Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
New York has not done the "Right Thing". This issue was not put to a popular vote of the People of New York State. This Homosexual Sodomy marriage law was activated by
New York State politicians, not by its citizens!. Sodomy is Sodomy, it is abnormal and unnatural. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. The institution of marriage, throughout history has been between a man and a woman, not man and man or woman and woman.
What New York State and other states have done, is morally corrupted the institution of marriage. The New York State Homosexual Sodomy marriage law must be repealed,
and then put to a popular vote by the People.!
We as citizens of New York should not have Sodomy forced upon us, in the form of Homosexual marriage by elected politicians. This issue must be put on the ballot, and voted on by the citizenry of New York State.
Sodomy is a sin, and a crime in many countries throughout the rest of the world.!!
Homo marriage is wrong!!
Its not intolerance or bigotry, its standing up for whats morally right in the world.!
And what minister is going to marry two men or two women in their church. This homo marriage business is absurd!
Since I don't throw the word bigot out, my answer would be - it depends. Are you classifying a group (race, age, gender, sexual orientation, left handed pipefitters, fake pirates, etc.), do you demonstrate intolerance to that group, and are you obstinately or intolerantly devoted to your own opinion?
Then yes you might be a bigot. If not then no you are not a bigot.
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Well, I'm none of those things, so I'm not a bigot.
You are also unaware, M.D., as well as a bigot. Pray and become aware that you meet the definition of bigotry. That is why your thinking is so dangerous to the American dream.
Well, I'm none of those things, so I'm not a bigot.
You are also unaware, M.D., as well as a bigot. Pray and become aware that you meet the definition of bigotry. That is why your thinking is so dangerous to the American dream.
American dream? Uh-huh. This nation was founded in 1776. Suddenly, mostly leftists have discovered a new principle alien to the Lockean tradition of classical liberalism upon which this nation was founded. I wonder where this new principle leads. Not. I know where it leads and that its nature is essentially collectivistic. While I, like Locke and the Founders, intuitively understand the matter in terms of real-world imperatives, one only need take a close look at the Western European nations that have officially asserted homosexual marriage to know that their governments have essentially abolished ideological liberty and free association with regard to sexual morality and religious decision in the private and public sector.
Those who love liberty, eh? Those who would ordinarily love liberty, which leaves lefty out of the equation, need to stop drinking the Kool-aid and wise up to what lefty is actually after and start thinking things through to real-world outcomes, beginning with the observation that lefty never imposes civil rights protections in anything but a collectivist fashion.
In any event, I am not deceived.
On other hand, being a true classical liberal, one who understands what is at stake and ultimately does believe in the principle of live-and-let-live, I would that the government got out of the marriage business altogether in a changing society moving toward the acceptance of homosexuality. But if it must be involved, as a conservative-libertarian, I sure as hell am not going support the government expanding its power in that regard on the basis of sexual behavior beyond that of nature and political natural law. Hello!
No.So I suppose if I oppose empowering the government to enforce civil rights protections against the fundamental rights touching on private property and free association on the basis of sexual behavior inconsistent with biological physiology and reproduction, I'm a bigot.
Your opinion simply does not comport with Constitutional case law. Youre free to believe what you want, to not be a homosexual, to not have them on your private property or join a private organization (See: Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 2000).
You may not , however, advocate to have a given government Federal, state, local ban homosexual acts, restrict homosexuals from public venues, or deny homosexuals equal access to the laws.
Now, let's flip that coin over: what label should we put on those who support the notion of the government imposing the homosexual's morality on private interests? Can we say fascist or tyrant or thug?
I'm just saying.
Really not sure what youre trying to say, as there are no individuals or groups advocating imposing anyones morality gay or otherwise on private interests. Federal enforcement applies only when a given lawmaking entity attempts to preempt any Americans civil rights based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
No.So I suppose if I oppose empowering the government to enforce civil rights protections against the fundamental rights touching on private property and free association on the basis of sexual behavior inconsistent with biological physiology and reproduction, I'm a bigot.
Your opinion simply does not comport with Constitutional case law. Youre free to believe what you want, to not be a homosexual, to not have them on your private property or join a private organization (See: Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 2000).
You may not , however, advocate to have a given government Federal, state, local ban homosexual acts, restrict homosexuals from public venues, or deny homosexuals equal access to the laws.
Now, let's flip that coin over: what label should we put on those who support the notion of the government imposing the homosexual's morality on private interests? Can we say fascist or tyrant or thug?
I'm just saying.
Really not sure what youre trying to say, as there are no individuals or groups advocating imposing anyones morality gay or otherwise on private interests. Federal enforcement applies only when a given lawmaking entity attempts to preempt any Americans civil rights based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Sir, I'm obviously talking about the civil rights protections that would be additionally exerted by states that officially recognize homosexual marriage.
And why did the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have to defend their fundamental right of free association in the first place? Hello! It should have been a no brainer that homos had absolutely no right whatsoever to sue the Boy Scouts from the jump! Don't tell me that a long line of leftist thugs, including judges, didn't have to be fought off all the up to the Supreme Court to reaffirm the obvious. Statist thugs.
I don't know what point you think you're making, but citing the BSA case is a blunder, isn't it . . . as it highlights the point that I'm making regarding the true agenda of the rabid, leftist gay rights movement that is not interested in live and let live, but determined to use the state to force universal acceptance of homosexuality.
Marriage is contract law, and the states must write the law and ensure its consistently applied so government will never get out of marriage, nor should it.But if it must be involved, as a conservative-libertarian, I sure as hell am not going support the government expanding its power in that regard on the basis of sexual behavior beyond that of nature and political natural law.
Homosexuality is a choice, no more. You cannot equate it with race discrimination. Because I quoted out of the Bible doesn't mean I am shoving anything down anybodies throat, unlike the gay crowd does. The first time my kids school tells her gay is normal I will pull her out and homeschool her the truth.The Bible will be the text book.An idiot is one who equates gay with race or gender. Homosexuallity is a choice, which should be left in the bedroom by the way, and not shoved down our throats.Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.
Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.
Ummm . . . just who is shoving what down whose throats? Seems to me it is folks like you who are shoving an awful lot down the throats of gays, not the other way around.
Prejudice, intolerance and bigotry work on ANY minority - not just race and gender based minorities. A bit disingenuous of you not to see that, old sport.
The "right" itself is not marriage. the "right" is the access to contract law and the Marriage Contract itself. It's just not proper, in a nation that bills itself as a beacon of freedom and civil rights not to allow TWO ADULT CITIZENS access to those legal protections. Not citizens and animals. Animals cannot CONSENT to a legal contract. And it's that point that invalidates the old Social Conservative's argument.No one is asking for polygamy or bestiality. Those are dried up old arguments the Social Conservatives tried thinking America would be just dumb enough to follow them down that primrose path. Marriage is still two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons nor a man and his goat.
It is not a dried up old argument. It is a valid comparison.
IF marriage is a right
IF that right extends to whomever you wish to marry and is not subject to scrutiny
Then you must allow polygamists and inter familial marriages.
Personally, I would allow all of them AFTER marriage was removed as a tax benefit. For the time being, I have no issues with gays marrying as what one does on their own time is their own business. I believe that the crux of the argument lies in benefits to society. If there is a negative benefit then it could be argued that the state has no business condoning the relationship. There is no law against marrying for gays, just that the marriage will not be recognized by the state. For me, the verdict is in, it is BENEFICIAL to sanction gay marriage as gay is not a choice and all benefit from a stable relationship. There is also the adoption angle. I am POSITIVE that I do not want children in foster care. Whatever your view on gay behavior, a child is better off in a stable gay family than they are in a fluid and possible abusive foster care.
What gives me the power to say the truth is in the Bible? The Bible. You believe what you want. A lot of people do not believe the truth.Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
I don't believe I am reading this. You quote the Bible in support of your argument and then say this is not shoving religion down anyone's throat - rather, it is "the truth spoken in God's word."
You don't see that as shoving religion down anyone's throat? You sure as hell are attempting to shove it down MY throat here. What gives you the power to claim that you are citing "the truth spoken in God's words"? What if someone doesn't believe in God, hmmmm?
Never mind shoving this stuff down anyone's throat - you can shove it straight up your bigoted ass, how do you like THEM apples?
Why do Gays want to get married in the first place if they receive the same rights in civil unions.?
It bothers me that Gays are so cavalier and insulting as to religious beliefs. I believe their marriage push is more related to destroying traditional religious belief, than marriage...
My view is that many act out as spoiled brats that want their way no matter how intolerate they are..
Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
Really? You can see NO other possible reason except BIGOTRY and INTOLERANCE? That to me is proof of the level of sheer INSANITY of the left. I grew up at a time when "intolerance and bigotry" had REAL definitions and not this bullshit crap from the left that unless someone fully supports their own activist, radical agenda -why the only possible reason to not support it must be because the individual is just a bad, nasty, mean person just seething with BIGOTRY and INTOLERANCE!
"Bigotry" means "complete intolerance of any creed or belief but one's own" -and it does NOT mean "opposing redefining marriage" and it doesn't even mean "opposing the radical gay activist political agenda" either. "Intolerance of homosexuals" means "unable to tolerate the existence or presence of homosexuals". It sure as hell doesn't mean "opposed to altering a thousands year old definition of a very specific word that has never once meant "any two adults who feel like calling their particular relationship a 'marriage' just to make Bob and Joe personally happy!"
Whether it makes particular people happy or unhappy is NOT the basis for our laws! What makes Joe Gay Person happy or not is IRRELEVANT to the entire thing because it isn't an issue about what is best for Joe and Bob. It is whether it is best for society at large right NOW and for society in the future. PERIOD.
The REAL burden is on those who insist making such a fundamental change to society itself by meddling with one of its underlying pillars, something that evolved over the course of thousands of years for a REASON and it didn't end up including gay relationships -to prove it will either provide greater benefits to society as a whole, or at the very least not cause ANY negative, unwanted consequences by such a change. If it doesn't provide a greater benefit for society by changing it -then automatically that means any move to alter it should be done with GREAT hesitation. It isn't enough that radical gays (because not all support it) and liberals insist it will have no impact on society because they do know it will have no benefit for society itself -so they are arguing it will be a neutral impact -one of those "no harm no foul" situations. Except we DO know that isn't true. It will have widespread unwanted consequences and the very people who will pay most dearly for it have NOT been taken into consideration by gays and liberals -not at all. In fact they actually don't give a shit who will pay a heavy price for fucking it up because THEY want what THEY want and they don't care about a damn thing beyond that. And they do NOT care who gets hurt as a result, no matter how damaging that hurt may be. Because in their mind, what THEY want supersedes ALL ELSE and is far more important than WHO GETS HURT BY IT. It is the thinking and mentality of a child -which is actually required in order to be a liberal. Liberals base their opinions on what they FEEL. If they PERSONALLY like it or will PERSONALLY benefit by it -that makes it automatically good and anyone who opposes giving it to them can only be refusing to do so because they are just...MEANIES! Their FEELINGS are what counts most for a liberal and are far more important than anything else. Including FACTS and OUTCOMES and RESULTS.
You can't demand it be done just because of what you FEEL. YOUR feelings are just as irrelevant as my own. You have to be able to provide FACTS to back up any contention it will at the very least cause no harm that will outweigh any possible good -and you can't do that! Yet you CHILDISHLY insist the real burden lies with those who oppose it! Proving yet again the level of INSANE lack of critical thinking skills! I have thousands of years of the evolution of the pillars of society to back up MY opinion that it should not be altered in this way. WTF do you have? That Joe and Bob will be able to call their average 7 year long relationship a "marriage"?
I don't care if you want to look at long past history or current -we already know that gay marriage creates a SUBSTANTIAL change to one of the underlying pillars to a stable society -and that change in fact increases the instability of a society with the ripples of instability growing with each passing generation. Human beings already LEARNED this the hard way in the past -yet along comes a MINORITY in this generation -because get real, the overwhelming majority oppose this -convinced that they are SUPERIOR in every way to literally BILLIONS of human beings, every person who ever lived or is alive today and THEY ALONE got it right and our ENTIRE SPECIES got it all wrong. And THEY ALONE just FEEL what it SHOULD be and will ...fix it all. Dismissing out of hand ALL human experience over the course of thousands of years! What arrogance.
We already know that altering marriage in this way will result in many negative and unwanted and UNINTENDED consequences that FAR outweigh any possible good Gee, do you THINK that might be why it evolved to what it did? Of course not because all that matters to you is what you FEEL and you FEEL its more important to make Joe and Bob happy than ANYTHING else, right?
Try taking a hard, HONEST look at what Denmark -the nation that has the longest experience dealing with same sex marriage - has done to itself and look at the HONEST reports on the problems in their society that have occurred as a direct result of dismantling the very pillars of their society -to the point they are now scrambling to figure out how to repair their own self-inflicted damage. Just a few decades later and the damage is undeniable. The marriage rate in Denmark has sharply fallen off and continues to this day. They try to cover that by trumpeting a relatively unchanged divorce rate -but if people aren't getting married at all, then that becomes a pretty irrelevant statistic. Their birth rate remains the same though. But within ten years, the overwhelming majority of first born children were born out of wedlock. In another ten so were the majority of second born children and today about 50% of all 3rd born children are as well. In other words -the majority of all children born in Denmark today are born to an unmarried woman. On top of which because a child's parents have not committed to a bonded unit for the purpose of raising children, the average child in Denmark sees an average of FIVE men come in and out of his mother's life before the age of 15 and have only minimal contact with their biological father. That is a big, red flag in the life of male children in particular when it comes to their emotional health and their own future relationships. Studies have shown the great damage done to male children when they see men come and go in their mother's life -they are far more likely to have difficulty establishing a stable relationship themselves, far more likely to have mental health issues, far more likely to engage in self-destructive behaviors, have more difficulty in school and more likely to engage in acts of anti-social behavior and more likely to commit acts of violence. Even when people did these studies trying to prove that wasn't true, they only confirmed what is a known fact every time -there is no other situation that comes close to raising the next generation to be emotionally healthy, independent and productive citizens than marriage of the biological parents. Doesn't matter if you FEEL that can't be right -it is. And it turns out that is true for both girls AND boys -both boys and girls have far more difficulty establishing and maintaining a stable relationship themselves if they are raised in ANY other situation but by their married biological parents, are far more likely to have mental health and far more likely to engage in anti-social behaviors. But they don't stop having children and inflicting that same damage to their own kids as well which actually becomes compounded with each passing generation. In fact we know RIGHT NOW today that Denmark has THE highest rate of mental illness in their children in the west -to go along with also having the longest experience with same sex marriage. Not the least of which is the SHOCKING fact that SUICIDE is the second highest cause of death for their SEVEN YEAR OLDS, right after accidental deaths -something that is so rare in this country it isn't even on the list - is directly correlated to their decision to dismantle THE single most stabilizing pillar for any society.
Look what is happening in Nordland, Norway which has followed suit and is the most liberal county of Norway. In the first ten years of same sex marriage, out of wedlock births rose from 39% (already shockingly high) -to 80%. They are seeing the same spikes in all the other indicators of an increasingly UNSTABLE society as well.
Marriage evolved to what it is because it is an HISTORICALLY and REPEATEDLY PROVEN fact over the course of THOUSANDS OF YEARS to be the single most best way of raising the next generation to become productive, self-reliant and emotional healthy adults. PERIOD. And there is no close second. That can't be emphasized enough -there is NO close second. Every single study you will find only confirms that, even ones done by people trying to prove otherwise. Every other possible situation is so far down the list as to not even be in the same ball park. You fuck that up and you screw over MILLIONS and MILLIONS more and in far more damaging ways than any harm to gays by not calling their gay relationships a "marriage". That's it and there is NO reason great enough to justify fucking that up, including any smarmy BULLSHIT about how poor Joe and Bob feel cheated because they can't call their relationship "marriage". The demands by gay activists and liberals is nothing but the WHINING of the most superficial, self-absorbed, self-indulgent minority in this country (because the overwhelming majority oppose screwing with it). That is the REAL purpose of marriage -to have and raise children because it is THE single most best way to prepare and raise the next generation to become productive, emotionally healthy adults. The change that is actually done to this pillar of a stable society by redefining it in this way is that it substantially changes society's perception of marriage from one for the purpose of having and raising children -to being just about coupling. Which then results in fewer people getting married for the purpose of having and raising kids but doesn't change the rate at which they have them anyway. Which then results in raising children in what is a KNOWN FACT and REPEATEDLY PROVEN to be such a SIGNIFICANTLY INFERIOR situation to raise kids as to result in causing great emotional and mental harm to far, far more.
But liberals and gay activists are REALLY saying is either they just don't believe it and no amount of FACTS will make a dent in their cement heads because it doesn't fit in with what they FEEL -or respond with SO WHAT if it does inflict great harm to future generations because of the unwanted and unintended consequences? None of that will EVER be as important as making sure Bob and Joe got to call their average 7 year long "marriage" a marriage before they split up, is it?
The gay lifestyle is disgusting. I do not like being around buttfvckers. They are just as vile as a pedophile is to me, but there is no law against their perversion because it does not hurt another human.
To be consistent in my views on FREEDOM for all. The faggots need to be able to get married.
The faggots do not need to impose their beliefs on me or my children. If they continue to campaign gay lifestyles be taught to our children in schools, I must insist, we also teach all children about Sodom and Gomorrah and how risky, unhealthy and filthy anal sex is.
Just like so many things that are embarrasing in our history, this one will be right there. The ones who opposed equal rights for blacks and women are the same idiots who are against this.
Once again, intolerance and ignorance shows its ugly face. Oh and speaking of the bible...didnt it say something about divorce? Why is that ignored by these same idiots. Divorce, fidelity etc.
Pick and choose Bible readers, we call them "cafeteria Christians" in my neck of the woods.
Whatever suits one's agenda, there's GOT to be something in the Bible to endorse it.
I'm more of a pragmatist than a religious guy; I find what works and stay with it.
So far, acceptance and celebration of people's differences has made me an ethically rich and happy person. Anyone else found a better way?
There's a certain logic to being accepting of people's differences, since we all recognize that all people, every human being is different from one another.
I fail to see the "logic" in restricting such "acceptance" to only a certain group of people, large or small. We are all here together, wouldn't it be in ALL our interest to accept each other as we are, and treat each other with an equal amount of justice?
And what minister is going to marry two men or two women in their church. This homo marriage business is absurd!
You don't agree with me. Good, that's the American way. We do accomplish much through dialogue. What accomplished here is that those who don't like marriages in the same sex are flailing aimlessly. Universal marriage is inevitable, just as was the results of the civil rights campaigns.
If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...
what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?
Red herring. If two consenting adults want to marry - no matter what their sex - they should be allowed to. Nobody else's business...
If marriage is a "right".....then why do you need to get a license for it.....?
One also has to apply for a license to drive....driving is not called a "right" but a privilege...
what do you mean by "universal marriage"...?
Voting is a right yet one is required to register.
Gun ownership is a right yet many are required to register their firearms or have a firearms license. All are required to complete the background check.
Marriage as a right is no different.
I recognize what you are saying. I don't discount religion. I recognize that, for an awful lot of folks, it is very, very important.
And I don't ask religious people to forget their religious beliefs - just keep them to themselves and don't try to trample on the rights of others merely because of a perceived differences.
Actually YOU are the one unable to grasp that homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. What they want are special rights.
But we've been through this a dozen times already.
Matthew Shepherd? Google violence against homosexuals. See what you come up with.
You can't carry an argument, so you start lying about it? Your civil and religious liberties are not being violated (no one will force you to marry a person of your own sex, no one will force your church to marry homosexuals to each other).
You are the pathetic one, indeed. You project your inner vomit on others. For shame.
Matthew Shepherd was on the street declaring how great homosexuality was? Is that what happened to him? Silly, right back at you.
What happened to him was an absolute crime. Crime is usually committed in fits of hate. Adding "hate" to the wording does not ease the suffering of the victims or their families.
Aren't lawyers representing homosexuals suing religous charities/orphanages because their faith doesn't permit them to give children (that are being cared for) to homosexual parents? Are those homosexuals going to adopt all the children in those orphanages? Are they going to provide for all children that would have used that orphanage in the future? Is that an example of how homosexual extremist "won't force" their lifestyle onto others? Or is that just another example of how petty and vindictive homosexual extremists can be?
The question had to do with "liberty". If my tax dollars have to go to support those that "chose" not to have children (or killed them before they were born), isn't that reducing my opportunity? Won't the taxes be increased because there are less people to pay them? Won't my children have to bear more of the burden to support them? Isn't that "enslaving" the future population for your selfish desires?
A crime is a crime, and you mistake your 'liberty' for 'freedom.' You are claiming that because your side is losing to the forces of liberty and freedom that you and your children are being "enslaved."
Horseapples. Whine all you want, but tuff luck.
And heterosexuals who have no children, are they as much of a burden? Or do they get a pass because theyre straight?If homosexuals cannot reproduce (which by their "preference", they cannot), aren't they relying on the generosity of other citizens to provide and care for them in their infirmatory? Isn't that a "burden" on society, instead of their "children" (because they cannot reproduce if they are "true" to their nature)?
