Gay Marriage Legalized in California

[Drizzt Do'urden]

[quote name='Jeremiah']I'm fine with it so long as they don't force churches/mosques etc to perform a ceremony that they are against.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you 100%. But you know that's where it's going to end up. A pastor won't agree and it's going to be a big hissy fit and a screaming tantrum. And the next thing you know a pastor will be "lynched" by the media.

I'm for equal rights. But it sucks when it goes overboard.

[Raiha]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]ADDENDUM: In office hours with my political science professor today, I had a huge tome thumped on my desk. 200 pages of court opinion. Including the indexes. 200!! HOW MANY BASES DO THEY NEED TO COVER?! I slogged through the introduction until he handed me the typed page of notes which summed it all up neatly. Neater than CNN.

[Yes. The California Supreme Court took a trillion pages to say that you can marry whoever you want.]

The long and short of it is that in 30, or 29, days or so, you can no longer prohibit same sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses. Of course it doesn't make too much sense in light of the fact that California already has a domestic partnership law that ensures all the same legal rights are given to gay and lesbian couples. Which makes me think that this was just about the word 'marriage' and nothing else. Of course on the other hand....the opinion is based on a 1940's court case on gay marriage and then the Initiative on the matter on the ballot this November may overturn this court opinion entirely. And then the voters might not.

Of course now the Governator can wash his hands of the situation: "The Supreme Court of California has spoken. Who wants cake?"

But since the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't said this was alright, we might find it struck down that way like I mentioned before, but now there's some juicy background. After all, states laws have to match up loosely with federal law. Recall a couple years past when San Francisco was handing out marriage licenses for gay couples but the court had them all rendered null and void. This may turn out that way as well.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Jeremiah']I'm fine with it so long as they don't force churches/mosques etc to perform a ceremony that they are against.[/QUOTE]

I don't see any logical reason to expect them to force religious institutions to perform gay marriages when the fact that they perform straight marriages is only because that's what people want. And why would gay people want to be married by a pastor that disagrees with their lifestyles? Why even attend a bigoted church if they're bigoted against you?

[amibasuki]

[quote name='Allamorph']
[FONT=Arial]Ehh, no, it's pretty much always been that way. No evolution about it; us humans are surprisingly sot in our ways. We don't change, we just find different ways of saying it. :p[/FONT][/quote]

[FONT=Arial]okay, true that. [/FONT]

[quote name='Allamorph'] [FONT=Arial]Quote within the quote:[/FONT]
[I][FONT=Arial]I don’t know how that would even be a question. what, gay couples can’t be as happy as straight couples? what would keep them from being less happy relationship-wise? whether or not marriage ends well isn’t the issue on gay marriage anyway.[/FONT][/I] *end*

[FONT=Arial]This isn't a commentary on why homosexual couples shouldn't have marriage rights. It is instead this statement here: *insert cat picture*

We cool?

To be honest, the parts of her post that weren't laughing at you for blundering straight into her were the basic sentiments of that picture. You're tryin' to argue with a wall, my friend. She just don't care.[/FONT][/quote]

[FONT=Arial]so if we’re talking about the second post, considering how she started off by saying, “And seriously folks, let's think about it. …”, it’s up for discussion. if asking a question like that amidst the topic at hand was solely an attempt at sarcasm that she didn't want an answer to, it was very much displaced.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]the parts where she wasn’t hatin’ from my hatin’ consisted of arguing why she didn’t agree with my reasons for supporting gay marriage that I previously wrote. regardless of whether or not she was apathetic of the topic she wrote about or whatever the apathetic-ness involves, she participated in the discussion, which the points she brought up were perfectly legit to reply to, especially on a message board that’s made for discussions such as these where it’s not just her and me who’s going to be seeing the responses.[/FONT]
[quote name='Allamorph'] [FONT=Arial]
And this isn't so much about homosexual couples wanting to be able to "marry" as it is about them being officially recognized as a family unit. Since (for some reason beyond my ken) the act of marriage requires the State's approval (again, o_O), crying or [I]de[/I]crying anything about religion seems rather pointless.

So us Christians may not like it. So what? Our precepts do not tell us to forcibly subjugate the governing laws to our purposes, but tells us how to conduct our own business. If the laws where we live do not line up with our beliefs, either we deal with it or we leave, unless we're being unfairly oppressed, and I don't see that happening here. [/FONT][/quote]

[FONT=Arial]I really wish that was the case everywhere (the not forcibly subjugating bits), but having lived in two extremely conservative states and being in and hearing the views of a number of different religiously conservative groups throughout my life (being a full-on twenty-year member of one myself up until somewhat recently), I have to disagree.

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]sometimes the only way anyone’s been able to keep religious opinions from becoming local government policy (or trying to take religious bias out of something to begin with) is through [B]serious [/B]protest (assuming that even works). [/FONT][FONT=Arial]I mean seriously, look how many people voted for Mike Huckabee in the primaries! if large amounts of people are willing to vote for someone who says that “we need… to amend the Constitution so it’s in[/FONT][FONT=Arial] God’s standards,” that’s not being impartial in any way. that’s not leaving room for anyone who doesn’t agree with his opinions of what the Christian God’s standards supposedly are.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]of course not all Christians are that way; you probably know how many sects there are of Christianity. and even in the same sects, you can count on hearing different things depending on the address you go to. just because some Christians think the government should do its own thing while they do theirs doesn’t mean that other Christians (Christians being the one I bring up only because it's the majority) aren’t going to try putting their religious views into the government. I think this is a large factor in[/FONT][FONT=Arial] what's keeping a hefty number of states from allowing gay marriage at this point.[/FONT]
[quote=Drizzt Do'urden]
I'm with you 100%. But you know that's where it's going to end up. A pastor won't agree and it's going to be a big hissy fit and a screaming tantrum. And the next thing you know a pastor will be "lynched" by the media.

I'm for equal rights. But it sucks when it goes overboard.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]nobody will be able to legally force a religious organization to perform marriages they don't agree with because of the free exercise of religion part in the 1st Amendment. [/FONT][FONT=Arial]gay couples will have to look elsewhere for getting married with the exception of churches who don't have a problem with it. [/FONT][quote name='Raiha][COLOR=DarkOrchid][FONT=Times New Roman] [Yes. The California Supreme Court took a trillion pages to say that you can marry whoever you want.][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=DarkOrchid][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Black]
[FONT=Arial]brothas' gotta be thorough to leave no room for misunderstanding sometimes. you know how it is.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
[B]So us Christians may not like it.[/B] So what? Our precepts do not tell us to forcibly subjugate the governing laws to our purposes, but tells us how to conduct our own business. If the laws where we live do not line up with our beliefs, either we deal with it or we leave, unless we're being unfairly oppressed, and I don't see that happening here.

[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]Caution Chibi Horsewoman is opperating on cold meds and having dealt with a crazy man for 3 hours you have been warned:

I'm not getting what Christians may not like. I'm Christian (Roman Catholic with some other beliefs thrown in for fun) and I don't see any good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to argue about which way the toilet paper roll sits on the dispenser and whether to have chicken or fish at the reception the way us straight people do. Really is the sanctity of marriage (Lord I think my keyboard just snorted) so fragile that we should really believe that if we allow April and Eve to register for china patterns the whole damn thing is just gonna crack? Oh no, I bloody well hope not.

I don't see what the big deal is about why only straight people should be allowed to get stressed out. It should be one of those fundamental rights. (New York passed a law last week that recognizes same sex marriages from outside of New York state

Besides Canada allows same sex couples to marry in all their provinces- why can't the US do the same?[/color][/font][/size]

[Shy]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I'm with you 100%. But you know that's where it's going to end up. A pastor won't agree and it's going to be a big hissy fit and a screaming tantrum. And the next thing you know a pastor will be "lynched" by the media.[/QUOTE][size=1]I don't think anyone is going to do that. There are many religious organizations and churches that do not discriminate against homosexuals, so most gay couples that choose to add religion to their ceremony have the option of going there instead.

[spoiler]We could go into a much lengthier discussion about how churches receive government tax-exemptions despite the fact that many openly discriminate against certain groups... but we won't![/spoiler]

-Shy[/size]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]I know I've already replied to this, but I have to throw two more cents into the ring.

I don't see why so many people are up in arms about gay marriage when there are so many other important issues at hand. Things like the rising costs of fuel and food, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and who's going to be the next American Idol should outrank if Bobbie and Benny or Debbie and Tiffani are getting married. Get your priorities in order![/color][/font][/size]

[amibasuki]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][COLOR=#9933ff][FONT=monotype corsiva][SIZE=4]I know I've already replied to this, but I have to throw two more cents into the ring.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

[SIZE=4][FONT=monotype corsiva][COLOR=#9933ff]I don't see why so many people are up in arms about gay marriage when there are so many other important issues at hand. Things like the rising costs of fuel and food, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and who's going to be the next American Idol should outrank if Bobbie and Benny or Debbie and Tiffani are getting married. Get your priorities in order![/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/quote]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]to that I say, David Cook. all zeh way, behbeeeee.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]I don't see why so many people are up in arms about gay marriage when there are so many other important issues at hand. Things like the rising costs of fuel and food, the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and who's going to be the next American Idol should outrank if Bobbie and Benny or Debbie and Tiffani are getting married. Get your priorities in order![/color][/font][/size][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Ah, the old "something's worse" argument. Because if it's not among the worst things there are, it doesn't deserve attention.[/color]

[kenshinsbabe]

[SIZE="2"][B][FONT="Georgia"]I think it's awesome that same-sex marriage is legal, especially in a place like California. Such a big place, so many people. That has to have an impact on most people in some way. I mean, as far as modernization in America goes, California's right up there (mostly because of Hollywood and all the insanely rich celebrities, but let's not turn that stone okay?). If they're willing to allow it, why not other states like it, such as New York?

What I think is kind of funny at the same time is the fact that the Governator joined the "We have more important things to worry about" troupe. The state's taking a huge step forward, and their governor isn't even on board with it. At least, that's what I've heard. I just think that's funny.

I just hope that other states follow California's lead. It won't truly be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" until we're all free to love and marry whomever we choose and we're brave enough to accept one another for our choices.

*steps off soap box*[/FONT][/B][/SIZE]

[Panache]

I don't really care. If they wanna go ahead and be gay forever let em. I have never heard a compelling argument to be against this. Now will I be proactively for gay marriage? Hell no. I'm not gay. So it isn't my problem.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Ah, the old "something's worse" argument. Because if it's not among the worst things there are, it doesn't deserve attention.[/color][/QUOTE]

The argument works in this respect; war is a larger concern than questionable morality.

[Panache]

What I don't get from my fellow Christians is this. Ok so they are gay. They wanna get married. Aren't they pretty far from being converted? Huh? At least let them enjoy their sin. I mean what are the odds of conversion at this point? Why don't we focus on the easily converted people first and then work on the harder converts?

[Allamorph]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff][font=monotype corsiva][size=4]I'm not getting what Christians may not like.[/color][/font'][/size][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]It's an American thing, I think. We're soooo patriotic over here, after all, and since this nation "was founded by settlers seeking religious freedom" (notice how no one ever mentions the part where only the Puritan religion was accepted, and became almost a law unto itself), we somehow get it into our collective heads that allowing other people to do as they will will "ruin the sanctity of our institution called Marriage and therefore completely undermine the moral grounding of our great Nation", which to my eyes hasn't actually had more than a [I]hypocritical[/I] moral grounding since I've been alive.

And we also seem to miss the point that we are capable of teaching our own young. I mean, really. The "Caananites" will only get to your children if you let your children mingle during the formative years. Not that I'm advising isolationism, because that unchecked can lead to bigotry; more like I'm advising people be taught [I]how to think[/I].

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][COLOR=#9933ff][FONT=Monotype Corsiva][SIZE=4]I'm Christian (Roman Catholic with some other beliefs thrown in for fun)[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
I really like you right now. :animesmil You're silly.

[quote name='amibasuki][FONT=Arial']if asking a question like that amidst the topic at hand was solely an attempt at sarcasm that she didn't want an answer to, it was very much displaced. [/FONT][/quote]
And [I]here[/I] I'd like to introduce to you a couple of dear friends of mine: Rhetoric and Flippancy. They're an interesting pair, but they tend to behave themselves whenever I invite Discernment over as well. And then we all play Brawl together.

[quote name='amibasuki][FONT="Arial"']the parts where she wasn?t hatin? from my hatin? consisted of arguing why she didn?t agree with my reasons for supporting gay marriage that I previously wrote. regardless of whether or not she was apathetic of the topic she wrote about or whatever the apathetic-ness involves, she participated in the discussion, which the points she brought up were perfectly legit to reply to, especially on a message board that?s made for discussions such as these where it?s not just her and me who?s going to be seeing the responses.[/FONT][/quote]
I know all that, which might or might not surprise you. But everybody can see also that you're arguing with a wall, so where does that really get you? :p

And hey, at least it wasn't [I]me[/I] being flip.

Oh, wait.

[quote name='Raiha][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkOrchid]HOW MANY BASES DO THEY NEED TO COVER?![/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]
Them're Justices, girlie. They cain't even get to [I]first[/I] base.[/FONT]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Morpheus']The argument works in this respect; war is a larger concern than questionable morality.[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]No, it doesn't. Lesser problems should not be ignored simply because their are bigger ones.

Hey, you know what else war is more of a concern than? Petty theft. Let's ignore that.[/color]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]No, it doesn't. Lesser problems should not be ignored simply because their are bigger ones.

Hey, you know what else war is more of a concern than? Petty theft. Let's ignore that.[/color][/QUOTE]

This is assuming that gay people getting married is a problem.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Morpheus']This is assuming that gay people getting married is a problem.[/QUOTE]Since when did your posting style turn into this:

Trolling (upsetting people for personal entertainment) or baiting (saying things to lead a member into a confrontation)

Instead of having your own real points to add to the discussion at hand? A lot of your posts (at least the ones in The Lounge) lately, have been nothing more than nitpicking others posts and making illogical statements like you just did. Because seriously, if gay people didn't have trouble getting married there wouldn't be any fight to get the laws changed to allow it.

Honestly, if you're that bored or need entertainment that badly, try something besides sitting at a computer screen and trolling OB. You could even learn something from Raiha since even though she's often snarky/sarcastic as you can see here:[quote name='Raiha;812720][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Congratulations. Now all homosexuals can be just as miserable as the rest of us poor straight people.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]She still at leasts follows it up with what she thinks on the subject at hand as you can see here:[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]On the other hand, I argue semantically against gay marriage. Of course this is moderately meaningless because until the Supreme Court of the United States makes a ruling to this effect, it isn't the law of the land. Get married, but stay in California. Or Massachusetts.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]Anyway, as for the actual topic, I have no issues with it at all. The fact that others feel so threatened by the idea of gays being married is what I find sad. It will be interesting to see whether or not it stays around or not since I'm sure that will be challenged.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]By contrast, racial discrimination is [B]il[/B]legal, and yet Affirmative Action is still necessary.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I hope you understand this statement is hilariously fallacious.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Wizard's First Rule, bucko: people are stupid.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Totally fails to even halfway address the point Morpheus brought up.

[QUOTE][Font=Arial]And [I]please[/I] don't try to derail this thread into pointless semantic blather.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
But it's cool if you do it, right, that makes sense.

In any event, I'm glad to hear that California Supreme Court is at least exerting pressure onto the greater Supreme Court by allowing gay marriage. However I have serious doubts as to how long it will be before the conservatives strike this down... and due to lifetime membership on the Supreme Court, I doubt things will actually change for quite a while.

The entire movement to impress upon others "traditional moral values" for the "greater good" seems to be a very Neo-con thing. It's the same system of thinking that justifies imperialistic foreign policy, imho.[/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

What a ridiculous thread, or rather the responses I've been seeing in here.[quote] By contrast, racial discrimination is illegal, and yet Affirmative Action is still necessary.[/quote][quote] I hope you understand this statement is hilariously fallacious.[/quote]Let me guess, you?re now saying that discrimination is actually legal? And what point was Morpheus supposedly bringing up? None really, other than to state a fallacy in the first place, unless the argument is that nothing should [I]ever[/I] be done to address any form of discrimination, in which case the point just might be valid. [quote] And please don't try to derail this thread into pointless semantic blather.[/quote][quote] But it's cool if you do it, right, that makes sense.[/quote]You know, perhaps if people would address the issue instead of looking like little children saying stupid things that make no sense to begin with someone wouldn?t need to point out that they are derailing things with semantic nonsense. Or as the Internet term I've heard, would quit trolling in the first place. It makes the one trolling look foolish and the one defending said troll look even more foolish.

If you're going to sail in and say [U]since when was something even needed[/U], how about explaining [I]why[/I] you think something isn't needed. Instead of nitpicking like a bunch of silly kids and thinking that it somehow makes you look smart.

Now as for the actual topic, I'm really in agreement with Gavin in that on some level it doesn't really affect me and my religious beliefs aren't something I need to be forcing on others. So to put it bluntly, I really don't care if gay marriage is allowed or not.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Morpheus']This is assuming that gay people getting married is a problem.[/QUOTE]


[color=deeppink]No, it's recognizing that there are people who view it as a problem.[/color]

[amibasuki]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
And [I]here[/I] I'd like to introduce to you a couple of dear friends of mine: Rhetoric and Flippancy. They're an interesting pair, but they tend to behave themselves whenever I invite Discernment over as well. And then we all play Brawl together.[/FONT][/quote][FONT=Arial]
because it's totally easy to discern what someone is [I]actually [/I]saying when you don't have a clue who's actually talking. [I]expect [/I]it to happen; this medium of communication allows for multiple levels of interpretation, especially coming from strangers. [I]get over it [/I]already.

[quote name='Allamorph']]I know all that, which might or might not surprise you. But everybody can see also that you're arguing with a wall, so where does that really get you? :p

And hey, at least it wasn't [I]me[/I] being flip.

Oh, wait.
[/quote][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]what wall was I arguing with again?

[/FONT][FONT=Arial]you obviously didn't get the point, and this is getting ridiculous.

if I'm making points in response to what she's saying, it's not just for [I]her [/I]to see. [/FONT][FONT=Arial]she can be totally unaffected by whatever's being talked about, and I say whoopy for her (and calling someone a wall isn't exactly the best way to stick up for someone -- it's implying she can't/doesn't listen to logic when it's put in front of her, whether or not that's what you were trying to say -- that's how it comes across, which believe it or not, [I]does [/I]count for something on a message board). it's not all about [I]her :smirk:.[/I] the point of responding, even if I was talking to her, was to [I]add to the overall [/I][I]discussion, [/I]regardless of whether she cared or not[I]. [/I]which I'm sorry to say I haven't been doing in this post, but will refrain from going off-topic in future posts. kind of sad how I have to make a case for relevant discussion on a [I]message board[/I] of all places, go figure.
[/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Let me guess, you?re now saying that discrimination is actually legal?[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]No, the fact that affirmative action has never been [i]necessary[/i]. And the fact that the mention of affirmative action is a [i]total non sequitur[/i] and irrelevant mention when discussing gay marriage and life partnership clauses. Honestly, it was a snarky interjection, commenting on both the nature of affirmative action and gay marriage, and I'll be damned if I give him a free pass on it.

[QUOTE]And what point was Morpheus supposedly bringing up? None really, other than to state a fallacy in the first place, unless the argument is that nothing should [I]ever[/I] be done to address any form of discrimination, in which case the point just might be valid.[/QUOTE]
Feel free to write Morpheus off entirely, but his question concerning the alleged 'necessity' of affirmative action [i]was valid[/i].

[QUOTE]You know, perhaps if people would address the issue instead of looking like little children saying stupid things that make no sense to begin with someone wouldn?t need to point out that they are derailing things with semantic nonsense. Or as the Internet term I've heard, would quit trolling in the first place. It makes the one trolling look foolish and the one defending said troll look even more foolish.[/QUOTE]
To be frank, I'm not sure when you got the go-ahead to pontificate on the nature of online forum, and I'm offended that you're prepared to call me (and rather, not my argument) foolish.

My intention was never to troll, and if confronting the logic of one's argument (and rhetorical fallacies) constitutes trolling, perhaps this entire thread should stop now. I'm not looking to spark unnecessary controversy, and I'm not arbitrarily trying to start a fight. I apologize if you view my posting as such.

[QUOTE]If you're going to sail in and say [U]since when was something even needed[/U], how about explaining [I]why[/I] you think something isn't needed. Instead of nitpicking like a bunch of silly kids and thinking that it somehow makes you look smart.[/QUOTE]
I can certainly explain why AA is not necessary, but that would further derail the thread. I can kindly discuss this with all parties interested via PM, however. Or, if you really want me to, I can also post it here.[/font]

[Sandy]

I'm going to just say "Go California!" and let you all drown in your semantics.

[Raiha]

[quote name='amibasuki'][FONT=Arial]
because it's totally easy to discern what someone is [I]actually [/I]saying when you don't have a clue who's actually talking. [I]expect [/I]it to happen; this medium of communication allows for multiple levels of interpretation, especially coming from strangers. [I]get over it [/I]already.[/FONT][/quote]
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I seem to recall confirming that I was in fact being sarcastic more than once here. I also recall several others doing much the same. But for your sake I'll do it again. SARCASM![/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='amibasuki'][FONT=Arial]what wall was I arguing with again?[/quote]
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]The name's Raiha. I believe we've met before.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='amibasuki'][/FONT][FONT=Arial]she can be totally unaffected by whatever's being talked about, and I say whoopy for her (and calling someone a wall isn't exactly the best way to stick up for someone -- it's implying she can't/doesn't listen to logic when it's put in front of her, whether or not that's what you were trying to say -- that's how it comes across, which believe it or not, [I]does [/I]count for something on a message board).[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]If I'm not bothered by Allamorph's twisted and cute way of standing up for me, I don't think it's your job to comment on it. And yes, I don't listen to "logic" when it's a: fundamentally flawed and b: something I can simply dismiss as unrealistic/idealistic/narcissistic/yougetheidea.

Oh yes, and Sandy? The opinion still won't take effect for another 26 days and it may very well be stuck down by the voters in November. So this celebration may be a bit premature.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Raiha][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]If I'm not bothered by Allamorph's twisted and cute way of standing up for me....[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Wait . . . I was?

Oh dang. I [I]was[/I]. (I forgot about that part.)[/FONT]