the silence from conservative Christians on heterosexual sex acts that...hm...how to say this...are nearly the same as male homosexual sex acts?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2013
  8. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions.
    Skwim,

    I don't know how it's "obvious" what I love to read. What sort of self-serving exercise are you engaging in, in accusing me of these things? I read into the results, that you thought it was significant that Evangelicals were "coming around" to the majority opinion that homosexual marriages were somehow equivalent to heterosexual ones. What you intended beyond that was not explicitly stated, but I think it's fair to suppose that you thought the majority was somehow "right" on this matter. If that is not what you implied, then I apologize for reading you wrong, and look forward to you telling us that you did NOT imply this and that you, like me, do not agree with the majority opinion.

    Concerning what the Bible says about homosexual acts, there are numerous passages, including the following:

    Leviticus 18
    [5] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
    [6] None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
    [7] The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    [8] The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
    [9] The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
    [10] The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
    [11] The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    [12] Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
    [13] Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
    [14] Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
    [15] Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
    [16] Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
    [17] Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
    [18] Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
    [19] Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
    [20] Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
    [21] And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
    [22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    [23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
    [24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
    [25] And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

    All those verses talk about unclean activities which DEFILE THE LAND -- in other words, which cause the spread of disease, of genetic weakness, and of social discord. What every one of these has in common, is the exchange of fluids -- except, perhaps, the one about passing one's seed through the fire to Molech; but even there, this may simply be a euphemism. The laws concerning menstruating women and leprosy also concern communicable diseases, so there can be little doubt that this was a major factor in these prohibitions.

    You asked, I answered. As you said to me, your self-serving questions are not worthy of further answers. Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
  9. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    Was this a rhetorical question? Or were you talking to me? The "silence" you seem to be noticing, comes from the fact that the survey was about homosexuality, not about other violations. As Jesus said,

    "Ask, and ye shall receive" -- but do it on another thread.
     
  10. Penumbra

    Penumbra Well-Known Member Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,623
    People have such narrow and incorrect views of the broad spectrum of what homosexuality actually is.

    Homosexuality is not synonymous with anal sex between males. Not all gay males have that sort of sex. Then of course there is sex between females; that's homosexual sex too.

    Then of course, 40% of heterosexual people report having tried anal sex, and considering that heterosexual people greatly outnumber homosexual people, that means that the majority of people that have had anal sex in the US at least once, are heterosexuals.

    Plus, there is all the oral sex, unprotected vaginal sex, among the heterosexual population which vastly outnumbers homosexual people. Yet so much attention gets focused on homosexuals, and people want to give them unequal rights.

    Plus, condoms.
     
  11. Skwim

    Skwim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,531
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Along with reading my involvement into the deletion of your post, you also read into the chart that Protestant Evangelicals "have in the past understood, and continue to understand, the very obvious and true nature of these things." i. e. they agree with your assessment that the reason why homosexual marriages were looked down upon was because their acts of sexual expression are unclean; dirty. Then you claim the reason for their shift away from their condemnation of homosexual marriages was because they no longer considered their acts of sexual expression to be unclean; dirty. So, unless you have evidence for these assertions of cause-and-effect among Evangelical Protestants, you have made your propensity to read specific reason into events an obvious one.

    Not quite understanding you here--your sentence structure could be a bit cleaner---I have no idea what you mean by "equivalent" when you say, "homosexual marriages were somehow equivalent to heterosexual ones." Re. Evangelical Protestants, all the chart shows is that among the religious affiliations cited, they were making the greatest change in their attitude toward homosexual marriages.

    Well, there was nothing more intended; however, you are correct in surmising that I believe the acceptance of homosexual marriage is a good thing.

    Excuse me! There's not a single instance of the word "unclean" being associated with homosexual sex, much less homosexuality being defined as unclean, as I asked. You said
    "Homosexuality is defined in the Bible as an "unclean" thing."
    And I asked.
    "Please cite the passage and the Bible version you're taking it from."
    So, have you done this? NO!

    And it's hardly true that "All those verses talk about unclean activities which DEFILE THE LAND." This is nothing but your personal interpretation, which counts for zilch here. Want to believe that what you claim is true? Fine, but don't for a minute think I or anyone else is going to buy it.

    But your answers weren't even close to being on target, much less correct. Can't even give you an "E" for effort. :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
  12. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    Penumbra, you quoted me, then began a discourse about what "people" think. Since you don't know much about what I think, let me just repeat what I said, which is also what God said:

    Lev. 18
    [22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination...

    [27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled :
    [28] That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

    God didn't specify any particular homosexual act; He simply said that doing that and all the other unclean acts listed defiled the land -- i.e., it caused epidemics.

    God didn't specify the acts, because He didn't have to. Where shall we go with this? Suffice to say, that EVERY homosexual act involves using organs in ways they were not intended by NATURE to be used -- and if you look into the matter, you will find that they are all unhygenic; and that the most horrible diseases can be transmitted in these ways. It is no coincidence, that the "Sexual Revolution" in the late 1960s brought with it the "AIDS Revolution" of the early 1980s. Yes, Virginia, there is a connection. There is not a Santa Claus, but there is a definite connection between improper sex and AIDS.

    Please do not take this as bullying. If you feel threatened by me, it's all in your own mind. I am simply speaking objective reality.

    As for condoms, you might consider that (1) the Israelites did not HAVE condoms, and hence they didn't figure in to what is "clean" and "unclean", (2) the fact that the necessity of using a condom is PROOF that the activity is "unclean" (You don't put an elastoplast on clean skin; you put it on a wound, so an infection doesn't get transmitted), and (3) that condoms don't protect people from AIDS and other STDs. We've had condoms for years, yet STDs are at higher levels now than before condoms were widely used.

    One thing that teaching people to use condoms does, is it encourages them to engage in dangerous sex, thinking they will be protected. Even if a condom is 99% effective, and used 100% of the time, that still means that someone who has sex once a week for two years has a PROBABILITY of being infected with an STD.

    Keeping a proper segregation of the sexes, however, has kept STD rates relatively low until recent times. It's easy to keep men and women at a safe distance, so they don't literally "uncover the nakedness" of the other, as the scriptures say. But how do you keep a safe distance between men and men, or women and women, when homosexuality is not forbidden? Sexual assaults have risen by 50% in the military in recent years. Years ago, men and women simply took showers and slept in separate barracks, and homosexuals were discharged. That kept the men and women from arousing one another. How can a GI even take a shower now, without having to be concerned that he is arousing the GI next to him -- OR her? The whole idea is madness!

    I don't know why you brought up the things you did, unless you're trying to condone homosexuality. This is also what I saw as the OP's purpose -- which seemed to be saying,

    "Look! Everyone's doing it! It must be right!"

    It ISN'T right; it's utter social madness. Enough said.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2013
  13. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein A halo of gunfire. Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,201
    Religion:
    Catholicism (Latin Rite)
    Bland, stop acting like you're being "persecuted". There was obviously a thread clean up that happened because every post I saw on it yesterday has been deleted, which is everyone's fault because we were being inappropriate.
     
  14. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    Specifically, unhygenic. Yes.
    Whoa! back! Who's CONDEMNING anything? Condemning them to what? Execution? Hellfire? Please be specific. When I forbid you to, say, steal a diamond necklace from the jewelry store I am not "condemning" you to anything! Why are you using such loaded language? What's your agenda, anyway?
    (nothing "obvious" here, and no comment necessary. How long do you expect me to put up with this?
    Are you proposing that homosexual marriages should somehow be "different" from heterosexual ones in the eyes of the law? If one allows the legalization of homosexual marriages, then one is also allowing that they are "somehow equivalent" to heterosexual marriages. How is that so hard to understand???

    The main point in this, which you are trying to dance around, is that those who object to legalizing homosexual MARRIAGES, object because in so doing, they are being forced to accept the practice of homosexuality -- an extremely hazardous behavior. In the "old days", we used to call this a red herring.
    What you are saying, in effect, is that I wasn't "reading this into" what you said. You were indeed implying it, as I thought.
    Here we go again; but I don't plan on covering this ground again:

    Lev. 18
    [22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination...

    [27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled :
    [28] That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
    [29] For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
    [30] Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

    The Hebrew for "abomination" is

    תועבה

    Pronounce: to-ay-baw'
    Strong: H8441
    Orig: or tonebah \i to-ay-baw'\i0\plain\f3\fs21\cf23 ; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination. H8581
    Use: TWOT-2530a Noun Feminine
    Grk Strong: G167 G169 G266 G458 G459 G763 G946 G947 G2041 G4189 G4190 G4191
    1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
    1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
    1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

    Considering the context, moreover, it is crystal clear that physical contamination was connected with it -- AS YOU FULLY WELL KNOW.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
  15. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein A halo of gunfire. Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,201
    Religion:
    Catholicism (Latin Rite)
    I fail to see the logic behind the thinking that oral, anal and vaginal sex are only "unclean" or dangerous when it's between people of the same-sex. Why the silence over heterosexuals participating in those acts, and in higher numbers? As a queer man, myself, I am well-aware of the wide variety of sexual activities that gay men and lesbians get up to. I can tell you that not one of those acts are exclusive to LGB people (humans really aren't that creative, sexually).

    So, with that in mind, someone please explain to me in a logical and coherent manner why homosexuality is automatically so much more worse than heterosexuality? Oh, and explain it without dredging up out of context, obscure verses from the OT, please. Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2013
  16. Penumbra

    Penumbra Well-Known Member Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,623
    What makes you assume Leviticus has anything to do with god? Did not men write those words?

    What would Leviticus have to do with laws in the developed world, like about who can get married? This is not a theocracy.

    There is so much discarded violence in those old pages and yet people focus on the line about homosexuality like it's a shining strand of timeless wisdom amidst the other abandoned laws.

    Because facts matter.

    Uh, many types of sex that homosexual people engage in are the same as the types of sex that heterosexual people engage in.

    Saying that something is unclean simply because a homosexual person did it, regardless of the act itself, is basically calling a homosexual person unclean, inherently, which is pretty messed up.

    lol

    Which is irrelevant because I'm not talking about the Israelites. The OP is about marriage, and you're posting about homosexuality being unclean.

    The fact is, condoms exist now, which is relevant for heterosexual people and homosexual people.

    Not even close, because condoms are useful for heterosexual people engaging in intercourse as well. It is not proof of it being unclean.

    Condoms are highly effective at preventing many types of STDs. People, regardless of their sexual orientation, generally transmit diseases when they are not using protection.

    Besides, people can get tested and take other precautions to reduce risk further. So a monogamous (including married) homosexual couple that are healthy and without STDs will not transmit them to each other, just as is the case for a heterosexual couple. Every single one of your arguments is invalid for a married, safe, homosexual couple.

    And telling people to go from puberty to age 28 (average age of marriage) without sex is effective?

    They just end up having sex without knowledge on how to do it safely.

    Of course I condone homosexuality. There's no good reason not to. Your arguments aren't coherent.

    People are beginning to accept it because facts are overwhelmingly in favor of it. It takes mental gymnastics to try to make it look like some inherent problem, especially safe homosexual practices like with protection or with monogamy (and this is about marriage, after all).
     
  17. Uberpod

    Uberpod Active Member

    Messages:
    662
    Were you ever on Duck Dynasty?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2013
    dyanaprajna2011 likes this.
  18. Uberpod

    Uberpod Active Member

    Messages:
    662
    Bland Oats
    The transferral of semen along the same route as urine is clean though,
    right?
     
  19. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    Wow! I had to check your personal info on this. So, you're a philosopher. I did say "God said..." in referring to the teachings in Leviticus; and indeed, Leviticus itself says that God spoke those words:

    Lev 18
    [1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying...

    "The LORD", in all caps, is the KJV translation of יהוה -- which is the name of the God of Israel, the God I worship.

    That's a reasonable point. We are certainly free to make any laws we wish; and even the Bible gives non-Jews tremendous leeway in how they live. Concerning homosexual acts, though, the Bible says,

    Lev. 18
    [22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    [23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
    [24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
    [25] And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

    [26] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you...

    What God is implying here, is that these are not just statutes to separate the Jews from non-Jews; they are NATURAL laws, with PHYSICAL consequenses.

    The Apostle Paul even goes so far as to describe homosexuality not as a SIN, but as a PUNISHMENT!

    Romans 1
    [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    [19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    [21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    [26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, an
    d
    receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    Paul was no doubt referring to Gay Bowel Syndrome, and the many STDs and immune system overload disorders associated with this conduct.

    No, we are not a theocracy; but for our own good, we ought to use common sense. We require people to use seat belts, for their own protection. How much more should we not have laws that promote our health?
    I have been actively serving God for 40 of my 65 years, and spent very little of that time even thinking about homosexuality. The "focus" you see comes entirely from the Pro-Gay community. It is a rare pleasure, when I get to watch Public Television for more than an hour, without being lambasted by Homosexual propaganda; and during the news hour, that time reduces to about fifteen minutes.
    The facts are these:

    People engaging, say, in anal sex, are probably equally likely to have a transfer of fluids (blood, etc.), whether the union is same-sex or heterosexual. The BIG difference is that in BIBLICAL heterosexual unions, and even most extramarital unions, the exposure to disease is largely limited to the two engaged in the act. The risk of cross-contamination increases considerably, when there is infidelity or casual sex. In the case of homosexuals, promiscuity tends to be rampant, viz:

    Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals
    by Matt Slick

    Promiscuity

    "28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners..."

    -- Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

    With numbers like that, we aren't even talking about a crap shoot: We're talking about facing a firing squad with only one cartridge misfiring.
    I hope you can see by now, that I am not doing that. By "unclean", I mean simply, physically and epidemiologically, unclean. God codified lots of things into the Jewish law, that are flat-out good for us. This is one of them.
    (covered above)
    I have already covered this. Since the widespread availability of condoms, the rate of STDs has gone up in the US. These devices to not stem the epidemic; they fuel it.
    Among "clean" people (i.e. free of STDs), condoms are useful in reducing unwanted pregnancies. In every other case, they are used precisely because of the probability of infection.
    -- only if they have STDs (covered above)
    Yes -- and especially more effective than encouraging them to practice casual sex because condoms are available. Honey, this has been the norm for millennia.
    Two pieces of advice:

    (1) Until he says "I do", you don't.
    (2) "Why buy a cow, when milk is free?"

    I'm a grandpa, four times over. I'm talking about things I know about.
    Aw, sorry! :sorry1:
     
  20. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal New Member

    Messages:
    645
    I assume you're just being snarky. Try to keep on subject.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted