Article

2004-03-25 Home Front: Culture Wars

Oregon county decides - Better Safe than Sorry

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-03-25 1:06:55 AM|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Oh, man... I'm an Oregonian! :| I've got one of those PUR water cleaner things on my faucet, so I should be safe.

Actually, I think someone somewhere (maybe on the National Review Corner, but maybe just someone out in the blogosphere) suggested that if Massachusetts wanted to avoid having same-sex marriages go forth while they jumped the hurdles of a constitutional amendment, their congress could do exactly what Benton County did here. Of course, in that case, homosexualists would probably be angry, while here they seem marginally okay with it.

And yes, I blame California, but that says nothing; most Oregonians blame California for pretty much anything.

It's not fair, anyway: how come a single guy like me can't get a marriage license? I wanna be in a one-person marriage! MY CIVIL RIGHTS BLARGHA FARGLE THPPTT!

Posted by Just John 2004-03-25 1:37:19 AM|| 2004-03-25 1:37:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Yikes!
Remember those 80s-vintage bumper stickers that asked, "Is it weird enough for you yet?"

If I find someone with one of those, I am tempted to grab him by the lapels (if he has any) shake him and yell, "YES! IT'S ENTIRELY FUCKING WEIRD ENOUGH FOR ME NOW!"

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-03-25 2:32:46 AM|| 2004-03-25 2:32:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Huh?

So they try to avoid upsetting some by . . . upsetting everybody? Not denying some people rights by denying them to everybody?

I may not be a fan of gay marriage, but this is ridiculous, and I'm not sure that avoiding the confrontation like this is a strategy bound to work in the long run. There just seems something wrong about two people of the same gender getting "married" . . . but are we so PC that we can't say that? Where do some of you guys stand on this?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-03-25 8:48:01 AM|| 2004-03-25 8:48:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Doctor, I got an uncle whose gay; he's actually very cool about talking about all the issues from "don't ask, don't tell" to gay marriage. (He doesn't get offended at all like a lot of these losers.) It's actually pretty interesting to see the redneck knuckle draggin' Marine (me) and him discuss this shit. Anyways, I feel that gay marriage is a b.s. term - marriage is defined as man and woman in the dictionary. If the states want to give some civil union thing to them at the state level, fine by me. I think it's a state issue and if one state decides to do civil union, the other states do not have to recognize it if they don't want. I would also support an amendment that as far as the gov't is concerned, true marriage is one man and one woman. Gets rid of the rest of the stupid polygamy loopholes of all varieties. Also, I'm all for "don't ask, don't tell", the military is not some F*'n social experiment - do your job, go home. Enough said.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-25 9:04:13 AM|| 2004-03-25 9:04:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Jarhead, I'm with you on this one. I may not approve of homosexuality, but as long as you don't bring it up, that's fine with me. I don't want to know, because I don't care. If it's a fact of life, that's one thing. I've got a girlfriend, and I'm happy. If someone else has a boyfriend, that's fine, too, and I can deal with that, but not when they push it in my face and demand that I accept it as a relationship as normal as the one my girlfriend and I have. I realize I may sound more prejudiced than I am, but the constant protests get on my nerves. I feel that if they didn't bring it up, it wouldn't be a problem, and nobody's rights would be violated, you know? Then, I suppose, the whole right-to-marriage issue comes in . . .

I don't have a problem with civil unions, but, like you, I feel that marriage is a special thing, and these people reduce that. Of course, so do easy divorces (in the legal sense, not the emotional; I should know, having seen my parents go through one), so perhaps even the heterosexuals don't think much of it anymore.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-03-25 9:19:15 AM|| 2004-03-25 9:19:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I've still not seen anyone explain *how* people reduce the meaning of marriage by wanting to be married.

I can easily understand how *divorces* reduce the meaning of marriage -- they turn what was supposedly eternal into something temporary, they turn "commitment" into "transient agreement".

But I just can't see how same-sex marriage reduce marriage's meaning.

And the words "civil union" sound like PC mumbo jumbo to me -- not wanting to call a spade a spade. Wouldn't a person be considered as a bigamist if he entered two such "civil unions" at the same time, or if he entered into a marriage with a person and a "civil union" with another person?

As for not recognizing *any* marriages, that's what a libertarian friend of mine had suggested as solution to the problem of same-sex marriages.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-03-25 9:42:35 AM|| 2004-03-25 9:42:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 As I said the problem is that marrriage is a social issue. Freedom of sexuality is one thing, asking society to ENDORSE and FUND a form of sexuality who is not beneficial for it is another thing. I have already spoken about the problem of gay marriage from the financial viewpoint.

There is another problem with it: it treats the form of sexuality who is not beneficial for society the same way that the one who produces an output (children) who is deemed to be desirable for society. Example: if all forms of sexuality are equal then we should allow all forms of sexuality being proselitized between children. Let's imagine that the effect of this is that 15% of those children become gays instead of 10% if we hadn't allowed proselitizing. The effect will be a drop in the bith rate. And that means Aris that the Welfare will have no money when you retire. In countries where you have the equivalent of 401k, people could have money but what we will be lacking will be non-retirees to provide goods or even something as mundane like medics, firemen, plumbers so it will be nearly as bad.

As I said letting people live freely is one thing, recognition by the society of gay sexuality is another one.

Posted by JFM 2004-03-25 10:14:12 AM|| 2004-03-25 10:14:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Doctor> agreed; what two consenting adults do behind closed doors makes no difference to me. I don't want to know nor care.

Aris> marriage is man/woman as defined by the dictionary. Don't waste your time trying to change a word. It's like trying to say the color white is now the color green.

There is no fruitfulness from a gay marriage, i.e. they cannot biologically produce children together without a third party. My wife & I can or at least have the ability to. This is part of the reason many here don't view their relationships as being worthy of called 'marriage'. (I know you're going to grab this sentence, argue it w/a question back to me, don't bother - won't change my mind on this one.) That's not to say imo a gay couple love's each other any less then my wife and I. It's apples and oranges. We can produce they can't.

Civil union is a better term whether you agree or not - it affords them equal legal rights under the state. Taxes, inheritance, care, etc.

"Wouldn't a person be considered as a bigamist if he entered two such "civil unions" at the same time, or if he entered into a marriage with a person and a "civil union" with another person?"

>Yes, a person would probably be considered a bigamist if they entered two civil unions or a combo of either. The states would probably provide for this loophole in its legislation which, re-strengthen's my argument that an ammendment defining marriage as one man/one woman should be enacted.

On your last point, I'm not for certain, but I don't believe there is any legal right to marriage at least in the U.S. for any citizen. I don't think the constitution says that the gov't has to marry you.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-25 10:22:26 AM|| 2004-03-25 10:22:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Has Rantburg ben relocated to Oregon?

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-03-25 11:08:34 AM|| 2004-03-25 11:08:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Jarhead> The dictionary doesn't define words, it describes usage. As such you can use a dictionary for linguistic arguments, but not for political ones.

And usage is changing so that nowadays marriage doesn't mean *only* what you describe: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=marriage

But since we've entered the linguistic game, do you know that the word "bigamist" comes from greek "gamos" which means marriage? By the very fact of calling bigamist someone who enters two civil unions, you are recognizing his "union" to be a marriage.

As for the words "civil union" themselves, I find them annoying also because I can't translate them adequately into Greek. There exist "civil organization" and there exist "political unions", but you bring the two words altogether and they end up meaning "marriage" instead. since politics comes "politis", meaning citizen or civilian.

So the way I would translate into Greek "civil union" may be the way I would translate "political union" aka "political organization".

---

JFM> You and Jarhead seem to me to be arguing from two contrasting point of views. JFM, you seem to me to be denying the word "marriage" because you don't want to help gay people have the same rights, because this would seem as "endorsing" and "proselytizing" to you. Am I correct in assuming you also oppose "civil unions"?

Jarhead on the other, is willing to afford through "civil union" equal rights to what I will still choose to call "married" folk. In that case the state still "endorses" homosexual unions, and still treats them as if they were marriages, and therefore there's no actual reason on behalf of the state *not* to call them marriages -- except ofcourse that they are afraid of offending.

Either way, we differ on what we consider "beneficient" for society and what we don't. I find the benefits of marriage to society to be the sum of the benefits going to each individual family -- you think them solely connected with childbearing and some kind of population growth which interests me little to nothing to less than nothing, because I think it treats people as little more than breeding machines.

There's no point in considering these points further because they are wholly incompatible views.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-03-25 11:17:48 AM|| 2004-03-25 11:17:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Bunch of "civil servants" in Oregon need to be fired. They have only one purpose - to serve the public. They've decided NOT to do that. Doesn't matter WHY, they've decided NOT to perform their sworn duty. Fire their butts, blacklist them from further government service EVER, and show them the door.

Marriage is a social institution that predates history by several thousands of years. Its primary purpose was to establish a means of ensuring the continuity of the society in an orderly manner - recognized parenthood, inheritance, protection against inter-breeding, and many, many other forms. It also provided the most nurturing environment for the young, enabling them the best opportunity for success in society. It still does. It requires special recognition, because it does provide such tremendous results.My grandparents never divorced, my parents never divorced, my wife's parents never divorced, and we've been married 38 years. Our children see a loving, nurturing, team approach to life's problems, and understand that's the historical norm, because that's what's proved to be successful over the long run. Whether that's possible in a "gay" or "lesbian" relationship is immaterial - there's no TRACK RECORD of such success, and the odds are against it. If you want to play Russian roulette with your future, that's one thing. To play Russian roulette with the future of the entire society of our planet is something else again, and that's exactly what the "PC" social experimenters are doing.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-03-25 1:02:07 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-03-25 1:02:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

How would *your* marriage, Old Patriot, be threatened by gay people marrying? And if your marriage isn't threatened by this why do you think that other marriages would be threatened? And therefore how would "the entire society of our planet" as a large be threatened?

That's the definition of conservatism, thinking that change is by itself threatening because it is new and untried. But not everyone is a conservative, and you can't convince non-conservatives on an issue by just telling them "This is new! Arrgh!".

Because my attitude is more like "This is new? No reason not to allow it then (since marriage is always voluntary) and see if it works."

If that's "social experimenting" so be it, but gay marriages aren't actually being *imposed* on anyone. Giving them legal recognition (whether calling them "civil unions" or "marriages) is the state keeping up with society, not attempting to change it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-03-25 1:31:06 PM|| 2004-03-25 1:31:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Giving them legal recognition (whether calling them "civil unions" or "marriages) is the state keeping up with society, not attempting to change it.

Except that society doesn't want to grant them that legal recognition (at this time, at least); only a small group of activists and thugs want to do that. That's why the gay marriage supporters went into hysterics over the idea of a Constitutional amendment -- that's a very democratic process, and they know the population probably won't support them.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-03-25 1:44:40 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-03-25 1:44:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 RC> you're right in that polls show more then 80% of Americans don't want gay marriage to be legal. However, the info gets conflicting when it comes to what percentage of that would actually support an ammendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that the term "marriage" is defined as only between one man/one woman. When it comes to ammending the constitution people are leary of it, and probably w/good reason.

I, personally, have never felt threatened by the gays wanting to have legal recognition for my above stated reasons. However, I don't think they're going to find the social recognition (if that's what they're looking for) from most of our society. They're currently trying to make their struggle a kin to the civil rights movement of the '60s which infuriates a lot of blacks. They've also made this argument w/regards to military service. I don't think their comparison is valid either, especially in regards to the military - being born black isn't a behavior, homosexuality is.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-25 2:18:00 PM|| 2004-03-25 2:18:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris, IMO marriage between Catholics occurs in the church before God. The government issued piece of paper is of no actual import. A county governemnt of Oregon can issue a piece of paper to the Afghan gentleman, from the other day, who developped a common-law relationship with his donkey. I intend to continue to choose in a state that refuses to pay the donkey a tax refund based on Earned Income Credit unless the donkeys wages are accurately calculated to include room, board, grooming services, waste removal and oats.

Now, if you haven't yet tossed your moniotor out your window in anger, let me explain. My illustration is not intended to equate gay marriage with donkey sex. Nor is it intended to imply that donkey marriage is the logical result of granting gay marriage.

My view is that people in America have become overly concerned with legitimacy granted by the government. I don't look to the governemnt to validate my lifestyle. I am quite happy when government confines it's intrusion into my life to the extent necessary to shake me down for cash to fund the military and trash collection ect..

Somewhere the American bus has driven into the ditch of socialism where the governemtn has become like the sun in our daily lives. I can't imagine Thomas Jefferson, living in peace on Monticello was intruded upon by local, state or National government.

I would elliminate the countroversy by implementing a flat tax on the national level and withdrawing the US government from local social issues. Different localities would then be able to handle social issues as they see fit and thereby attracting citizens of like mind to areas residential areas that suit them.

We will probably not be able to implement my plan anytime soon. Unfortunately, our Constitution has become ~~prostituted~~ interpreted and interpolated when Amendments should have been drafted and enacted. I think that our founding fathers failed to anticipate that legislators would morf into spineless constituent pleasers who depend mostly on Blue Ribbon Commissions to perform all difficult and controversial responsibilities delegated to them by my forefathers.

The Judiciary and Executive branches of our government have usurped power that whould be weilded by Congress out of necessity because legislators have made CYA a top priority.

This ongoing interpretation has resulted in governemtn waste and total silliness on a grand scale illustrated by this controversy.

Marriage is not a word that government should have ever usurped by the government from churches. Once the Supreme court decided that it was necessary to "interpret" the Constitution to create the seperation of Church and Staate in the 1940's, the governemtn should have immediately should have ceased issuing liscences of marriage and instead began issuing Certificates of Civil Union to whomever qualified by local statute.

Granting Civil Unions to only heterosexuals would have then been upheld or rejected properly by the Supreme Court (if the Supreme Court was annointed as the final arbitrator of Constitutionality by ammending the Constitution) under Equal Protection. The losing side or both sides sought to elliminate ambiguity by ammendding the Constitution or by holding a Constitutional Convention - whcih would have been hard as well but proper and also have made for very interesting Reality TV - in my highly warped opinion.

To summarize my raving (should have posted this on Raveberg?) I opine that Having the governemtn grant "marriage" is akinn to allowing Pepsicorp to rebottle carmel colored urine in Coke bottles and sell it to undercut the Coke tradename. Although not inteded by the forfathers our governemtn has deevolved into a godless mess and should avoid using godly words like marriage. With repsect to gays themselves, like Jarhead, I know and have known many gay people that I respect. Hopefully, gay sex will not become manditory in at least one state, prefeably NH, where I can retire.

Signed
Super Hose - Live Free or Die, Offender of all with this post post. I fully expect to be Borissed and attain my first vaunted "ass-hole" flag.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-03-25 2:43:31 PM|| 2004-03-25 2:43:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 SH - well said. Another good thread lads, much thanks.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-03-25 3:09:12 PM|| 2004-03-25 3:09:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 heh well said Aris

SH, I like your post, but I have to disagree, as an atheist the church does not exactly like me, without a judge to marry me to my wife-to-be I canât get married. So to me the governmentâs involvement in the issue is important to me.
---
marriage was originally about ownership; letting all the other males know that THIS woman was yours and they canât have her unless you say they can.
Of course it did not stay that way, it became an institution for raising a family, the exact source of that revolution is debatable, though I donât find claims that it was the church that made the cultural change occur as being very plausible. (A factor maybe, but not the deciding one)

but what is marriage today? you can hardly call it an institution for raising children, broken families are a plenty, I cant name a single person I knew growing up who didnât have a broken family of some kind, a ratio of 3:7 were abused ( of the ones I knew well, can not comment for ones I did not get close to), and not to mention the single parent families.
so I really can not consider marriage as being an institution for the proper rearing of children, it does not make sense in our culture, or atleast not in the one I grew up here in Pennsylvania; it may be what our ancestors defined it as, but it's not how we seem to use it ( in general, I'm sure there are exceptions)

----

In the past I've asked folks I know to define what marriage is to them, none really had a precise answer (unexpected question I suppose) buh the general theme most came up with was commitment. Which I feel defines the modern approach to marriage nicely. A formal, or if you prefer symbolic, way of saying "I am yours and you are mine, we two are one".

and I think this is where much of the disagreement comes from, you have folks, mostly older, who still define marriage as being an important part of the family unit: A mommy, a daddy, 2.5 kids, and a 2 car garage. And you have folks who define it as a symbolic commitment, a symbol of love.

so with the family unit folks, gay marriage is a bad thing because you canât have two daddies or two mommies, that's a perversion of the family unit

and with the other group there is no call of alarm for gay marriage, if two guys/gals want to commit to their love then good for them, no worries there

's hard for the two sides to see eye to eye as their base definitions are different
---

that 80% figure I find hard to give cred to, statistics are so easy to play with them, any argument that uses them is suspect. (look up denbeste's discussion of the subject, it's well done)
But I wont argue that most 'older' (define however you like) folks are against gay marriage.

but if you look at the younger generations, gay/bi/les/straight it's all good, hardly matters. So I kinda feel this entire subject is a moot subject, the way relationships and marriage are viewed is changing and gay marriage is going to happen, no doubt something along the lines of a civil union that is the legal equivalent of a marriage.
Really the best conservatives can hope for is to delay it as long as they can, which I'm sure they will

my big question though is how can you justify marriage in the terms of 'the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman' where is the sanctity? if you disagree with my definition of it as a family unit then what do you see it as that some how makes it so good that gay folks are not good enough to be apart of it? I am looking to increase my understanding of the issue from the eyes of 'gay-marriage = bad' folks so corrections or just a different take on what exactly makes man/woman more special than man/man or woman/woman or tranny/tranny is much appreciated

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-03-25 4:39:32 PM|| 2004-03-25 4:39:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "Experimentation" takes place at the beginning. Marriage is a long-standing traditional institution. If gay marriage was a great and wonderful thing, it would've been invented and promoted long before now and survived to the present. It didn't. That's the result of "social experimentation": it kept one sort of marriage that benefited society and ignored the others.

As far as the annoying "how-does-gay-marriage-affect-your-marriage" question goes, I'd point out that when abortion was being rushed through the courts to be enforced on the country, people claimed that there wasn't going to be any dramatic affect at all. "How would abortion affect your life choices?" Well, it didn't for that generation which lived without Roe v. Wade, but it certainly changed the generation that grew up with it. I'm going to personally be okay because I'll have memories of a better time. My kids will grow up with no distinctions made between, to be blunt, real marriage and pretend marriage.

And on top of all that, it's not like the country is coming together to debate this. There was no debate. Less than ten Oregonians went into a back room, then came out and told the entire state: "We just changed an entire long-standing institution without being asked! And if you want to change it back, you'll have to jump through a hundred hoops! BWA HA HA! ...Hey! Now the constitution says, right here in the adumbration of the penumbra, that you must dance for us! DANCE, PUNY OREGONIAN! MWA HA HA HA!"

...I am not a happy camper, in case you haven't noticed.

Posted by Just John 2004-03-25 4:45:41 PM|| 2004-03-25 4:45:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 if you know histry youd know first gay marry in roman time. nero had a wife who was man that he have castrate. i dont think it go very well but i read that nero had fun. i dont know if any more roman have gay weding but i wouldnt count against it. i dont think it help there society as they couldnt fight off barabian hord.

Posted by muck4doo 2004-03-25 4:52:59 PM|| 2004-03-25 4:52:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 JustJohn,
(sarcasm)
you are EXACTLY right! we should take away woman rights too! they didnât have that in the beginning! Letâs bring back slavery! YAR! WE BE OLD SCHOOL!
(/sarcasm)

as for the question, I never asked that, and you didnât even answer it. soo.. that was weirdâ¦

as for abortion, the big thing with abortion is it's gunna (and did) happen if it's legal or not. What you have to ask yourself is if you prefer 16 year girls have someone shove a coat hanger in them or having an actual doctor do it in a safe manner ?

as for your Oregon comment, I agree, their action was not the wisest

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-03-25 5:19:16 PM|| 2004-03-25 5:19:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I manely agree with Mr. Jarhead even though he is a known Irishter.

But I am also sympathetic with Aris points. And BTW is it me or is Connie Hines just hot?

Posted by Mr Ed 2004-03-25 5:49:56 PM|| 2004-03-25 5:49:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Aris, Jarhead, Dcreeper, and Just John, I am surprised that you could understand what I was trying to write as I have now realized that I accidentally pasted my uncorrected draft. My apologies.

The post was originally attended as a humor piece foe a few yucks about how the gay marriage issue has turned around in a bizarre way. (BTW Fred's comment about Grandma being forced to "shack-up" is priceless.)

As the underlying issue has come up for discussion, let me try to briefly try describe the point of view that I have arrived at somewhere between comment #1 and #2. My wife and enjoy a relationship that involves intimacy caring and love on a level that has become like a warm fireplace to me. We have enjoyed introducing three children in the midst of that warmth. We consider God to be a necessary element of our family. Some others don't include God in their family, which is certainly their choice.

Our relationship is validated within our family and should grow warmer as years go on regardless of what goes on about us. I have seen similar marriage relationships that did not include children but usually include sharing the warmth with others but not the intimacy. I have seen non-married same gender family members (siblings or parents and chilren) enjoy the same warmth and intimacy without sharing the sexual part of marriage.

I have no idea whether same gender couples in a sexual relationship can enjoy this type of love, intimacy and warmth. If they can, more power to them. Anybody in that type of relationship ought to be very thankful and doesn't need approval from a flawed outside body. A marriage license is necessary for taxes and benefits, but these things pale in comparison to the relationship itself. (sorry that wasnât so brief.)

Posted by Super Hose 2004-03-25 11:59:32 PM|| 2004-03-25 11:59:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Just John, My Pro-Life argument is unconventional also. It doesn't really address the Doctor/Woman relationship. It is really aimed more at the Abortion Cheerleaders. It goes like this:

1. My wife and I have suffered through two very painful miscarriages interspersed through the birth of our three children.
2. Once this happened to us many other people opened up and shared with us their descriptions of their own equally painful and sometimes much more painful miscarriages. Stillbirth is such an incredible tragedy that I am both sorrowful for those who have to deal with that catastrophe in their lives and thankful that my wife and I were spared that awful experience.
3. I am horrified by the cruelty of those who could encourage and assist others to voluntarily create a miscarriage for other than extreme circumstances.

It kind of avoids the whole legal/illegal - she going to get it anyway argument and points to the fact that each abortion decision is about one woman, her baby and the rest of their lives. I'm not one for relying on rhetoric.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-03-26 3:27:30 AM|| 2004-03-26 3:27:30 AM|| Front Page Top

02:08 ex-lib
17:17 Rhodesiafever
03:27 Super Hose
02:23 Super Hose
00:21 Anonymous TROLL
00:15 Anonymous
00:15 Old Patriot
23:59 Robert Crawford
23:59 Super Hose
23:47 Barbara Skolaut
23:47 Anonymous TROLL
23:44 Jen
23:43 Anonymous TROLL
23:42 Texan
23:40 Anon1
23:39 Anon1
23:28 Anon1
23:25 Robert Crawford
23:23 meeps
23:23 Anon1
23:15 Scooter McGruder
23:04 BH
23:04 Anonymous TROLL
22:46 Raj