Dave P

Lexington, KY

#263 Jul 4, 2013
I said "churches", not preachers, shouldn't be in the marriage business. My opinion. At least get the quotes right.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#264 Jul 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Why a preacher? Dave said they shouldn't be in the business. Was God mentioned at all in the service?
We could have gone to a justice of the peace and our marriage would be just as legal. We considered doing that to save money for her parents. However we wanted God and his people involved in our marriage. For us it was a commitment before God and man.

I think Dave is saying that we do not need a church building to perform wedding ceremonies. That way the government could not desecrate what is holy by being forced us to use our building for unholy gay marriages, "not saying the building is holy". I guess the government could someday in the future force anyone with a legal document (ordained) to preform marriages. Or, our world could reach a point where marriage is completely abandoned. Look out sodom and gomorrah may repeat itself.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#265 Jul 4, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
We could have gone to a justice of the peace and our marriage would be just as legal. We considered doing that to save money for her parents. However we wanted God and his people involved in our marriage. For us it was a commitment before God and man.
I think Dave is saying that we do not need a church building to perform wedding ceremonies. That way the government could not desecrate what is holy by being forced us to use our building for unholy gay marriages, "not saying the building is holy". I guess the government could someday in the future force anyone with a legal document (ordained) to preform marriages. Or, our world could reach a point where marriage is completely abandoned. Look out sodom and gomorrah may repeat itself.
Yes Bobby. Exactly what I am saying.

If we as the church don't perform any ceremonies in our buildings, how can we be forced to? Example- some of our friends married on a lakefront beach here. They reserved a spot at the lake, found a preacher willing to come and marry them. The people in charge of the lakefront beach can allow anyone to be "married" there if they so desire. That does not affect the church. The preacher was privately contacted to perform the ceremony, he could refuse or accept as he wished. His will wasn't violated.

Getting married at a home- controlled environment. Going before a justice of the peace- civil idea only there.

There are things that the church can do to prevent being forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#266 Jul 4, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Bobby. Exactly what I am saying.
If we as the church don't perform any ceremonies in our buildings, how can we be forced to? Example- some of our friends married on a lakefront beach here. They reserved a spot at the lake, found a preacher willing to come and marry them. The people in charge of the lakefront beach can allow anyone to be "married" there if they so desire. That does not affect the church. The preacher was privately contacted to perform the ceremony, he could refuse or accept as he wished. His will wasn't violated.
Getting married at a home- controlled environment. Going before a justice of the peace- civil idea only there.
There are things that the church can do to prevent being forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples.
I am on board with that. However, 30 years ago I would not have even considered that what we see now could happen in my lifetime.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#267 Jul 4, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Do most churches really "offer their services to the public"? Most churches that I know of generally perform ceremonies for members, or family of members. Very rarely if ever have I seen a total unknown couple walk into a church building and ask to be married.

I'm going to be perfectly honest here. My feeling is this- today churches should not be in the marriage business. I am not bonded in KY to perform marriage ceremonies, and unless personally asked it will stay that way. No one can force me to marry anyone, nor can they blame me if things go wrong.

PS- what's the difference between being forced to perform marriage ceremonies and being forced to allow their property to be used for it? Our congregation would not allow our building to be used for such purpose, and why should we be forced to?
Churches don't HAVE to serve the public - but most do serve the public in one way or another - if they don't, they are not really doing God's work very well. Churches only have an obligation to serve it's members, since the members are funding the church.

The most common service is charity - would your church offer free food and clothes to people in need, except for gay people? That would seem just mean - discrimination IS mean!

If a church building is used for no other purpose than to serve the church members - the government will not come along and force your private building to serve the public. If your church rents or loans it's property to the public - ALL of the public should be allowed to rent or borrow it - the event that will take place there when it is rented or loaned is not your business. If you make yourself able and available to perform wedding ceremonies - your services SHOULD be made available to ALL customers. If you don't want to serve the gays, don't make yourself available to serve the public.

The article about the church that did not want to allow a gay marriage inside their buildings MUST be a case of a church who owns some really nice buildings along a beach that they rent or loan to people for functions OTHER than church functions. If they do it for "people" in general, it is discriminatory to exclude gay marriages. Did they allow Sally's Sweet 16 Party? Did they allow the local school to use a building to hold their prom? The article doesn't list this sort of information - it mentioned that the buildings were used for church services - what else are the buildings used for? DO they marry heterosexual couples outside of the members of their church? That would be making services available to the public - including gay people.

Do you know what land designated to the "Boy Scouts" does when they aren't using it? Nothing! No one is allowed to use it - it is not available to rent or borrow to ANYONE because the Boy Scouts is a private organization that does not serve the public. They will serve the people who meet the requirements and join the club. What a waste, I might think - that land and those resources could be used for other people! Maybe one goal of the Boy Scouts is to leave nature alone and NOT use it constantly. Regardless, they'll never have to share their property for gay weddings because they don't share it with anyone for anything.

If you are employed by the church, couldn't you be able to perform marriages within the confines of the members of THAT church that employs you? If a person lives a open gay lifestyle, that person would not be allowed to join. If a person pretends to be heterosexual and joins, then later requests a gay marriage - couldn't his membership be revoked for honestly and deliberately disobeying God's rules?

I don't know if that's how it really works. Perhaps if you are ABLE to marry people, you will be punished for not marrying gay people. I see your point now - but I still think you are over-reacting.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#268 Jul 4, 2013
States will execute you for these reasons:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punish...

The Federal Government will execute you for these reasons:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-...

WV is not on that list, but I know they do not use the death penalty. Yes, we still kill criminals - with our modern technology, already executed criminals have been proven innocent - but that has not stopped us. I DID notice several states who RECENTLY abolished the death penalty - alright!

Still, your scenario (that is equally correct) is that prisoners are released too soon - also, a good business decision. It is too expensive to keep them in jail.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#269 Jul 4, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
States will execute you for these reasons:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punish...
The Federal Government will execute you for these reasons:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-...
WV is not on that list, but I know they do not use the death penalty. Yes, we still kill criminals - with our modern technology, already executed criminals have been proven innocent - but that has not stopped us. I DID notice several states who RECENTLY abolished the death penalty - alright!
Still, your scenario (that is equally correct) is that prisoners are released too soon - also, a good business decision. It is too expensive to keep them in jail.
There was a time when prisoners were sentenced to hard labor. At least when they got out they knew how to work.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#270 Jul 4, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Do you know why we let government take care of people today? Because progressives and social gospel people thought government was a way we could bring the kingdom of heaven down to earth. Instead of letting neighbors and family help out, they decided government should do it. Research the social gospel and progressive movements of the late 1800's-early 1900s.
President Cleveland (I think) once vetoed a farm aid bill to help struggling farmers. He didn't want people to depend on government; and he said (correctly) that the generosity of his fellow Americans would be more than the government aid.
Cleveland was a Democrat I believe. What would happen to a dem today for suggesting such a thing? Now when disaster happens we throw our hands in the air and say "Government help me"!
I know I may seem like a model democrat, but I am actually not a fan of welfare. I see it abused constantly - I see it manipulated, I see lives manipulated by it, I see people structure their lives so they are benefiting most for doing the least.

I guess that's why I'm bothered about this insurance business - I'M going to be considered a "lazy, no-good" because I want to PURCHASE low cost insurance? But what about the people don't work and use their government benefits to buy drugs? Does anyone notice the drastic difference between using what the government offers and how welfare ABUSERS are extorting tax money? I see a huge difference.

I'll tell you another thing about my expensive, private insurance. The ONE time that my family incurred hefty medical bills - my insurance would not even cover it. When my underage daughter got pregnant, my insurance said, tough luck. I guess what insurance companies know is that the government will completely pay for any underage pregnancy because the underage child will be considered an adult and independent of the support of the family. When my company turned down coverage, my daughter applied for Medicaid and showed her own part-time job pay stubs as her only income. So - there you go - I spent my hard earned income to provide health insurance for my family and STILL had to turn to the government for assistance.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#271 Jul 4, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I may seem like a model democrat, but I am actually not a fan of welfare. I see it abused constantly - I see it manipulated, I see lives manipulated by it, I see people structure their lives so they are benefiting most for doing the least.
I guess that's why I'm bothered about this insurance business - I'M going to be considered a "lazy, no-good" because I want to PURCHASE low cost insurance? But what about the people don't work and use their government benefits to buy drugs? Does anyone notice the drastic difference between using what the government offers and how welfare ABUSERS are extorting tax money? I see a huge difference.
I'll tell you another thing about my expensive, private insurance. The ONE time that my family incurred hefty medical bills - my insurance would not even cover it. When my underage daughter got pregnant, my insurance said, tough luck. I guess what insurance companies know is that the government will completely pay for any underage pregnancy because the underage child will be considered an adult and independent of the support of the family. When my company turned down coverage, my daughter applied for Medicaid and showed her own part-time job pay stubs as her only income. So - there you go - I spent my hard earned income to provide health insurance for my family and STILL had to turn to the government for assistance.
I believe you are a genuine caring person who needs government assistance. I am not blaming you for your family's needs. However I will say that a family where the family unit is intact with husband wife and kids working together as it has been designed by God is the best place to be. I know that is not always possible but I have seen the fruits of a family unit that works together for the common good. When drugs, illicit sex and selfishness are involved, we see the break up of the family unit. This is why I cannot support liberal policies that promote the breakdown of the family.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#272 Jul 4, 2013
I wholeheartedly agree with Bobby's assessment. ASM, at least 2 of us don't think you're a leech or user of society.

I see big differences too. I have had to get help from Uncle Sam before. I wasn't abusing the system; I was working too right along.

My insurance also isn't very good. I have lots of the same problems about insurance not covering much.
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#273 Jul 4, 2013
The most common service is charity - would your church offer free food and clothes to people in need, except for gay people? That would seem just mean - discrimination IS mean!

*No, we would not refuse charity or help to gay people. We love gays. Our whole issue, for most of us anyway, is their souls and where they are headed. Some of us Christians take that in different directions, some that aren't helpful.

ASM, one of my best friends at work about 5 years ago was a bisexual/lesbian. We worked together for a long time and had many discussions about these things. I have worked with many gays over the years. We do not hate them!

If a church building is used for no other purpose than to serve the church members - the government will not come along and force your private building to serve the public. If your church rents or loans it's property to the public - ALL of the public should be allowed to rent or borrow it - the event that will take place there when it is rented or loaned is not your business. If you make yourself able and available to perform wedding ceremonies - your services SHOULD be made available to ALL customers. If you don't want to serve the gays, don't make yourself available to serve the public.

*I think this above is really where the church needs to be thinking. Legally you are correct. Churches should not make themselves available for such things. In one sense, it is taking "God's house" and turning it into a place of merchandise.
We agree there.

I don't know if that's how it really works. Perhaps if you are ABLE to marry people, you will be punished for not marrying gay people. I see your point now - but I still think you are over-reacting.

*The ability to marry couples usually involves paying your state a fee- KY is $30 or $35- then you are legally bonded and able to legally perform a marriage ceremony. I do wonder if eventually a requirement to be bonded will be a willingness to perform same sex marriage.

I don't think we are overreacting. I think we see which way the tide is turning. Make no mistake- gay marriage has "won" in the US. That will become clearer as time goes on. As you say, ACCEPTANCE is what homosexuals want. Christians will not accept gay marriage. Will gays and government attempt to force us to?

ASM, if you get time, read Revelation chapters 13-18 sometime. Read about those "beasts". Most Christians believe that in one form or another, GOVERNMENT becomes a tool of Satan to persecute the church. There are different ideas of future or past, who and what, etc. But generally speaking, evil government and false religion become enemies of Christianity. That is where all of us are coming from on this thread.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#274 Jul 11, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I may seem like a model democrat, but I am actually not a fan of welfare. I see it abused constantly - I see it manipulated, I see lives manipulated by it, I see people structure their lives so they are benefiting most for doing the least.
I guess that's why I'm bothered about this insurance business - I'M going to be considered a "lazy, no-good" because I want to PURCHASE low cost insurance? But what about the people don't work and use their government benefits to buy drugs? Does anyone notice the drastic difference between using what the government offers and how welfare ABUSERS are extorting tax money? I see a huge difference.
I'll tell you another thing about my expensive, private insurance. The ONE time that my family incurred hefty medical bills - my insurance would not even cover it. When my underage daughter got pregnant, my insurance said, tough luck. I guess what insurance companies know is that the government will completely pay for any underage pregnancy because the underage child will be considered an adult and independent of the support of the family. When my company turned down coverage, my daughter applied for Medicaid and showed her own part-time job pay stubs as her only income. So - there you go - I spent my hard earned income to provide health insurance for my family and STILL had to turn to the government for assistance.
I always find it interesting how people perceive themselves through others eyes or their own eyes. While you do come across as thoughtful and caring, I personally don't see you as a model democrat. That's not meant to be argumentative, just pointing out how everything really is about perspective. I'm sure to some you would appear to be a model liberal.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#275 Jul 11, 2013
Dave P wrote:
The most common service is charity - would your church offer free food and clothes to people in need, except for gay people? That would seem just mean - discrimination IS mean!
*No, we would not refuse charity or help to gay people. We love gays. Our whole issue, for most of us anyway, is their souls and where they are headed. Some of us Christians take that in different directions, some that aren't helpful.
ASM, one of my best friends at work about 5 years ago was a bisexual/lesbian. We worked together for a long time and had many discussions about these things. I have worked with many gays over the years. We do not hate them!
If a church building is used for no other purpose than to serve the church members - the government will not come along and force your private building to serve the public. If your church rents or loans it's property to the public - ALL of the public should be allowed to rent or borrow it - the event that will take place there when it is rented or loaned is not your business. If you make yourself able and available to perform wedding ceremonies - your services SHOULD be made available to ALL customers. If you don't want to serve the gays, don't make yourself available to serve the public.
*I think this above is really where the church needs to be thinking. Legally you are correct. Churches should not make themselves available for such things. In one sense, it is taking "God's house" and turning it into a place of merchandise.
We agree there.
I don't know if that's how it really works. Perhaps if you are ABLE to marry people, you will be punished for not marrying gay people. I see your point now - but I still think you are over-reacting.
*The ability to marry couples usually involves paying your state a fee- KY is $30 or $35- then you are legally bonded and able to legally perform a marriage ceremony. I do wonder if eventually a requirement to be bonded will be a willingness to perform same sex marriage.
I don't think we are overreacting. I think we see which way the tide is turning. Make no mistake- gay marriage has "won" in the US. That will become clearer as time goes on. As you say, ACCEPTANCE is what homosexuals want. Christians will not accept gay marriage. Will gays and government attempt to force us to?
ASM, if you get time, read Revelation chapters 13-18 sometime. Read about those "beasts". Most Christians believe that in one form or another, GOVERNMENT becomes a tool of Satan to persecute the church. There are different ideas of future or past, who and what, etc. But generally speaking, evil government and false religion become enemies of Christianity. That is where all of us are coming from on this thread.
Yes, the government will attempt to force you to accept gay marriage. Better go underground.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#276 Jul 11, 2013
Dave P wrote:
The most common service is charity - would your church offer free food and clothes to people in need, except for gay people? That would seem just mean - discrimination IS mean!
*No, we would not refuse charity or help to gay people. We love gays. Our whole issue, for most of us anyway, is their souls and where they are headed. Some of us Christians take that in different directions, some that aren't helpful.
ASM, one of my best friends at work about 5 years ago was a bisexual/lesbian. We worked together for a long time and had many discussions about these things. I have worked with many gays over the years. We do not hate them!
If a church building is used for no other purpose than to serve the church members - the government will not come along and force your private building to serve the public. If your church rents or loans it's property to the public - ALL of the public should be allowed to rent or borrow it - the event that will take place there when it is rented or loaned is not your business. If you make yourself able and available to perform wedding ceremonies - your services SHOULD be made available to ALL customers. If you don't want to serve the gays, don't make yourself available to serve the public.
*I think this above is really where the church needs to be thinking. Legally you are correct. Churches should not make themselves available for such things. In one sense, it is taking "God's house" and turning it into a place of merchandise.
We agree there.
I don't know if that's how it really works. Perhaps if you are ABLE to marry people, you will be punished for not marrying gay people. I see your point now - but I still think you are over-reacting.
*The ability to marry couples usually involves paying your state a fee- KY is $30 or $35- then you are legally bonded and able to legally perform a marriage ceremony. I do wonder if eventually a requirement to be bonded will be a willingness to perform same sex marriage.
I don't think we are overCreacting. I think we see which way the tide is turning. Make no mistake- gay marriage has "won" in the US. That will become clearer as time goes on. As you say, ACCEPTANCE is what homosexuals want. Christians will not accept gay marriage. Will gays and government attempt to force us to?
ASM, if you get time, read Revelation chapters 13-18 sometime. Read about those "beasts". Most Christians believe that in one form or another, GOVERNMENT becomes a tool of Satan to persecute the church. There are different ideas of future or past, who and what, etc. But generally speaking, evil government and false religion become enemies of Christianity. That is where all of us are coming from on this thread.
Yep, Christianity develops new enemies everyday. Go underground.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#277 Jul 11, 2013
Dave P wrote:
*The ability to marry couples usually involves paying your state a fee- KY is $30 or $35- then you are legally bonded and able to legally perform a marriage ceremony. I do wonder if eventually a requirement to be bonded will be a willingness to perform same sex marriage.

I don't think we are overreacting. I think we see which way the tide is turning. Make no mistake- gay marriage has "won" in the US. That will become clearer as time goes on. As you say, ACCEPTANCE is what homosexuals want. Christians will not accept gay marriage. Will gays and government attempt to force us to?

ASM, if you get time, read Revelation chapters 13-18 sometime. Read about those "beasts". Most Christians believe that in one form or another, GOVERNMENT becomes a tool of Satan to persecute the church. There are different ideas of future or past, who and what, etc. But generally speaking, evil government and false religion become enemies of Christianity. That is where all of us are coming from on this thread.
This is a tricky topic, Dave. I think you may really be right about he who is bonded to legally marry people being REQUIRED to legally marry gay people if asked to do so.

I also agree with your attitude towards a solution. Performing a wedding is ONE thing - signing a legal marriage contract is ANOTHER. Those people in the courthouse that will sign your contract do not perform weddings - is it NECESSARY for a person to sign that legal contract just because he performed a wedding ceremony? Perhaps it has been a convenience in the past - but it may be in everyone's best interest to change this tradition.

Imagine "gay lifestyle" acceptance as this: a repeat of inter-racial acceptance. There are many people TODAY who do no believe in or participate in inter-racial relationships - still, it is socially acceptable for ANYONE to enter into one if they choose to. A gay lifestyle DOES exist and will be accepted as part of our society - but if you choose to disassociate yourself from it, that's OK too. Everyone has the right to make that choice.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#278 Jul 11, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>I always find it interesting how people perceive themselves through others eyes or their own eyes. While you do come across as thoughtful and caring, I personally don't see you as a model democrat. That's not meant to be argumentative, just pointing out how everything really is about perspective. I'm sure to some you would appear to be a model liberal.
I am only a Democrat because it is a description folks use to compartmentalize me. I don't particularly agree with all that Democrats support, but more often than not, I do. I'm actually a registered Republican - I consider it a funny trick on polling and political statistics - it brings me joy to betray someone's prediction that I will vote Republican - I have not voted Rep. for many years. I also think that voting is a hoax to make us imagine that we in some way affect what the government is doing - but I can't stop myself from doing it! Just in case voting works just as good as passionate voting.

Some people adopt opinions to fit a label. I try to choose a label to describe my opinions. There are not enough labels to choose from, it is hard to find one that describes me accurately. Liberal is accurate in SOME ways, thoughtful and caring describes me SOMEtimes, and no one has called me a cold, stupid b**ch (yet, in this forum)but I will admit, SOMEtimes that describes me as well.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#279 Jul 11, 2013
Once, I listened to a black guy ranting on about the government and politics - he didn't SAY he was Democrat, but I recognized his stance on some issues and I jumped to that conclusion. When I joined in the conversation, I said something like: You are Democrat, right? The guy became offended. "Why would you ask that?" Uh, I was just listening to what you were saying about these issues, and, uh... sorry?

Turns out, he WAS Democrat - but when I asked him the way I did - he thought I was jumping to that conclusion because he was BLACK! Blacks are all Democrat? Color me stupid, but I literally had never heard that stereotype or put any thought into what way black people vote before that day.

I learned a lesson: some people are VERY touchy about their political affiliations.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#280 Jul 11, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, Christianity develops new enemies everyday. Go underground.
Your advice seems a little sarcastic, but its actually not bad advice.

Suppose the world DOES just go crazy and suddenly religion IS under attack. Go underground, Christians - you won't be the first ones to do it.

I really don't believe that our circumstances will come to that - but shouldn't people prepare themselves if it DOES? OR are they planning to just scream and shout and cry about it. Going underground is the best advice under the extreme situations we have been describing.

I think the extreme circumstance have not yet arrived - don't go underground quite yet.
pearl

Salt Lake City, UT

#281 Jul 11, 2013
Awesome_Steve_Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Your advice seems a little sarcastic, but its actually not bad advice.
Suppose the world DOES just go crazy and suddenly religion IS under attack. Go underground, Christians - you won't be the first ones to do it.
I really don't believe that our circumstances will come to that - but shouldn't people prepare themselves if it DOES? OR are they planning to just scream and shout and cry about it. Going underground is the best advice under the extreme situations we have been describing.
I think the extreme circumstance have not yet arrived - don't go underground quite yet.
Again, I'm not being sarcastic, it's the topic of the thread. It was Christians on this thread who suggested holding their services in private homes, to avoid their gay dilemma. I just happen to think it would be good for them to understand what it's like to have to hide and live in a closet. Until that happens I don't really see how they can claim to be persecuted.

Since: Jul 12

Oceana, WV

#282 Jul 13, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Again, I'm not being sarcastic, it's the topic of the thread. It was Christians on this thread who suggested holding their services in private homes, to avoid their gay dilemma. I just happen to think it would be good for them to understand what it's like to have to hide and live in a closet. Until that happens I don't really see how they can claim to be persecuted.
You want to give them a dose of persecution? Pearl! You know 2 wrongs don't make a right. Persecution towards anyone is always a bad choice - even when you feel like someone deserves a it.

I think the Christians are fearing persecution that they may or may not ever actually experience. They are preparing themselves and I believe that's smart thinking - you can always act more confidently when you feel prepared for whatever may come. The Bible predicts that they will be persecuted - in that case, by all means, pack it up and hide.

Times ARE a-changing - can you imagine our government frightening Christians into hiding their faith? I find that to be far-fetched, BUT, it IS possible - stranger things have happened.

I find it especially far-fetched to imagine that gay civil rights will result in Christian persecution - c'mon...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
“Thus Saith Johnny” (Jul '12) 12 hr Ernie 122
Hell is a lie Dec 26 Jesus Saves Everyone 10
Catholics (Feb '14) Dec 26 Mike_Peterson 2,000
Identifing the Early Church Dec 24 Jesus Saves Everyone 425
How does the Spirit teach? Dec 24 Jesus saves everyone 5
5 Acts of Worship: The error of The Church of C... (Sep '11) Dec 23 Jerry Taylor 274
Sexy Massage Service 00971567675758 Dec 22 IceBlue1985 3
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:46 am PST