TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I don't agree with the guy's views (heh, I'd probably try to debate him if I ever met him) maybe these people should wait and see if he tries including an agenda in his writing or not. He hasn't made Superman do or say anything yet that would show you if he's writing in his political agenda or not. It's much the same as the male gamer community attacking Femanist Frequency for having a Kickstarter with the hopes of studying women in video games. While the attacks were childish, harsh, and wide-spread, they actually called her project to attention and she managed to raise more money than she was hoping to. Same with Chik-fil-a (spelling?) as someone else pointed out. And I really doubt that boycotting his work is really going to work. From what I remember, Superman's sales are in the toilet because DC killed him, then brought him back (Mary Sue style) like one or two issues later. I doubt DC would really see any difference in the numbers with this boycott.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
mcmasters wrote:
I still think the guy deserves a kick in the nuts rather than a stabbing (to stick with the analogy) but again if I were a regular buyer of Superman (I'm not) I would give it a rest for a few months.

Would Card be justified if he decided not to buy something because it was made by homosexuals?


Sure.

Quote:
Isn't that more or less what he's doing that merits condemnation in the first place?


I'm not quite following you here...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vulpeslibertas thanks for taking the time to clarify for me.

vulpeslibertas wrote:
The second underlying justification is that Card's beliefs are wrong, and that he ought to be penalized for having them.


This would be closest to my feeling on the matter.

Quote:
If this is the case, then how is this different than thought crimes?


This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory. Someone thinks women are inferior to men? Okay, congratulations on your enlightened thinking but of course it's not a crime. Same person is actively vocal about laws that will codify an inferior position for women? Different animal (though obviously still not a "crime" crime).

That's where I am on the gay marriage thing, I think to be against it is discriminatory so in my book it's beyond a thought crime. (A whole other can of worms I don't want to open would deal with stuff beyond just the gay marriage question- is there a wider "gay agenda" and how hard is it being pushed and what is the push-back. We do seem to have gotten to the point in America where anything associated with homosexuality must be regarded as a virtue and to say otherwise is hateful. See, now THAT'S a thought crime!)

Quote:
Moreover, how can you in fact establish that it is your beliefs which are the "correct" ones which we ought to be enforcing? How do we know that Card's beliefs are not the "correct" ones and he should be penalizing us for thought crimes?


I don't believe in moral absolutes so I don't think my opinions on behaviors are "correct" in some absolute metaphysical sense. But however we arrived at them, we do still develop our own ethics and our own opinions about behaviors and we act on them. But that causes me to be fairly cautious about my morals and not push them on others; for example earlier when I spoke of boycott I should have stressed my feeling of personal action as opposed to, say, thinking anyone not wanting a boycott must be "wrong" or that me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 258

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:

This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory.
...
That's where I am on the gay marriage thing, I think to be against it is discriminatory so in my book it's beyond a thought crime.


Sounds to me like you have only heard one side of the argument. A fair opinion would have to acknowledge that there is at least a reasonable debate here, but like many, you probably have never actually heard the other side of the debate. Allow me to offer you some illumination.

There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows. All that is left is the debate over using the actual term "marriage," not over any actual rights or liberties. (There are actually two or three states that don't grant full rights to civil unions, and I don't know anything about countries other than America, but I have yet to see anyone take a stand on this matter in any realm other than America as a whole.)
Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.

People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom. Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.

There is of course more that could be said, more that could be debated, so on and so forth. But if you approach the matter objectively, you must acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut-and-dry case.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Traegorn



Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 157

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's just get rid of all legal marriages.

If the right wants it to be defined religiously, fine. Get it all out of the government. Including tue tax breaks and legal benefits.

If people want shared property, let them form an independent contract.

Easiest way to fix this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
mcmasters wrote:
This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory.
I think this is a tenuous distinction. Could I not then say that any particular thing is "unfair", and therefore not a thought crime? The obvious counter-example: Being gay and defiling marriage is "unfair" to heterosexuals, therefore that should be a crime. It's simply a matter of defining anything you don't like as "unfair".


I'm really wondering how you make distinctions between right and wrong, thought-crimes and Not-thought crimes, and fair and unfair. Technically, yes, I can say that any particular thing is “unfair” and define anything I don't like as “unfair.” I hope I'm putting more thought into it than that! I base these things on my upbringing, my life experiences, stuff I've learned (I dig the “Golden Rule”)...probably there is a genetic component thrown in there as well. Is this different from how you make your distinctions of right-wrong, fair-unfair, etc.? Are there magic treasure chests labeled “thought crimes” and “Not-thought-crimes” that you have access to and I don't?

Quote:
mcmasters wrote:
I should have stressed my feeling of personal action as opposed to, say, thinking anyone not wanting a boycott must be "wrong" or that me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired.
This, I think, is important. To force you to buy Superman comics (because not buying them would be "unfair") would be thought-crimes punishment to the same degree.


I'm having trouble unpacking this one. Forcing me to buy Superman comics would be a thought-crime to the same degree as thinking anyone wanting a boycott must be “wrong”...? Forcing me to buy Superman comics would be a thought-crime to the same degree as me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired...?

---

www.mcmasterscomics.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ewomack
Grand prize winner!


Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 469

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:

One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions. This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows.


This is debatable at best. Some people make this claim while others say Civil Unions are merely "second class marriages." Civil union laws also vary state to state and are often not portable. Marriage is pretty much recognized in every state equally. The point is that this is not a cut and dry issue.

Marscaleb wrote:

Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.

People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom. Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.


There is SO much more to marriage than religion. Marriage is just as much a state institution as it is a religious one. One can get married outside of a religious institution, for instance. So whose side wins out? The state or religion? Arguably as a citizen of a country such as the USA the legal definition of marriage carries far more implications than the religious one.

And when you say "religion" WHICH religion? Christianity? Buddhism? Judaism? Ba'hai? Jain? Muslim? Hindu? Anglican? What if Buddhists want to support gay marriage but Christians don't? Which "religious perspective" wins out? "Religious Institution" means different things to different people and saying that marriage is a "religious institution" opens up an entirely new debate. So again there is nothing cut and dry about this either.

And if marriage is truly a religious issue and those who don't support same-sex marriage don't want laws passed to open up marriage to homosexuals then why are so many of these religious people NOT against banning same-sex marriages on state constitutions? This sounds like a double standard. "Marriage is a religious institution that is beyond the law, so don't pass laws that open it up to same-sex couples. But oh, we can pass a law that bans it? Ok, I'm for that."

Nothing in this debate is cut and dry. But from a perspective of human and individual rights within a state, and from the perspective of the law, legally limiting marriage to just heterosexuals is discriminatory whether or not Civil Union grants equal rights.

And please don't accuse others of not being "objective" or claim that you're "offering them illumination" without good reason. The arguments you presented were neither more or less "objective" than the ones you were responding to. And I'm not claiming that mine are, in fact, I'm sure they're not "objective," they are my opinion, just as the ones you presented were your opinion. True objectivity is pretty much impossible.

Sorry, I didn't want to enter this debate... but it looks like I did...
_________________
Ed Womack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 258

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real point I'm bringing up is, as was pointed in the rebuttall, that it is not cut-and-dry.

As I explicitly stated, there is much more to discuss and debate on the subject of same-sex marriage.

My point in bringing that up is to show that THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE.

The greater majority of people I have seen who stand in defense of same-sex marriage do so under the false pretense that it is a simple issue; that the people who oppose it are only doing so out of a hatred of gays and the only arguments that they have against it are ridiculous fabrications (i.e. it will lead to dog marriage, it will cause traditional marriages to fail, it will cause widespread panic in the streets, etc, etc.)

And it is under that falsified fuel that people would be led to do things such as boycott a comic because it was written by someone with such a "clearly hateful" point of view.

I'm not going into a full debate about same-sex marriage here; that is only secondary to the real topic at hand. I only brought this up because it appears that a number of people here seem to be misinformed.

But to address the most obvious point, yes there are many religions out there, but do recall that every single culture in the history of the world has treated marriage with religious significance. Also, there is no religion that endorses homosexuality, only a small handful of them that do not explicitly forbid it.

ttallan:
Add to that the ten states that allow same-sex marriage, and the states that use "domestic partnership" (same thing different name) and you're covering more than half the nation. I apologize for giving some wrong numbers; I was going from memory and I think I was thinking of the states that don't allow civil unions, not the ones that don't grant equal rights between civil unions and marriages. I don't deny that civil unions do have some growth that needs to be made.
Also, you can ask pretty much anyone who is against gay marriage and they will be in support of nation-wide civil unions that are completely equal to all the legal benefits granted to traditional marriage. I think it's moronic that people are trying so hard to jump straight to same-sex marriage. If people pushed for national civil union laws they would go through easily and then homosexuals would at least have something. Furthermore, once a federal civil union mandate is in place, it would be a much easier legal battle to establish a federal same-sex marriage law. It's the most reasonable path, but instead folks are choosing to fight a much longer, harder, and more bitter uphill battle.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lo (Aquapunk)



Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 258

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?


That doesn't strike me as hypocritical. Go for it.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?


This pretty much echoes my opinion on the matter.

As for gay marriage, I already stated all the opinion I've ever wanted to state on the matter here: http://barxotka.com/2012/10/28/why-government-needs-to-stay-out-of-marriage/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:


There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows. All that is left is the debate over using the actual term "marriage," not over any actual rights or liberties. (There are actually two or three states that don't grant full rights to civil unions, and I don't know anything about countries other than America, but I have yet to see anyone take a stand on this matter in any realm other than America as a whole.)
Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.

People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom. Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.

There is of course more that could be said, more that could be debated, so on and so forth. But if you approach the matter objectively, you must acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut-and-dry case.


Nope.

Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage

39 -- The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage.

5 -- The number of U.S. states that allow civil unions between same-sex couples, but not marriage.

6 -- The number of U.S. states that allow same-sex marriage, along with the District of Columbia. However, due to the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize the same-sex marriages in these states.

1,100 -- The number of federal benefits to marriage.


Or better;; http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/01/us/civil-unions

Quote:
With Hawaii and Delaware joining the list Sunday, five states now recognize same-sex civil unions, while six other states and Washington, D.C., allow same-sex marriage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.


That equals 11 if DC is one of the six, 12 if it is not... they could be a little more clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:
Sounds to me like you have only heard one side of the argument. A fair opinion would have to acknowledge that there is at least a reasonable debate here, but like many, you probably have never actually heard the other side of the debate. Allow me to offer you some illumination.


Not only do I acknowledge there is a reasonable debate here, I thought we were having one.

Quote:
There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows. All that is left is the debate over using the actual term "marriage," not over any actual rights or liberties.


That's kind of limiting; I would add the fairness and equality issues (I know those are becoming dirty words in this debate). Separate but equal school facilities for blacks and whites was recognized as essentially stigmatizing blacks as being not equal. I see similarities here.

Quote:
(There are actually two or three states that don't grant full rights to civil unions, and I don't know anything about countries other than America, but I have yet to see anyone take a stand on this matter in any realm other than America as a whole.)
Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.


Well, if the emperor has no clothes, the emperor has no clothes. The solution, then, is to get it out of government completely. Get it exclusively into the churches where it can be “sacred.” It's not for the government to keep some procedure “sacred” and accessible to only a portion of the citizens.

Quote:
People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because...


You took a poll?

Quote:
People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom.


Walk into any bar in America, tell the guy next to you you're sick of the gays trying to take over the country, and ask him what he thinks of gay marriage. Here's what you WON'T hear: “I feel that we are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom.”
Now they can be trained to parrot something like this, so it sounds nice when the cameras are rolling, but don't think there's this monolithic motivation. Not to say you're not sincere or that there are not many many sincere people opposed to gay marriage for the reasons you stated, but you don't speak for everybody. A big part of this is “we'uns versus you'uns”; marriage is for normal humans, not the fags, sorry.

Quote:
Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.


Government shouldn't be in the “keeping things sacred” business.

Quote:
There is of course more that could be said, more that could be debated, so on and so forth. But if you approach the matter objectively, you must acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut-and-dry case.


Translation: I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lo (Aquapunk)



Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?
Are you doing it because you believe the comic is irrelevant, or because you believe the writer's views are irrelevant?

If you are reading comics for any reason other than that you enjoy them, then what are you doing? You are actively choosing to read things that you will not enjoy.


It's that I find it interesting, in all the conversations about this I've been following, that there's a common conception that there are "right" and "wrong" reasons to not purchase a product/support a creator.

It's fascinating to me that the number of people out there who think Superman comics are distilled inanity and therefore do not buy far outnumber those that don't, and yet those in the "I disagree with Card's opinions and therefore don't wish to support his role in this run" camp are, in all likelihood, statistically insignificant, but it doesn't stop some people from claiming that their deliberate re-distribution of funds is morally dubious or even outright abject.

It seems to me that, by the logic that some are using, it's reprehensible that anyone should elect not to buy Superman comics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 756

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:
Quote:
Walk into any bar in America, tell the guy next to you you're sick of the gays trying to take over the country, and ask him what he thinks of gay marriage. Here's what you WON'T hear: “I feel that we are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom.”
Now they can be trained to parrot something like this, so it sounds nice when the cameras are rolling, but don't think there's this monolithic motivation. Not to say you're not sincere or that there are not many many sincere people opposed to gay marriage for the reasons you stated, but you don't speak for everybody. A big part of this is “we'uns versus you'uns”; marriage is for normal humans, not the fags, sorry.


I'm a tetragametic chimera who happens to be intersexed, but has appeared to be female from birth. From a legal perspective I am considered female, even though biologically that description is not accurate. I had to take hormones to remain female-looking, which technically would make me transgendered. I can get pregnant and produce products of masculinity, even though my fetus are never viable and my shots are blank, so to speak. I am attracted to women, which would make me a lesbian by technicality, even though I am also male which might also make me heterosexual as well. For religious, friendship and practical reasons, I married a male. My whole issue with this "let's not allow the fags to do civil marriage," is the fact that gender/sex expression is a lot less cut and dry than people assume. My huge fear with marriage being fossilized as only reserved for "1 man and 1 woman," is that it favors one religious view over another (which is unconstitutional in the United States,) and that people with freak medical conditions like mine could have our marriages annulled if government decides to change how it legislates gender and sexual orientation towards a more narrow definition. By necessity, this narrowing of definition would be needed to enforce "1 man and 1 woman" laws, and frankly that terrifies me.

Most chimeras and intersexed people don't have any idea that they are what they are, and routine "normalizing" treatments do straddle the line between one person's transgenderism and another's hormonal imbalance. It's a nightmare place to be and one that the Bible is silent about -- which is why I err on the side of expressed birth gender. Even science doesn't have complete information on whether being gay is 100% nature or 100% nuture, so understandably I am very leery of government involvement beyond legislating the age of people getting married and punishing sexual predators/rapists.

I agree that government should not be legislating morality or religion. If it were up to me, marriage would be a strictly religious matter. But if it's going to do it anyway, and people are going to tolerate it because of the benefits they get, then we can't have separate but equal.

I am not speaking for anyone other than myself regarding this opinion.
_________________


Last edited by vaslittlecrow on Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:23 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.