Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[quote name='Hex']I disagree. A homosexual individual can't stop being gay any more than a heterosexual person can stop being straight.[/QUOTE]

You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

And yeah, myke, you are an asshole. As someone who makes a 'living' on categorization of aggregate data, the targeting profile is perfectly in keeping with your philosophy, especially when it relates to pragmatic results:
In current discourse about pharmacogenomics, targeting a racial audience is perceived as necessary because at this point the technology and resources do not exist to scan efficiently every individual's genetic profile.

You're right, maybe they're probably just trying to kill black people.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

And yeah, myke, you are an asshole. As someone who makes a 'living' on categorization of aggregate data, the targeting profile is perfectly in keeping with your philosophy, especially when it relates to pragmatic results:


You're right, maybe they're probably just trying to kill black people.[/quote]'

yes because 2 consenting adults in a relationship is = to someone preying on small children.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business. [/QUOTE]

Are you arguing that pedophilia should be OK as long as it doesn't happen in public?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.[/quote]

You could, based on someone's feelings. However one adult acting on their feelings for the same gender isn't the same as molesting a kid. :roll: We make paedophilia illegal because children can't make the same informed decisions about sex as (most) adults can. I don't care if someone likes kids: it's when they act on those feelings and engage in child molestation does it become illegal and highly unethical.

My choosing to date a guy =/= raping a kid. I thought that argument died twenty years ago.
 
Comparing pedephilia to homosexuality is the worst thing I've heard in a long time. I'll give you polygamy but you went too far with pedophilia, bmull.
 
I always find a few things amusing about the "gay marriage" issue:

1) That the Republicans, the party of "smaller government", going back to the days of Goldwater and even Reagan, used to advocate keeping government out of the bedroom. Yet now the party cant get enough of the issue.

2) That someone like Senator Man-on-Dog (Santorum), otherwise reasonable, could equate two consenting adults with beastiality.

3) That so-called "funamentalist" Christians advocate for a "1 man, 1 woman" definition of marriage when many Biblical heroes (Abraham, Jacob, David) were polygamists.

4) That the government even conducts "marriages"

Let me explain the last point a little more. The government got itself in a pickle when it started to conduct marriages and to bestow upon married couples certain rights (e.g. hospital visitation). The government should have never performed "marriages" but rather, there should have been a construct for "civil unions". It would be a trivial matter to re-define the power granted by the state as a "civil union" further defined as a connection of two consenting adults. That language alone precludes, polygamy, beastiality, whatever-its-called-if-you-marry-fruit-salad-like-Pee-Wee-Herman :).

As it is now, there is an "equal protection" issue. While I am entitled, by the state, to have my wife at my bedside, a gay woman isnt necessarily afforded that same protection (absent any living will, etc.). Whether you see "gay marriage' a a moral issue or not, a strict constructionist, I daresay conservative, interpretation of the consititution reveals this flaw, hence the movement for an amendment.

Of course, such an amendment would be unlikely to make it out of Congress and even more unlikely to be ratified by the required 38 states. Eventually, though, this is going to have to be taken up by SCOTUS. Someone who gets married in one state is going to have that marriage not recognized by a different state, and that's when it will hit the federal circuit.
 
I like the way you think, honest1y.

I think it's funny how hypocritical the right can be. They're all about using the governement to ban anything that's taboo but if you want to use the government to help out the poor, then they cry welfare state.
 
Hey BigT, and every other biggot like him here...fuck YOU!!!

I swear to mother fucking GOD! I want to put a bullet thru you're narrow ass minded heads. Seriously, I want all mother fuckers like you dead. I've fucking had it with all this shit with someone else telling me how I should be or that I can marry the one person trhat I love. Screw all the "rational" arguments its beating a dead horse....straight up GO fuck YOURSELVES!
 
:x

The views expressed by angry bears do not necessarily reflect on the view of all non-heterosexual individuals.

But there's an example of how passionate we are about this hootenanny.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Technically, he's just a "BgBearLvr", not a bear himself.

...

Or so is my understanding of the situation.[/quote]

I think I fall into the "cub" category, honestly
 
[quote name='Hex']I'm not denying that there's probably an element of capitalizing off of race, by playing to fear when it comes to marketing.. but isn't that how a lot of pharm companies work, regardless of target race? I'm not saying it's a good thing, quite the opposite- but I don't think this is as sinister as people think. African American individuals don't respond as well to ACE inhibitors, so they stuck drugs that do work better- Isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine- into one pill.

Apparently the FDA also only approved it for use in african american individuals, so that would seem to suggest there's some sort of physiological differences.[/quote]

Imdur and hydralazine are pretty effective treatments for heart failure. We often use them in people who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors for one reason or another (e.g., side effect of cough or if they have renal failure). I still tend to use ACE-Is in blacks anyway; they still work relatively well. The approval of a combination pill for blacks is somewhat of a marketing gimmick, but it is based on evidence... nevertheless, FDA approval for an indication often depends on what group/disease a company

... I find it funny that Myke stats that I am going beyond my area of expertise discussing psychiatry, and then he goes and does the exact same thing while talking about pharmacology... :D :applause:

Bmull is right on in a post above, when judging the merits of a randomized controlled trial, one has to look at the population being studied and in many instances certain races, age groups, etc. show different responses to treatment... and while we would like a more low level way of characterizing who would respond to a particular treatment, we lack these tools and have to fall back on that which we can more easily classify for the time being.
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']Hey BigT, and every other biggot like him here...fuck YOU!!!

I swear to mother fucking GOD! I want to put a bullet thru you're narrow ass minded heads. Seriously, I want all mother fuckers like you dead. I've fucking had it with all this shit with someone else telling me how I should be or that I can marry the one person trhat I love. Screw all the "rational" arguments its beating a dead horse....straight up GO fuck YOURSELVES!
[/quote]

Civil discourse countered by the above post :roll:. Congrats.

It is extremists like you and Gavin Newsom who will lead even moderate voters to vote Yes on 8.

According to Ballotopedia, the lastest polls shot that it's a close race... You can thank Gavin Newsom!

Oct. 2008 Internal polling, "No on 8": Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[71]
Oct 4-5, 2008 CBS News/SurveyUSA: Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[72]
Oct 15-16, 2008 SurveyUSA: Yes 48 percent; No 45 percent; Undecided 7 percent[73]
Oct 12-19, 2008 PPIC: Yes 44 percent; No 52 percent; Undecided 6 percent[74]
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Got my absentee ballot today, voted no on 8, canceled out BigT's vote.

My work here is done.[/QUOTE]
You sir are a national hero.
 
[quote name='BigT']Civil discourse countered by the above post :roll:. Congrats.

It is extremists like you and Gavin Newsom who will lead even moderate voters to vote Yes on 8.

According to Ballotopedia, the lastest polls shot that it's a close race... You can thank Gavin Newsom!

Oct. 2008 Internal polling, "No on 8": Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[71]
Oct 4-5, 2008 CBS News/SurveyUSA: Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[72]
Oct 15-16, 2008 SurveyUSA: Yes 48 percent; No 45 percent; Undecided 7 percent[73]
Oct 12-19, 2008 PPIC: Yes 44 percent; No 52 percent; Undecided 6 percent[74][/quote]

Seriously, I wish you a bullet in the head whenever you answer your door. You say that its ones like me that cause the discourse. Newsflash homophobe, its ones like YOU that cause it. You think that because I actually love a member of the same gender that I matter not and am thus a "plague" upon society. You start the shit, Iended it! So go fuck you slut wife or girlfriend. I hope to god that she fucks around on you and gives you something that is incurable.

And in all honesty, if ever given the chance to torture and kill a KKK member/skinhead/or any member of a group like them, I will take the most sadistic pleasure. And its not because I'm gay either. I dispise all forms of bigotry...
 
It was Fable 1 that done it f'r me. Wanted to play them in order.

Suppose I'll have to unravel the old Buick Xbox if I really want to play Fable.
 
:/

When you say you want someone to die because of their beliefs, then it's really intending nothing different than what Fred Phelps wants, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Don't worry, this shit will be over soon, and society will march progressively forward like it always has. We just have to be patient and know that diplomacy gets things done the right way, rather than going around assassinating people.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I get the feeling HumanSnatcher has been playing Fable 2 as well. It's really that hosed up, huh?[/quote]

Heh...I haven't even played Fable 1, even though I have the inital release and the release with the extra stuff. But seriously, I'm tired of bigots and homophobes like that piece of shit BigT.

As for his comment about Gavin Newsome. Lets see. HELOOOO! Hes the MAYOR of SF. BigT, I fucking DARE you to go to the Castro district, or any part of SF and say this shit out loud and wear a big ass sign saying so.

And the reason why I;m on this hard rant is because I'm fuckING SICK TO DEATH OF IT ALL
 
[quote name='Hex']:/

When you say you want someone to die because of their beliefs, then it's really intending nothing different than what Fred Phelps wants, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Don't worry, this shit will be over soon, and society will march progressively forward like it always has. We just have to be patient and know that diplomacy gets things done the right way, rather than going around assassinating people.[/quote]

Hex, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. And yeah, it'll be over soon...even if it means I have to scrimp and save to leave this country...
 
[quote name='Hex']I fucking lol'd.

Although, I'm disappointed that there weren't any scenes of hot stallion mounting. I mean shit, I have some videos saved if they needed footage.

On an aside, there are a lot of instances of homosexuality among animals. It's adorable.[/quote]

I have PLENTY of human "bears" in action if you need that for any type of back up ;-)
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Argh! Horses lying down with dragons!

ARE YOU HAPPY, PEOPLE? AND THAT WAS RHETORICAL, SO DON'T ANSWER THAT![/quote]

Happy in the pants.

Welcome to CAG.
 
[quote name='Hex']I disagree. A homosexual individual can't stop being gay any more than a heterosexual person can stop being straight.[/quote]

really? how do you explain all the homosexuals that have defected and become straight, married and have kids? I heard a woman speak that used to be a hardcore lesbian activist and can attest that it's a behavioral issue, not genetic. Scientific studies, even those performed by gay-lobby-backed money, can't prove that homosexuality is genetic, but comes from a variety of environmental, emotional and physical experiences in one's personal life.

hey, don't get me wrong, just cause you're straight doesn't mean you're in any less need of God's saving grace, we're all sinners that need redemption. A straight guy that sleeps around is no less/more a sinner than a homosexual. What upsets me is how agressive the gay community is against the church and it's beliefs.

That commercial that states the schools have nothing to do with this prop make me so mad. Who doesn't know that the same people that run our government and laws run our schools? Who doesn't know that bill SB777 has already passed in our state the says a kindergarten age boy who "feels" like a girl is now legally a girl and is allowed to used the girls restroom, etc? Who doesn't know kindergarten kids are already being shoved homosexual propoganda like the book "King and King". Who doesn't know that parents are already getting arrested because the school said a parent has no right over what their kid learns while in their presence? Who doesn't know that legislation has already been trying to be passed multiple times in the California state senate that would make reading passages in the Bible hate speech against homosexuals and imprison honest pastors? Who doesn't know honest pastors are already being imprisoned in Canada and Europe for teaching the Bible? Who doesn't know Christian adoption agencies are having their licenses being revoked after not adopting to gay couples, yet being in business for almost a century? It's all a plan to shut down the church's influence on society. Don't believe in the power of the gay lobbyists? How do you explain four activist judges and one city mayor of San Francisco overturning millions of votes and taking control into their own? That's not the democracy I believe in.

"EQUALITY FOR ALL". That's their slogan right? well, where do you draw the line? who IS all? murderers, child molesters, polygamists, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, etc? not that any of those are on the same level, but each believes it's his right or privilege to indulge in those activities, yet they're hurtful to our community. What if they all cry for "civil rights'' and the right to do as the please because it "FEELS" right? that's what the gay community is crying out right? it feels right, so it must be made legal. well, drugs feel right too (at the time), but how many lives are taken by those?

As i've stated before the gay lifestyle is one that doesn't make sense on paper. only 2-3% of americans claim to be gay, yet they account for 70% of new HIV cases each year. I can, and already have, go on and on about how harmful the lifestyle is to our human race. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? Who would have babies? How much more prevelant would STD's be? How long would humans last?

Not even the sane minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin don't support the redefining of the definition of marriage for the gay community. You don't have to be a Christian to see the problems associated with changing the definition of marriage. No longer is it Bride and Groom, but Party A and Party B. How is that validifying the sanctity of marriage. I don't want to be a letter on my marriage license, I want my gender recognized. Even Liberal Democrats are in opposition to this proposition because they can see what this means to our culture and society.

hey, don't take my word for all the facts listed above, search for yourself, it's real. It seems like the proponents for this proposition are either ignorant to the facts or are blinded by the media's liberal bias. Sometimes you have to vote with your heart, sometimes with your head and the facts. Knowing which one to do is true wisdom.
 
Hey now. How are polygamists hurtful to society? And if you are christian, and believe the bible, what does that say about all the old testement prophets that practiced polygamy?
 
Talk about a goldmine.

[quote name='von551']really? how do you explain all the homosexuals that have defected and become straight, married and have kids? I heard a woman speak that used to be a hardcore lesbian activist and can attest that it's a behavioral issue, not genetic. Scientific studies, even those performed by gay-lobby-backed money, can't prove that homosexuality is genetic, but comes from a variety of environmental, emotional and physical experiences in one's personal life.
[/quote]
First, I'd be interested see these studies you speak of. Now, have you ever considered that people who are supposedly gay who go out and marry are either: bisexual or trying to cover it up? Ever heard of a married couple and then all of a sudden the husband is sleeping with another guy? What happened there? Did he catch "the gay" from the environment? Or is it more likely they were gay to begin with, and were, due to social pressures, trying to adapt to a "norrmal lifestyle" as to not offend family members and friends who think that gays are evil and immoral?

That commercial that states the schools have nothing to do with this prop make me so mad. Who doesn't know that the same people that run our government and laws run our schools? Who doesn't know that bill SB777 has already passed in our state the says a kindergarten age boy who "feels" like a girl is now legally a girl and is allowed to used the girls restroom, etc? Who doesn't know kindergarten kids are already being shoved homosexual propoganda like the book "King and King". Who doesn't know that parents are already getting arrested because the school said a parent has no right over what their kid learns while in their presence? Who doesn't know that legislation has already been trying to be passed multiple times in the California state senate that would make reading passages in the Bible hate speech against homosexuals and imprison honest pastors? Who doesn't know honest pastors are already being imprisoned in Canada and Europe for teaching the Bible? Who doesn't know Christian adoption agencies are having their licenses being revoked after not adopting to gay couples, yet being in business for almost a century? It's all a plan to shut down the church's influence on society. Don't believe in the power of the gay lobbyists? How do you explain four activist judges and one city mayor of San Francisco overturning millions of votes and taking control into their own? That's not the democracy I believe in.

:rofl: We've already gone over the whole Christian adoption agency argument a few pages back

"EQUALITY FOR ALL". That's their slogan right? well, where do you draw the line? who IS all? murderers, child molesters, polygamists, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, etc? not that any of those are on the same level, but each believes it's his right or privilege to indulge in those activities, yet they're hurtful to our community. What if they all cry for "civil rights'' and the right to do as the please because it "FEELS" right? that's what the gay community is crying out right? it feels right, so it must be made legal. well, drugs feel right too (at the time), but how many lives are taken by those?

Murders = Kills another without consent (or with consent, which is morally ambiguous)
Child molestors = Assaults a minor without their consent
Rapists = Assaults (sexually) another without their consent
Thieves = Takes something from another without their consent

Notice a theme there? Drug Dealers are considered a menace to society because they cause a dependency to users, which can cause a risk to themselves or others.

Polygamy is illegal for likely the same reason as homosexuality, a belief that is it is wrong.

The difference between these top 5 and homosexuality is that a homosexual couple are two consenting adults. There is no risk to themselves or others. They are simply not comparable.

As i've stated before the gay lifestyle is one that doesn't make sense on paper. only 2-3% of americans claim to be gay, yet they account for 70% of new HIV cases each year. I can, and already have, go on and on about how harmful the lifestyle is to our human race. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? Who would have babies? How much more prevelant would STD's be? How long would humans last?

Really? Come on. No one is suggesting everyone is going to turn gay. It's a biological (despite what you think) difference. The (according to your statistics) 97% of us who are straight can keep the gene pool going. And we all know that the fact that aids became prevalent to the gay community during the 1980s was due to a variety of factors. It also affects a higher percentage of African Americans. What if we all turned black? How much more prevalent would stds be?

Not even the sane minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin don't support the redefining of the definition of marriage for the gay community. You don't have to be a Christian to see the problems associated with changing the definition of marriage. No longer is it Bride and Groom, but Party A and Party B. How is that validifying the sanctity of marriage. I don't want to be a letter on my marriage license, I want my gender recognized. Even Liberal Democrats are in opposition to this proposition because they can see what this means to our culture and society.

You want your marriage license to say groom and bridge, but why do you care what everyone else's says?

hey, don't take my word for all the facts listed above, search for yourself, it's real. It seems like the proponents for this proposition are either ignorant to the facts or are blinded by the media's liberal bias. Sometimes you have to vote with your heart, sometimes with your head and the facts. Knowing which one to do is true wisdom.

There is no liberal media bias. There is no liberal media bias. There is no liberal media bias. And I have dozens of academic papers to back this up, if you'd like to see them.
 
I wouldn't disagree with that, but studies of media bias are done based on content analysis (as in time spent talking about, amount of negative/positive mentions of a candidate). It's more like science than most media research. My senior thesis was on the perception of bias in the media by the public, so it was kind of a borderline issue around media bias.
 
[quote name='von551']really? how do you explain all the homosexuals that have defected and become straight, married and have kids? I heard a woman speak that used to be a hardcore lesbian activist and can attest that it's a behavioral issue, not genetic. Scientific studies, even those performed by gay-lobby-backed money, can't prove that homosexuality is genetic, but comes from a variety of environmental, emotional and physical experiences in one's personal life.[/quote]

That's where everything comes from! Genetics can never make you perform a certain behavior, but it can help shape your basic personality traits and predilections. Also, loving a person is not a behavior in the same sense that fucking someone is. You can control one quite a bit more than the other. You can ignore feelings, but they're not entirely under your control.

Additionally, environmental conditioning does not equate to being consciously under control. Just because something isn't entirely genetic (as things rarely are, besides physical features), that doesn't mean that it's under your control.

[quote name='von551']hey, don't get me wrong, just cause you're straight doesn't mean you're in any less need of God's saving grace, we're all sinners that need redemption. A straight guy that sleeps around is no less/more a sinner than a homosexual. What upsets me is how agressive the gay community is against the church and it's beliefs.[/quote]

People are generally against those who like denying them rights and equality. I doubt gay people care if it's a church or not.

[Skipping very long paranoid rant]

[quote name='von551']"EQUALITY FOR ALL". That's their slogan right? well, where do you draw the line? who IS all? murderers, child molesters, polygamists, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, etc? not that any of those are on the same level, but each believes it's his right or privilege to indulge in those activities, yet they're hurtful to our community. What if they all cry for "civil rights'' and the right to do as the please because it "FEELS" right? that's what the gay community is crying out right? it feels right, so it must be made legal. well, drugs feel right too (at the time), but how many lives are taken by those?[/quote]

If only you tried to make sense. Being gay in and of itself doesn't do damage to anybody, whereas most of the things you listed off do by definition. The only difference between a straight male and a gay male is that the gay male is attracted to dudes. The only difference between a straight female and a gay female is that the gay female is attracted to chicks. Everything else is individual.

[quote name='von551']As i've stated before the gay lifestyle is one that doesn't make sense on paper. only 2-3% of americans claim to be gay, yet they account for 70% of new HIV cases each year. I can, and already have, go on and on about how harmful the lifestyle is to our human race. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? Who would have babies? How much more prevelant would STD's be? How long would humans last?[/quote]

If you're spreading STDs then you use protection, you don't ban sex. You act like there's something about gay people that attract STDs to them. No, they fuck without protection, and doing it in the ass (which gay dudes probably do more often than straight ones) spreads HIV easier than vaginal sex.

And everyone isn't homosexual and won't suddenly become homosexual, problem solved.

[quote name='von551']Not even the sane minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin don't support the redefining of the definition of marriage for the gay community.[/quote]

So they do? Double negatives strike again.

[quote name='von551']You don't have to be a Christian to see the problems associated with changing the definition of marriage. No longer is it Bride and Groom, but Party A and Party B. How is that validifying the sanctity of marriage. I don't want to be a letter on my marriage license, I want my gender recognized. Even Liberal Democrats are in opposition to this proposition because they can see what this means to our culture and society.[/quote]

What? Well you could print ones that are more specific I guess, would that make it better for you? One for gay dudes, one for gay women, and one for straight couples. It'll just cost more money probably.

[quote name='von551']hey, don't take my word for all the facts listed above, search for yourself, it's real. It seems like the proponents for this proposition are either ignorant to the facts or are blinded by the media's liberal bias. Sometimes you have to vote with your heart, sometimes with your head and the facts. Knowing which one to do is true wisdom.[/quote]

Believe me, I know. I'm just hoping you don't figure out about the camps we're planning on putting all you Christians in unless you convert to worshipping the devil. :twisted:
 
[quote name='lordwow']I wouldn't disagree with that, but studies of media bias are done based on content analysis (as in time spent talking about, amount of negative/positive mentions of a candidate). It's more like science than most media research. My senior thesis was on the perception of bias in the media by the public, so it was kind of a borderline issue around media bias.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I know what content analysis is. It's my least favorite qualitative research method of all fucking time. I respect its merits, but hate more or less everything else about it.
 
Guys, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Prop 8 in California is getting a lot of attention. However, there are also similar propositions on the ballot in Arizona and Florida.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_(2008)

There is also another on the ballot in Arkansas that would prohibit unmarried couples from adopting children. This one was created as a thinly veiled attempt to prevent gay couples from raising children in a gay household (as Arkansas does not currently recognize gay marriage).

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Unmarried_Couple_Adoption_Ban_(2008)

Please do your research on these and vote accordingly to the way you feel on the issue. For a straight male from Wonder Bread, OH (that's just east of Parts Unknown for those keeping score), this is still something I feel pretty strongly about.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Comparing pedephilia to homosexuality is the worst thing I've heard in a long time. I'll give you polygamy but you went too far with pedophilia, bmull.[/QUOTE]

You're an idiot - and an asshole.
 
Humans arent a monogamous species. In true monogamous species, males and females are the same size. That is to say, there is no sexual dimorphism where size is concerned. Also, males in such a species have tiny dicks.
 
bread's done
Back
Top