Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 07:54:22 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, Torie, Vice President PiT)
| | |-+  Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 51 Print
Author Topic: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws  (Read 171404 times)
Stardust
Full Member
***
Posts: 205
View Profile
« Reply #125 on: December 02, 2011, 08:00:11 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.
Logged

Were we forewarned?
Force it to break
Labor of hate
Who are we fooling?
What are we doing?

Skinny Puppy, "Use Less"
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: December 02, 2011, 08:08:11 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

More to the point, it's not how marriage law operates now in the U.S. If CARL tried to legislate this distinction or put it up to a vote, it would lose by a landslide. When this interpretation crimps the rights of heterosexuals to marry (imagine any marriage post-menopause), it is soundly defeated.

This concept has been brought up in pretty much every same-sex marriage court case and defeated by the mountain of evidence citing that procreation is not a requirement for opposite-sex couples, and also that many same-sex couples are raising children of their own (adoption or biological, whichever; the court doesn't deem adopted children as less worthy of protection) who merit that environment offered by the shelter of the laws.

CARL's either going to get this or he'll choose not to, that's fine. I'm not going to waste time rehashing arguments the rest of the country already had over the past ten years about how laws are passed, why courts exist, the fact that marriage doesn't adhere to the strictures needed to exclude same-sex couples, etc. It's enough to know that he's losing this in the long run and condescending loudly to people on a web site isn't going to change that.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 08:09:42 am by brittain33 »Logged
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10648


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #127 on: December 02, 2011, 08:10:41 am »
Ignore

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.
Brittain, I support your marriage. I can't figure out why anybody wouldn't. Out of spite, I suppose. Need I remind you, however, Massachusetts recognizes your marriage, but the federal government does not. You're still not all the way there legally.

Memphis,

I am sure there are a lot of things you can't "figure out."

But, no matter how much evidence and logic one might apply, you seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so "out of spite."

Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10648


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #128 on: December 02, 2011, 08:12:03 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.

Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: December 02, 2011, 08:12:57 am »
Ignore

Why the apostrophes, CARL?

There's a a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln that asserts that calling a tail a leg is simply false.

'Gay marriage' is a definitional falsity.

I'm married. It's a reality, legally and socially. Your opinion doesn't matter to me. If I lived in some other state, it would for legal reasons. But the trend for the future is clear.
Brittain, I support your marriage. I can't figure out why anybody wouldn't. Out of spite, I suppose. Need I remind you, however, Massachusetts recognizes your marriage, but the federal government does not. You're still not all the way there legally.

Oh, certainly true. We remember that every time tax time comes around.

I'm confident the feds will start recognizing Mass. marriages sometime soon. The court cases couldn't be any clearer and they're well on their way. But we're not there yet.
Logged
Stardust
Full Member
***
Posts: 205
View Profile
« Reply #130 on: December 02, 2011, 08:14:04 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.



Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.
Logged

Were we forewarned?
Force it to break
Labor of hate
Who are we fooling?
What are we doing?

Skinny Puppy, "Use Less"
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10648


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #131 on: December 02, 2011, 08:19:10 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

More to the point, it's not how marriage law operates now in the U.S. If CARL tried to legislate this distinction or put it up to a vote, it would lose by a landslide. When this interpretation crimps the rights of heterosexuals to marry (imagine any marriage post-menopause), it is soundly defeated.

This concept has been brought up in pretty much every same-sex marriage court case and defeated by the mountain of evidence citing that procreation is not a requirement for opposite-sex couples, and also that many same-sex couples are raising children of their own (adoption or biological, whichever; the court doesn't deem adopted children as less worthy of protection) who merit that environment offered by the shelter of the laws.

CARL's either going to get this or he'll choose not to, that's fine. I'm not going to waste time rehashing arguments the rest of the country already had over the past ten years about how laws are passed, why courts exist, the fact that marriage doesn't adhere to the strictures needed to exclude same-sex couples, etc. It's enough to know that he's losing this in the long run and condescending loudly to people on a web site isn't going to change that.

Please do drop you posts if you are unable to answer any of my points.

Replying to a silly post of another poster is simply laughable.

Oh, and you keep making false assumptions.  Adoption if a legal process.  The courts require evidence of provision for such adoptees.  Marriage provides for such legal protections.

Funny how the proponents of homosexuality on this board can not cite even one election in which the public has endorsed 'gay marriage' but blithely assert they will prevail based on surveys which have proven to be inaccurate.
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10648


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #132 on: December 02, 2011, 08:20:02 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.



Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CaDan
Full Member
***
Posts: 181
View Profile
« Reply #133 on: December 02, 2011, 08:20:16 am »
Ignore

Comparing Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 is laughable.

Proposition 8 was a Constitutional Amendment, Proposition 22 was not. The two propositions were worded differently as well.

Apples and oranges.

Oh and "social 'science'" is not a science at all.
Logged

Stardust
Full Member
***
Posts: 205
View Profile
« Reply #134 on: December 02, 2011, 08:25:15 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.



Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.

You clearly need to study some authentically conservative thinkers.
Logged

Were we forewarned?
Force it to break
Labor of hate
Who are we fooling?
What are we doing?

Skinny Puppy, "Use Less"
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16019


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: December 02, 2011, 08:32:59 am »
Ignore

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.



Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.
You suggested a fertility test for marriage. That would be a very strange situation indeed. Especially as fertility is not always binary. A forty something woman might be able to get pregnant, but it'd be a lot harder than in her college (or even high school) days. Men usually don't have a problem with age, except for what I'll delicately call the Viagara situation.
And do you have to be fertile only to initiate marriage or do you need all your organs in functioning order to remain married. Seems strange to deny a marriage license to a woman a month after the onset of menopause, when she could have gotten grandfathered in with the same man just the year before. Then you'd need regular checkups to ensure people are still fertile. Once a woman goes through the change of life, you'd need to annul the marriage. Should all women be forced to send the state their medical records at that point so that they can have their marriages cancelled?  Because that's the logical conclusion of your fertility argument.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2641


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #136 on: December 02, 2011, 08:42:21 am »
Ignore

The social conservative butthurt on this issue is hilarious. I only wish we had more issues like this to piss them off

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17541
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: December 02, 2011, 08:50:49 am »
Ignore

Morakai,

Way to go, Carl.

Quote
Please pay attention to what I posted.

Yes, several surveys are showing increased support for homosexuality, and 'gay marriage,' but the elections have shown those polls to be highly suspect (to put it mildly).

That's not just my opinion, but that of a number of expert analysts (I cited url's).

Whether or not you can accept it, this is not a matter of your opinion, this is an empirical, checkable thing. Look at the Gallup graph above, alone. Support for gay marriage has practically doubled since the mid-90s. Look at every polling company ever and their data on this issue over a decade, and support for gay marriage increases regularly. It's increased even faster than usual in the last few years.
Logged
CaDan
Full Member
***
Posts: 181
View Profile
« Reply #138 on: December 02, 2011, 09:06:20 am »
Ignore

Carl already pointed that polling on this issue is misleading.

1. Polling companies routinely "cook the books" either deliberately or through the way in which they word their questions.

2. Individuals often do not give accurate information to pollsters.

3. There is a marked difference between the national polls on this issue, and individual State polls. If the national polls like the Gallup garbage are correct, then Pennsylvania shouldn't have a 20+ point gap against homosexual 'marriage'.

So either Gallup is wrong, PPP is wrong, or something else is going on.

4. Polling companies changed the wording of the way that they asked the question. This means that any polls before/after that change cannot be compared.

5. A recent national poll using different wording found 62% opposition to changing the definition of marriage. (This would be more in line with the 20 point gap found in Pennsylvania).
Logged

memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16019


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: December 02, 2011, 09:28:43 am »
Ignore

There are some problems with "inquiry" methods of ascertaining information. You're right that how a question is worded is hugely important. When gathering public opinion, you don't want to push people with weasel words. "Should so and so be recognized" sounds pretty neutral to me. "Should we change the definition of marriage" is clearly pushing a conservative stance. It encourages the appeal to tradition fallacy. 
In the above Gallup graph, the wording has remained consistent except for one change in 2005. And there wasn't a lot of change around 2005. If it bother you that much you could just break the graph into two sections and see that there was a great deal of change from 1996-2005 and then also from 2006-2011.
Also, suggesting that the sea change of opinion in the graph is about people suddenly deciding to lie to pollsters when they weren't lying just a few years back doesn't sound like a strong position to me. If you want to assert that public opinion on this issue hasn't changed, you need some evidence to back that up. Polling, from a reputable firm, over several years, with a consistent phrasing. Happy searching!
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30994
United States



View Profile
« Reply #140 on: December 02, 2011, 09:36:09 am »
Ignore

Carl already pointed that polling on this issue is misleading.

1. Polling companies routinely "cook the books" either deliberately or through the way in which they word their questions.

The Gallup question has been remarkably consistent for years, as far as I know.

Beyond that, unsure what you mean by "cook the books."  Are you alleging the trend on the gay marriage issue is a mass fabrication?

2. Individuals often do not give accurate information to pollsters.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  There's certainly a phenomenon where gay rights issues modestly overpoll on average.  But are you suggesting that the trend is instead just a massive increase in misrepresentation of opinion?  That doesn't even square with election results.

3. There is a marked difference between the national polls on this issue, and individual State polls. If the national polls like the Gallup garbage are correct, then Pennsylvania shouldn't have a 20+ point gap against homosexual 'marriage'.

So either Gallup is wrong, PPP is wrong, or something else is going on.

And then there are results like Arizona.  Have you added this up?  I'd be interested in what you got.

4. Polling companies changed the wording of the way that they asked the question. This means that any polls before/after that change cannot be compared.

Ehh, you can compare dissimilar things.  It just introduces a degree of subjectivity.  And again...you think this explains the shift in the Gallup Poll?  I'm just not quite sure what specific claim you're making, sorry.

5. A recent national poll using different wording found 62% opposition to changing the definition of marriage. (This would be more in line with the 20 point gap found in Pennsylvania).

Would you mind linking to this?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 10:12:43 am by Alcon »Logged

n/c
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: December 02, 2011, 09:59:04 am »
Ignore

Please do drop you posts if you are unable to answer any of my points.

The stuff you think is important, isn't important. The points you raise have been raised a zillion times already by people and been shot down. I would direct you to the Goodridge decision if you were genuinely interested in hearing a different point of view, but you've never shown any interest in that.

I mean, I know this is how your brain works, and it makes sense to you, and it's why most people don't try to engage you. I understand how deeply frustrating it must be for you to see hypocrisy and dishonesty everywhere you go and to see yourself as the only person who is an honest straight shooter, and how much patience it requires for you to respond to us, even if you can barely disguise your anger and disgust, and if you're not capable of empathy. I get it. It's a common affliction to people whose love of data will draw them to a site like this. I just don't know what to do with it when it reaches a certain level of intensity, and it's sad.

You don't think my marriage is a marriage because a) we can't procreate, b) we didn't get the support of 50% of the people in our state in a referendum, and c) various personal reasons we've never gotten into. I don't care about any of those reasons, none of them matter to me. They are not part of my personal reality and they are fading as a part of my legal reality. They don't matter to a growing number of Americans. If putting me down makes you feel better about who you are, then I welcome your condescension and outrage. My life is pretty good, and if this is the role you need me to play for you to be happy, then I will shoulder the burden.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2011, 10:05:22 am by brittain33 »Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: December 02, 2011, 10:10:27 am »
Ignore

It's interesting to think that to CARL, what I wrote below reads exactly as a CARLHAYDEN post reads to anyone else, and will probably get the same response.

Life is weird.

Please do drop you posts if you are unable to answer any of my points.

The stuff you think is important, isn't important. The points you raise have been raised a zillion times already by people and been shot down. I would direct you to the Goodridge decision if you were genuinely interested in hearing a different point of view, but you've never shown any interest in that.

I mean, I know this is how your brain works, and it makes sense to you, and it's why most people don't try to engage you. I understand how deeply frustrating it must be for you to see hypocrisy and dishonesty everywhere you go and to see yourself as the only person who is an honest straight shooter, and how much patience it requires for you to respond to us, even if you can barely disguise your anger and disgust, and if you're not capable of empathy. I get it. It's a common affliction to people whose love of data will draw them to a site like this. I just don't know what to do with it when it reaches a certain level of intensity, and it's sad.

You don't think my marriage is a marriage because a) we can't procreate, b) we didn't get the support of 50% of the people in our state in a referendum, and c) various personal reasons we've never gotten into. I don't care about any of those reasons, none of them matter to me. They are not part of my personal reality and they are fading as a part of my legal reality. They don't matter to a growing number of Americans. If putting me down makes you feel better about who you are, then I welcome your condescension and outrage. My life is pretty good, and if this is the role you need me to play for you to be happy, then I will shoulder the burden.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14783


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: December 02, 2011, 10:12:29 am »
Ignore

So either Gallup is wrong, PPP is wrong, or something else is going on.

It could be a combination of things. First, you're comparing one state poll out of a whole series (most of which are not as lopsided as PA) to a long series of polls by Gallup. It would be perfectly kosher to say, hey, PPP's one poll of PA is wrong.

Beyond that, the difference could come down to question structure. Also, PA has one of the highest median ages in the country.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17541
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: December 02, 2011, 10:30:07 am »
Ignore

Carl already pointed that polling on this issue is misleading.

1. Polling companies routinely "cook the books" either deliberately or through the way in which they word their questions.

2. Individuals often do not give accurate information to pollsters.

3. There is a marked difference between the national polls on this issue, and individual State polls. If the national polls like the Gallup garbage are correct, then Pennsylvania shouldn't have a 20+ point gap against homosexual 'marriage'.

So either Gallup is wrong, PPP is wrong, or something else is going on.

4. Polling companies changed the wording of the way that they asked the question. This means that any polls before/after that change cannot be compared.

5. A recent national poll using different wording found 62% opposition to changing the definition of marriage. (This would be more in line with the 20 point gap found in Pennsylvania).

We all know gay marriage overpolls in most cases by a few points, there's no doubt about that. And different polling firms will come to slightly different conclusions and there are always outliers. But this isn't some recent trend. This is something we've been seeing over the course of two decades and continuing, which has manifested itself not only in public opinion but also in election results, and in entertainment, in pop culture. Gays are becoming an accepted group in all respects, including in the political realm.

Faced with that fact, there are only two possible responses you could possibly give: Polling companies are wildly off, all of them, every time, or this is some sort of mass conspiracy perpetrated by multiple polling firms and organizations for the purpose of.. something I don't quite understand yet. If you believe the former, you're wrong, (since that doesn't square with recent referendum results, losses or no), and if you believe the latter, you are impossible to reason with on any level.
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2641


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #145 on: December 02, 2011, 10:35:19 am »
Ignore

So either Gallup is wrong, PPP is wrong, or something else is going on.

It could be a combination of things. First, you're comparing one state poll out of a whole series (most of which are not as lopsided as PA) to a long series of polls by Gallup. It would be perfectly kosher to say, hey, PPP's one poll of PA is wrong.

Beyond that, the difference could come down to question structure. Also, PA has one of the highest median ages in the country.

I think another thing that might contribute to the difference is polls of adults in general vs polls of registered voters.

A huge chunk of eligible voters (over 20% at least) aren't even registered to vote: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Logged
CaDan
Full Member
***
Posts: 181
View Profile
« Reply #146 on: December 02, 2011, 11:08:31 am »
Ignore

Pennsylvania is a swing state with a left lean. Hence, if the national polls indicated a 53%-44% split in favor of redefining marriage, Pennsylvania should be somewhat close to that number, not 20 points in the opposite direction.

When you consider the other PPP polls (OH, MI, MN, ect...) you don't get numbers IN SWING STATES which would support what the Gallup polls are showing.

When you add in the numbers in places like MARYLAND (about as far left as you can get) then something is wrong with the way Gallup is conducting the poll.

Logged

CaDan
Full Member
***
Posts: 181
View Profile
« Reply #147 on: December 02, 2011, 11:11:31 am »
Ignore

Oh, and changing ONE WORD in a polling question can drastically change the results.

Hence, social "science" is not science at all.

Self-reporting surveys are inherently flawed, especially on hot button issues in the face of propaganda and violence from those pushing an agenda on the issue. (White powder sent to mormon temples, assaults, death threats, boycotts, fines, ect...)
Logged

Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30994
United States



View Profile
« Reply #148 on: December 02, 2011, 11:16:56 am »
Ignore

Pennsylvania is a swing state with a left lean. Hence, if the national polls indicated a 53%-44% split in favor of redefining marriage, Pennsylvania should be somewhat close to that number, not 20 points in the opposite direction.

When you consider the other PPP polls (OH, MI, MN, ect...) you don't get numbers IN SWING STATES which would support what the Gallup polls are showing.

When you add in the numbers in places like MARYLAND (about as far left as you can get) then something is wrong with the way Gallup is conducting the poll.

This is not just Gallup's result.  It's been echoed by Pew and others.  Gay marriage also relatively lags in the Midwest compared to New England and the West, so a simple adjustment of the Pennsylvania results may be insufficient.

Have you done a statistical analysis to try to demonstrate whether the state and national polls are incompatible?  It may seem that way facially, but by contrast, Arizona's -1 would suggest that a national +3 (or whatever) is more than plausible.  If all of this oddness adds up to the difference of only a few points, claiming it throws the trend towards gay rights support into question is an absurd conclusion.

Moreover, since multiple national polls echo this result, and because it's not like state and national polling have immensely different methodologies, I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting explains the discrepancy you're sensing.
Logged

n/c
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30994
United States



View Profile
« Reply #149 on: December 02, 2011, 11:23:39 am »
Ignore

Oh, and changing ONE WORD in a polling question can drastically change the results.

Hence, social "science" is not science at all.

That doesn't really follow.  There's a use of scientific methodology; there is just subjectivity involved in finding a representative sample and in finding the right question to gauge an abstract concept.  The fact that people respond differently to different phrasing shows that oftentimes people aren't even sure of their real opinion.  There's no perfect phrasing anyway -- After all, ballot measures themselves have varying language.

Even in hard science, complete control for variables oftentimes is impossible.  The presence of subjectivity in science is not alone enough to make it "unscientific"; it certainly isn't enough to make information inherently useless.

Self-reporting surveys are inherently flawed, especially on hot button issues in the face of propaganda and violence from those pushing an agenda on the issue. (White powder sent to mormon temples, assaults, death threats, boycotts, fines, ect...)

There may well be pressures that cause people to self-report inaccurately -- Social desirability, fear, anxiety about being challenge, plenty of things enter the equation.  You can establish a gap between the polling on the issue and the actual results.  That's actually relatively easy to do, even if you can never tell how big the gap really is.  But we agree with you that the gap exists, and it tends to overestimate gay rights support modestly.  Are you trying to make a further point?
Logged

n/c
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 51 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines