Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


Recommended Posts

In Granbury, TX (about 2 hours south of Dallas/Ft Worth) a county clerk refused to give out same sex marriage licenses... because its... wait for it.... wait for it.... against her relgious beliefs !

Her boss has said she has his full support, but now they are being sued by the couple who was trying to get married.

Now, the office is claiming, there is someone who will do it in their office, but it will take 3 weeks to get the forms....

[uPDATE ] 2 HOURS AGO

http://keranews.org/post/after-suing-hood-county-granbury-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

They got their license.  Welcome to 2015 Granbury :rolleyes:

 

Edit: Stupid me pressing the submit button before entirely writing the post ...

 

I believe homosexuality is a sinful life style. I do not support gay rights or marriage. Neither do I actively work or speak against them.

 

That is some premium top of the shelf cognitive dissonance there. How is it possible to align these two sentences???
 

In Granbury, TX (about 2 hours south of Dallas/Ft Worth) a county clerk refused to give out same sex marriage licenses... because its... wait for it.... wait for it.... against her relgious beliefs !

Her boss has said she has his full support, but now they are being sued by the couple who was trying to get married.

Now, the office is claiming, there is someone who will do it in their office, but it will take 3 weeks to get the forms....

[uPDATE ] 2 HOURS AGO

http://keranews.org/post/after-suing-hood-county-granbury-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

They got their license.  Welcome to 2015 Granbury :rolleyes:

 
Where did I said that? Oh, Yes! Post 362 on page 25

 

Also, I was wondering what would Jindal have done if he was not in the presidential race. The more I see it, it was a publicity stunt to try to appeal to the GOP base and try to have something slightly the 0% of votes he is currently credited ...

 

To finish, some extracts from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/05/the-new-post-homophobic-christianity.html

 


The Episcopalian Church embraced gay marriage last week. Earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) affirmed its support for marriage equality, joining many other major Christian denominations that officially endorse LGBT rights. And according to an April 2015 poll, majorities of congregants within many Christian faith traditions support marriage equality

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

 

It was initially to drum up patriotism when the cold war against the soviets.  You are correct in the question though of "which god?" I guess since it didn't clarify Yahweh, it can literally mean any god you wish.

And if you legislate from the bench, establishing new laws out of thin air purely through mandate, thereby stripping states of their rights, then you are going against many areas of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Last time I checked, anything not specifically listed in the Constitution or its Amendments is supposed to be handled by the States and given credit by Full Faith and Credit. Don't hear me wrong, I'm not saying that there are grounds to fight back against SSM, but that should have been done through the Full Faith and Credit clause, with respect to the rights of the States.

 

I'm just waiting now for the first openly LGBT person who applies for a job at a religiously affiliated institution file a discrimination lawsuit when they don't get hired. Poop, meet fan.

 

Funny, I didn't know that SCOTUS clarifying law and determining Constitutionality was "legislating from the bench"...

 

What they did was their job.  If there is a question about constitutionality or legality of a law, it the job of the SCOTUS to clarify and adjust.  They do not write law, that is the job of the Legislative Branch.  They do not enforce law, that is the job of the Executive Branch.

 

We do have a reason for the 10th.  However, and this is what most tenthers tend to forget, there are laws and events that have sprouted up since the writing of our Constitution that must be Federally mandated because the conditions and repercussions cross state lines, as just one example of many reasons why.  The heart of this case is a couple that were married in state that allows for SSM, then went back home to a state that doesn't.  SCOTUS ruled that their marriage, for several reasons, should be fully recognized in their home state.  Having a patchwork of laws in this case doesn't make sense and can been seen as discriminatory.  

 

 

T

No, you are wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and has NOT legalised same-sex marriage. Marriages from other parts of the UK are treated as civil partnerships, not marriages.

 

The UK still does not have marriage equality.

 

Most of us in the mainland of UK don't really tend to think of NI as part of us, due to them having separate laws so whilst technically you may be correct, when it comes down to reality, you're not.

In 1954 President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge.

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

So, while originally it was not planned like that, it absolutely have being like that for last 60 years.

 

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

 

Those were added long after our Founding Fathers passed away...

 

IGWT, was added during the Civil War as almost a rallying cry to show that "god" was on the side of the Union.

 

For the Pledge, it wasn't officially added until 1954 - over 60 years after it was initially written and was the brainchild of a pastor.

 

Again, while people want to cry out we are a "christian nation", it was actually the christians time and time again forcing their beliefs upon Americans.

 

 

T

Definitely donating my money towards the plaintiffs of the law suits that this generates in order to fight the continued discrimination against homosexuals.

 

This discrimination has gone on long enough. Obama should send the Feds in to make sure that the law is followed. Civil servants that want to continue their hatred of others can do that from home and off of the tax payer's payrolls.

Funny, I didn't know that SCOTUS clarifying law and determining Constitutionality was "legislating from the bench"...

Also courts make laws all the time, Its called case law.

 

Both sides are guilty of it, the supreme court decision was on a case that wasn't really about same sex marriage at all (imo a scapegoat to push the agenda onto the remaining states).

The new world order agenda :rofl:

 

What qualifies as "imposing"? Both parties are guilty of pushing their ideals on others

I don't see anybody trying to make gay marriage mandatory, Just demanding that they not be discriminated in the same way the rest of society does.

 

The SCOTUS ruling has put a lot of the religious community on edge in a way they weren't expecting nor should they be necessarily okay with.

And yet they have not lost a single right they had before.

 

As far as I'm concerned, we should have left it to legislation and voting. There'd be a lot less controversy over something the majority decided, rather than something decided by a small group. Ireland should serve as an example here.

A lot of use it will be to these people when they are in their graves http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574 by the time that would happen.

I don't see anybody trying to make gay marriage mandatory, Just demanding that they not be discriminated in the same way the rest of society does.

 

A lot of use it will be to these people when they are in their graves http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574 by the time that would happen.

 

It's not necessarily about making it mandatory. And to say that "people will be in their graves by the time it would happen" is quite the assumption. This civil rights issue was probably the fastest one in US history compared to racial equality and women's rights. I personally don't think a decade and a half is "slow", we had a majority of US states already agreeing to it in that time (many of which overturned their previous legal definitions in under 10 years).

 

 

The heart of this case is a couple that were married in state that allows for SSM, then went back home to a state that doesn't. SCOTUS ruled that their marriage, for several reasons, should be fully recognized in their home state.  Having a patchwork of laws in this case doesn't make sense and can been seen as discriminatory.

 

First, to highlight this particular part. Why did this couple not do their due diligence with this topic? Why is this the state's fault in the first place. Aside from the fact that the arguments provided by the state were complete crap (they should have mentioned that the situation was entirely preventable by the married couple if they'd actually done their homework). Yes, it sucks that it happened. But there are many legal avenues to grant the rights they were prevented from that marriage provides. This is again why I see this case as a scapegoat to do something unrelated. It wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage (the original case anyways).

 

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

I don't care if one side is morally or ethically more sound, you cannot ignore the fact that this was an odd way to achieve a goal that was not part of the problem in the original case (and was also completely avoidable).

 

That being said, I certainly hope the result of this is to erase the word "marriage" from the state's power. We need to just officially rename legal marriage as a civil union across the board and be done with the terminology nonsense. That way the religious groups have no say in the matter. It's merely a legal contract to share assets in the eyes of the state / federal government.

It's not necessarily about making it mandatory. And to say that "people will be in their graves by the time it would happen" is quite the assumption. This civil rights issue was probably the fastest one in US history compared to racial equality and women's rights. I personally don't think a decade and a half is "slow", we had a majority of US states already agreeing to it in that time (many of which overturned their previous legal definitions in under 10 years).

 

 

 

First, to highlight this particular part. Why did this couple not do their due diligence with this topic? Why is this the state's fault in the first place. Aside from the fact that the arguments provided by the state were complete crap (they should have mentioned that the situation was entirely preventable by the married couple if they'd actually done their homework). Yes, it sucks that it happened. But there are many legal avenues to grant the rights they were prevented from that marriage provides. This is again why I see this case as a scapegoat to do something unrelated. It wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage (the original case anyways).

 

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

I don't care if one side is morally or ethically more sound, you cannot ignore the fact that this was an odd way to achieve a goal that was not part of the problem in the original case (and was also completely avoidable).

 

That being said, I certainly hope the result of this is to erase the word "marriage" from the state's power. We need to just officially rename legal marriage as a civil union across the board and be done with the terminology nonsense. That way the religious groups have no say in the matter. It's merely a legal contract to share assets in the eyes of the state / federal government.

 

Clearly the states couldn't handle it themselves, that's why the SCOTUS did it in the end.

You had some backward states that where trying to inject religion in their law making and that is still illegal/wrong!

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

There is no way to reconcile laws prohibiting same sex marriage with the US Constitution as it is currently written. Exactly the same way there was no way to reconcile laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Constitution as written. The courts ruled the only way they could have.

There is no way to reconcile laws prohibiting same sex marriage with the US Constitution as it is currently written. Exactly the same way there was no way to reconcile laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Constitution as written. The courts ruled the only way they could have.

 

If you read the resulting ruling, the court found them unconstitutional because the laws only applied to whites. Interracial was actually whites marrying whites only. It would be akin banning same sex marriage but only between men. A bit different than this case (by a bit, I mean a lot).

It's funny what you call bullying other people call fighting for equal rights

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

I said I was for same sex marriage.

 

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

If you read the resulting ruling, the court found them unconstitutional because the laws only applied to whites. Interracial was actually whites marrying whites only. It would be akin banning same sex marriage but only between men. A bit different than this case (by a bit, I mean a lot).

 

Not at all. Equal protection means equal. There is (nearly) no way you can craft a law prohibiting an activity of just one group of adults while allowing the same activity for others and have it not violate the equal protection clause. (There are exceptions, none apply here)

 

To claim it's akin to banning SSM but only for men is absurd, since there is no legal distinction between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage.  If a law was written to create a legal distinction, it would violate the equal protection clause. The same way if a law is written to ban same sex marriage, it violates the equal protection clause. There's no simple way around this, it's pretty straightforward.

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

 

If you see this discussion as "bashing one's religion", then you obviously have the entire discussion wrong.

 

It wouldn't of mattered if it was christianity, islam, judaism, shinto, buddhism, or pastafarian -- if you use religion as a sword to make or enforce laws in America you are doing Freedom wrong!

 

The specific religion doesn't matter, it just happens that the one shoving its beliefs down everyone's throat this time is christianity.

 

 

T

  • Like 2

Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

I said I was for same sex marriage.

 

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

 

This whole thread is about equal rights.

If people oppose those then they can expect some backlash

 

I don't know about you, but I run in enough hatred against gays/muslims/jews/.... just by reading replies on articles that pop up on FB.

So I don't think it's just directed at Christians.

I just found someone mudslag would agree with.

 

 

"hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

 

...and since you decided to epic fail the entire thread by going Nazi...

 

23fa9f5bec59537f49018d85f96446d9.jpg

 

...sigh...

 

 

T

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • NetSpeedTray 1.3.3 by Razvan Serea NetSpeedTray is a lightweight, open-source Windows network monitor that shows live upload and download speeds directly on the Taskbar. Designed for efficiency, it quietly sits in the system tray, conserving CPU and battery with dynamic updates. It blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11, adapts to light/dark themes, and auto-positions to avoid overlaps. Features include accurate interface detection, customizable display, optional mini-graph, color coding, granular font and unit control, detailed per-interface history graphs, safe data management, and easy CSV export—bringing the network monitoring Windows forgot. NetSpeedTray key features: Lightweight & Efficient Runs quietly in your system tray without consuming resources. Features a "Dynamic Update Rate" that lowers refresh frequency when the network is idle to save CPU and battery life. Native Look & Feel Blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11 UI. Smart detection for light and dark taskbar themes ensures text is always visible. Intelligent & Adaptive Positioning Automatically finds empty space next to your system tray and shifts to make room for new icons, preventing overlaps. Seamless OS Integration Behaves like a native Windows component. Hides instantly with auto-hiding taskbar Hides when a fullscreen app is active Smart Network Monitoring Accurate by Default: Auto mode identifies your main internet connection and ignores noise from VPNs or virtual adapters. Easy Interface Selection: Switch effortlessly between Auto, All, or Selected network interfaces via intuitive radio buttons. Total Visual Customization Free Move Mode: Unlock and place the widget anywhere on your screen. Optional Mini-Graph: Real-time graph of recent network activity with adjustable opacity. Color Coding: Customize colors and speed thresholds to quickly see network status. Granular Display Control Text & Font: Adjust font family, size, weight, and alignment. Units: Automatic (B/s, KB/s, MB/s) or fixed Mbps display. Precision: Set decimal places and always show them for uniform appearance. Detailed & Intelligent History Graph Smart Scale: Logarithmic scale shows low-level traffic and large spikes clearly. Per-Interface Filtering: View speed history for specific adapters (Wi-Fi, Ethernet, VPN). Safe & Efficient Data Management: Adjustable retention, automatic cleanup, optimized database. Easy Data Export: Export raw data to .csv or save high-quality graphs for reports. NetSpeedTray v1.3.3: The Updater Fix A stabilization release that repairs a critical regression in v1.3.2: the app shipped without OpenSSL, which silently broke every HTTPS request — including the built-in update checker (the "Could not check for updates" error many of you hit). This release restores it, hardens the build so it can't happen again, and fixes a startup crash plus four other reported bugs. Changes: Fixed update checking — Resolved a critical issue that prevented the app from checking for updates ("Could not check for updates"). Fixed startup crash with Auto-Cycling — The app no longer crashes on launch after enabling Cycle display mode. Fixed incorrect network speeds on 10GbE adapters — Multi-gigabit network cards now display speeds correctly instead of being stuck at 0. Improved color coding — Default color is shown when idle, and color/threshold changes now apply immediately without restarting. Fullscreen visibility fix — The widget now correctly stays visible over fullscreen apps when Keep Visible is enabled. Improved AMD Ryzen temperature detection — More reliable CPU temperature monitoring for Ryzen processors. Cleaner upgrades — Installer now removes outdated application files during upgrades, preventing DLL/version conflicts while preserving user settings. Improved stability — Fixed potential DLL loading issues by excluding critical OpenSSL and NumPy components from UPX compression. Better settings window — Scrollbars removed and layout improved for a cleaner experience. Localization improvements — Updated translations and completed missing UI text across all supported languages. More reliable releases — Added regression tests covering recent critical fixes, bringing the test suite to 196 passing tests. [full release notes] Download: NetSpeedTray 1.3.3 | 87.9 MB (Open Source) Download: NetSpeedTray Portable | 101.0 MB View: NetSpeedTray Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Why Delta Chat is the best decentralized messenger you have probably never tried by Paul Hill There is no shortage of messaging apps out there; we have WhatsApp, Messenger, and Telegram, just to name a few. While Meta has taken steps to incorporate encryption into Messenger and WhatsApp, they still leave a lot to be desired. If you are in the market for a messaging app that promotes security, privacy, and optional anonymity, you'll want to read what I have to say about Delta Chat. For those not familiar with Delta Chat, rather than relying on centralized servers as you do with Facebook Messenger, it relies on email. Essentially, it is a chat interface that feels like a messaging app, but secretly in the background, it is firing off emails. In the past, you used to have to sign in with your email account. When you sent messages to people, it would just be sending encrypted messages to their inbox, which their Delta Chat client would decrypt. When I first learned about Delta Chat, it required users to sign in with an email account, but I was pleasantly surprised upon trying it in 2026 that this is no longer a requirement, or the preferred method was to use the app. Recently, I’ve tried UAD-ng on my old Nokia 3.4 to disable most of the Google apps because the bootloader is locked, and this is the next best option. While finding replacement apps in F-Droid, I came across Delta Chat again, and it has undergone quite a big change since I last used it, with its new chatmail relays, which no longer require you to sign in to your own email account, providing anonymity, and they offer greater security. Android and Desktop Delta Chat apps. Not only does it run on my de-googled phone, but it also works on desktop computers and iOS, making it truly ubiquitous. For me, Delta Chat is a wonderful alternative messenger because it gives you more control. It supports switching between different profiles, which you can set up super quickly; you don’t register a username, you don’t register a password. The only thing you do have is a random string email address on a chatmail relay (which you don’t have to memorize). To maintain access to your profile, you just need to add a second device to your account via QR code or make a backup of your account, which you can restore later. Fail to do these, your account is gone - as it should be if you don’t want to leave accounts that could get hacked later on. My decision to block Google stuff on my Nokia was done for practical reasons; the device sucked when it launched, and it sucks even more now. The nice thing about F-Droid and the apps within is that they’re usually lightweight, free of bloat, and work well on that device. What was inconvenient for me was that it was hard to send messages from that device, say if I wanted to copy a code over to my main phone or send family members a link from that device. That’s when I decided to look at the available chat apps and saw Delta Chat. Another nice thing about Delta Chat is its notifications. Some messaging apps rely on Google’s ecosystem for notification transport on Android; however, with Delta Chat, it can use Google’s solutions if you have Play Services or MicroG installed. Otherwise, it is able to keep a background connection to the chatmail relay server so that you can get notified when you receive a message. As free software, the code of Delta Chat is open for all who want to take it and build upon it. In the future, if the developers of Delta Chat make a catastrophically bad decision and take the app in an undesirable direction, users can take the code and fork the project. This contrasts with closed-source apps from corporations that can take their products in any direction they like. By relying on free software instead of closed-source programs, you actually control your computing. I’ve spoken at length about how running this type of software is like owning your own home rather than renting it. The same applies here; if you use Delta Chat, you don’t need to worry about it going away in the future. Whether it is Telegram, WhatsApp, or Messenger, you are required to register a username and password to use these services. A major flaw in this design is that anyone can try various passwords and potentially break into your account with your complete chat history intact. Sure, there is encryption in Messenger, where you need a second PIN and two-factor authentication in Telegram, but breaches happen all the time. Unlike before, when you used to sign in to your email account to send and receive messages, the primary way to do it now is to create an account on a chatmail relay. The resulting email address is a random string followed by the name of the relay you pick. This means you can start and begin adding contacts Without a username and password, you either need to ensure you have a backup or at least one device running your Delta Chat profile. The primary way to log in on another device is to go to the settings and add a second device. Then, you’ll just scan a QR code with your new device, and it’ll log in to your account and sync all your chat history and contacts. To end users, Delta Chat just looks like any instant messenger; however, it is really sending your messages as encrypted emails to your contact. This is pretty cool from a censorship perspective, as it makes the service more difficult to block. Previously, the main way to use the app was by logging in with email, but nowadays, it’s recommended that you use chatmail relays. Chatmail relays temporarily hold messages in case your device is offline. They are cheap, simple servers that don’t store data as group states. Other information, like your name and avatar, only exists on your device and the devices of those you share your contact information with. The relays are also decentralized and operated by various groups and individuals. It is even possible to set up your own chatmail relay, but most people will want to use one hosted elsewhere. To keep your messages secure, Delta Chat uses a secure subset of the OpenPGP standard that gives you automatic end-to-end encryption. It also uses Secure-Join to exchange encryption setup information through QR-code scanning or invite links. Autocrypt is also used to automatically establish end-to-end encryption between contacts and all members of group chat, but sometime this year Autocrypt v2 will be rolled out, bringing post-quantum resistant encryption and forward secrecy. The Delta Chat FAQ is an interesting read that explains many more details about the app. Credit: Pexels Delta Chat is unique among messaging apps because it is built on email, a technology that’s decades old and isn’t going anywhere soon. What’s more is that email is not centralized either, so it’s far more difficult for any authoritarian regime to disrupt the Delta Chat app. I haven’t spoken too much about features yet, so I will do that now. Delta Chat allows you to do one-on-one chats, group chats, and create channels. It also supports file sharing and making audio and video calls when chatting one-to-one, but it’s not available for group chats right now. At the time of writing, the calling functionality is disabled and can be enabled in Settings > Advanced > Debug Calls. I have used the video calling feature, and the quality is excellent. It works over WebRTC, another open standard. The app also lets you send voice notes, enables disappearing messages, and has its own app ecosystem. I did try playing chess one time there, but it was a bit spotty; though, we did manage to complete the game with a victory for me. To add people to Delta Chat, you can either give them your Delta Chat link or your QR code to scan. These are the only ways to add users, so you won't have any spam bots bothering you. If the people you want to chat with don't have the app yet, just send them your link, and it will take them to a webpage where they can install the app and then add you. It's really quick for them to install it and get started, which is nice. Credit: Microsoft. The Majorana 2 quantum chip unveiled in 2026. I do not think quantum computers are too far out now, and I do hope that Delta Chat is able to push out Autocrypt v2 sooner, rather than later, so bad actors do not attempt to collect encrypted communications and then decrypt them in the future using quantum computers. By getting people’s messages post-quantum-safe now, users won’t have to worry when quantum computers start cracking legacy encryption. Overall, I would recommend this app to people who are already past WhatsApp and Messenger and have perhaps begun using apps like Telegram or Session. It shares a lot of characteristics with these apps and goes a lot further than Telegram in terms of security. By being based on email, it is also resistant to censorship, and the lack of a username and password makes you anonymous (if you want to be) and safe from brute force password cracking attempts. Let me know in the comments if you’ve tried Delta Chat recently. Do you think it's a good bulwark against governments that are tightening their grip on the internet?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      471
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      217
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!