My Disclaimer: Lets try to have an intelligent conversation because I am truly interested in hearing peoples' thoughts.
So, here we have a hotly contested debate platform which has become an intriguing topic over the past decade now.
I'd like to see what fellow WSO'ers have to say about this.
My 2 Cents: Compromise.
Why not allow gay couples to Marry with ALL the benefits of currently Married couples (tax,etc) in the U.S but just call it something slightly different?
I'm not speaking with any sort of religious thinking to my argument. Moreso, I am speaking from Tradition..
Why not keep millenniums old human tradition - but allow some modification?
My proposal would involve having there be 2 options to choose when applying for Marriage with the Govt.
Option 1: Marriage
Option 2: Marriage-B
Either way, a couple can acknowledge to the world they are "Married" and only to the Govt. would there be a transcript of what type of Marriage it is.
What the fuck! there is no conversation, no debate to be had. there is no issue; other than from crazy religious types, who can do one.
+1
There are ZERO practical or evidence-based arguments against gay marriage. None.
Let consenting adults marry each other. As long as two people capable of agreeing to terms of a contract are involved, let them get married. Gay, straight, whatever. It doesn't matter.
We need to stop cow-towing to fundamentalist religious people who take the idea of gay marriage as a personal insult to their incredibly insecure religious beliefs that have no basis in reality. Beyond that, they cherry pick their old testaments to no end. If they want to ban gay marriage, then rape victims ought to be forced to marry their rapists.
This insanity must come to an end. Again - there are NO practical arguments against gay marriage. None.
I like the "sanctity of marriage" argument that they try to pull. As if that didnt go down the drain when people started divorcing at the first sign of trouble.
Oh yeah, it's such a joke. What does that even fucking mean? Oh yeah, nothing. Highest divorce rates are in the states with the highest proportion of evangelicals.
People that fight against gay marriage are the same people that fight for creationism over teaching evolution. They don't have any facts on their side and, deep down, they take the ideas of gay marriage and evolution as an argument against the validity of their religion. And they can't handle that. So stupid gooby.
Btw:
"But we won the World Series..."
"...yeah, in six games"
::crushes a home run::
One upside is population control; however, gays would be boycotting the one and only reason for our existence. Procreation.
1.) Plenty of straight people either can't physically procreate or choose not to.
2.) People who re-marry later in life (i.e. post-menopause) can't have children either. Should only people who are absolutely going to have children be allowed to marry?
3.) Gay people do procreate through the use of surrogates.
4.) There's no reason to think that there is any real reason for our existence at all, though it is a primal urge to spread our seed.
Also, the whole "millenniums old tradition" argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. The definition of marriage has changed multiple times over the course of the last several millennia. Don't let some bigoted fool tell you otherwise. And who gives a shit anyway?
It's a non-issue. Marriage nowadays is just a legal contract that gets you better tax benefits and provides a perpetual call option for your wife to get half your stuff.
Evangelicals seem to confuse the concept of marriage under the eyes of the government and marriage as a sacrament. They are two completely different things. If you don't want gays to get marriage in a church, fine that is your right as a religious organization but it shouldn't stop the couple from entering into a legal contract.
If you can legally sign a contract, you should be able to get married.
As for the OP's comments about Marriage A and Marriage B for straight vs. gay couples (or whatever he called it), that won't work. See 'separate but equal' precedents.
I don't mind if we want to say that the government gets out of the marriage business entirely and only recognizes civil unions. That would actually be my preference. Marriage has too many religious connotations and I feel like the resistance to gay civil unions is lower than to gay marriage. The compromise, of course, is that nobody is married in the eyes of the law, just civil unions for property rights and the like.
I fully support it and have a number of reasons for doing so... but the biggest is that this country was explicitly founded under the guise that church and state remain separate. The only "argument" against gay marriage is a religious one.
It's going to get passed within the next 10 years, tops. Guessing before Obama leaves office, but hard to say with certainty.
Can anyone explain this?
How can a conservative be against two adults signing a contract with one another? I thought conservatives were supposed to be for less government intrusion. It doesn't make sense to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F
I highly recommend you read this book if you ever want to know how this stupid shit STILL manages to be such a major issue on the right. Really interesting stuff.
I agree with this, and want to supplement what DontMakeMeShortYou said regarding the separation of church and state.
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of written history. Entire books have been written debating whether Gilgamesh, the hero of the first 'novel' ever written, was a homosexual. Hell, there are even studies indicating homosexuality amongst groups of primates and other pack animals. To deny that it exists naturally or to label it a "learned behavior" (see: Michelle Bachman's husband's "gay reformation" clinic) is a practice of willful ignorance so strong it makes me fucking sick. I'm a conservative, and as such can't fathom why government should have a say in something so irrelevant to our country's actual problems. Steve and Jim are still going to go to poundtown after watching Sex and the City and holding hands in central park, the same way Billy the high school pot head is going to light that shit up after school with his friends before they watch cartoons and eat cereal without milk. Telling them it's illegal or wrong won't make a shred of difference, other than offend Steve and Jim to the core.
It's a far more inflammatory issue, though, because sexuality is probably the most primal, instinctive drive humans have next to survival. I can't imagine what I'd do if the government told me I couldn't marry my girlfriend or condemned me for banging her. I personally think homosexuality is a strange concept, but I'm not naive enough to think any sort of legislation will stop it. I don't even want to stop it--I honestly can't even pretend to care about it, which leads me to believe it's an indubitably religious issue.
Oh, and this fucking "sanctity of marriage" claim needs to be relegated to the dark ages where it belongs. The US has more divorces per 1,000 people than any other country--narrowly beating out Puerto Rico--effectively obviating any argument that Americans value marriage any more than their bank accounts, cars, or houses. As I've said before, the reason the GOP is in shambles is because our leaders are stuck in the Raegan glory days. Our primaries were an absolutely circus. Until we can distance ourself from these dogmatic, deep seeted religious views, I fear those voters lying in the middle (a rapidly increasing number of people) will view Republicanism the same way they do the religous far-right. I'll listen to your opinion all day long if you disagree, because that's your prerogative. If I said this at my grandparent's ranch in Tennessee I'd probably be dismissed from the table and cut fromt he will. But, I'd just advise to quiet the fuck down during election time so we might have a chance at winning office and acknowledging issues that actually matter.
I know what you mean by "sanctity of marriage" but I think it is too strong to make this a primarily religious viewpoint. I'm agnostic and regardless of what religion says, I support the traditional establish of marriage and simultaneously have no problem with gays having access to the same benefits.
Polygyny notwithstanding, the majority of cultures since history has been recorded featuring opposite gender marriages.
What is wrong with keeping tradition but creating a separate institution with the same rights?
Opposing gay marriage just doesn't make sense. Call it marriage, call it a civil union, whatever. But, as long as it is prohibited, it is a form of economic discrimination. There should be no prohibitions on marriage whatsoever - it is a just a contract.
Obviously should not even be an issue, and wont be in 10 years.
But, I wish someone would have trolled just to get everyone riled up
I'll never understand the gay marriage thing. So your religion says that gays shouldn't marry. That's great! So follow it, don't marry a dude if you are one. But why do you give a shit what anyone else does? My reasons for being okay with gay marriage are purely selfish; I don't SUPPORT it, I just don't care. I have a relative who is gay, and I've never cared any more than I care if someone is a football fan or not. In this day and age, being vehemently against gay marriage (on a nationwide or worldwide level) just doesn't make sense anymore.
I used to not care, but then I realized this issue is too important to just ignore and say "well I don't support it, but they can do it if they want. Doesn't affect me." But that's a double standard that I don't feel comfortable with. I think homosexual relationships are morally incorrect, and not for childish reasons (e.g. "it's gross) but because it's not the proper sexual relationship.
And don't say we're imposing our religion on everyone. We have a vote, and we vote 'NO' just as other Americans can vote 'YES' according to their own beliefs, religious or otherwise. I see no problem with adoptions, tax benefits, etc. But marriage according to the state and marriage according to God are two different playing fields.
By the way, you just gave zero arguments as to why you think it's morally incorrect. ("I think homosexual relationships are morally incorrect...because it's not the proper sexual relationship." In other words, the equivalent of stating, I like unicorns because they're unicorns.)
According to God?
I've got a deal for you. Prove that God exists, then prove that he cares about what we do with our genitalia, then we can talk about "marriage according to God."
Btw, what makes you some sort of moral authority? What makes them "morally incorrect?" Please. You can assert a bunch of crap, but you don't have any substance to your argument.
Ironically enough, your argument does indeed surmount to "it's gross," or, to match the childishness of your views: "oh my God guys, it's soooo icky."
Part of your statement is right: a religious marriage is indeed quite different from a secular one. With that said, because the U.S. government is, in theory, a secular institution, neither your religious beliefs nor anyone else's matter. If you want your church to play in politics, (1) have it start paying taxes and (2) get the Constitution re-written.
Instead of "Marriage B" you can be "Butt-Buddies"!!
The government should not be marrying anyone.
1) I am a social conservative 2) I don't want to prevent gays from being together 3) These are not mutually exclusive. I'm pretty much with WhiteHat above.
As a sidebar, some of you can go finger yourselves with rusty, tetanus-infested nail with this anti-religious talk. The world isn't just atheists and Westboro "baptists," just like you're not all Bernie Madoff or whomever brings the most discredit to finance in your eyes.
Suggesting one finger oneself with a rusty, tetanus-infested nail sounds very Westboro Baptist-esque, no?
Assuming this was directed primarily at the men posting in this thread, I don't think Westboro Baptist would be too gung-ho on any of us putting anything in our asses...
Anyway - my two cents: If the church doesn't want to "wed" two men, I'm totally okay with that. They're a private interest group so they can do what they want, but when the government, at any level, says that gay marriage isn't allowed, that reason better be for the public good. They find great ways to justify all the tax hikes and the million and one reasons why I can't put another addition on my summer home, but no decent reason for why my closeted cousin can't finally come out and tie the knot. The only reasons have to do with some bullshit argument based on a dated book and the beliefs of private interest groups, i.e. religious institutions.
I'm sure Ben Franklin wouldn't care if Jefferson was porking Adams after the convention.
What should the rules be about gays adopting kids? I'd be pissed if my parents were gay no offence to anyone and I'm being serious
I think this is a way more interesting question. If you're going to let them marry then of course you have to let them adopt, that's just logical.
That being said I agree with you, I would never want two gay parents, whether I live in NYC or Knoxville (it's not a matter of being 'accepted'). I support a gay couple who feel they have to do it, but if by the time I have kids gay adoption is a more common thing, I would specifically put in my will incase of an untimely death that I don't want my kids' adoptive parents to be a gay couple (especially if I have sons). I just think that the two personalities you experience between your two (straight) parents is an important part of growing up. You need to have some softness from your mom, and an ass-kicking from your dad. Like I said, especially if you're a boy. I grew up in a single parent household and it has affected me in some good ways, and some negative ways. I think those good and bad effects would be amplified if I had grown up with two parents of the same sex.
So long story short, yeah: give 'em kids if they want 'em, it's too hard not to. But, NIMBY (aka, not my kids).
I could be wrong on this but there's probably not a lot of data out there on the fate of kids who were adopted by gay parents. I'd like to see that as I'm sure the results would show there's a significant difference in some areas, and no difference in others. But I totally agree, I can't see myself having grown up the same way without a female mom and a male dad, and the personalities that go along with them. Plus I have this feeling my gay adoptive parents wouldn't have beat each other's asses as much as my parents did, and therefore my upbringing would have been much different.
I'm sure gay parents are just as good (and in most cases, even better) as heterosexual parents in terms of effort/care/resources provided to the children, but I'm hesitant to argue with biology and say a child's natural development wouldn't be substantially different with gay parents.
I don't know. Cameron and Mitchell are almost hilarious.
had to be posted:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/BcZHTm6MGpQ
Separate marriage into state and religious. The state must allow everyone that is an informed consenting adult to marry another informed consenting adult. The religions can do what they want. They dont change the state, the state dont change them, Fair and everyone's happy. I'm still a little miffed that they're highlighting the Christians in this debate, when there are other faiths out there which take a far worse stance against homosexuality.
Forcing something onto people that think they will go to hell for is a bit much. I've generally got a dim view of anyone that tries to interfere with views of people through any medium other than reasoned/evidential debate.
Personally, I'm pro gay marriage, and there's also a hidden benefit to this for heterosexual people. With gay marriage comes divorce, which will require a rewrite of the divorce laws (cant be discriminatin') leaving men with better rights in a marriage, and child custody.
To add to the child rearing element:
I'm impartial to the situation, but sincerely doubt anyone has the gusto to counter this monologue.
Legitimate studies have shown that having two gay parents is just as good as having two straight parents. What is most important for a child is that it has two parents in its life.
Kids get screwed up by having no dad in their life, not by having two dads.
2 thoughts here:
Should two same sex parents, if they adopt a child of the opposite gender, need a biology top up on what questions they'll need to answer?
If in 10 years time, it's shown that 90% of children raised by a gay parents, become gay themselves, would this be overwhelming evidence in favour of nuture vs. nature, and change your views on this?
Personally, I can't see what additional benefit 2 dads offers over the optimal version of 1 dad and a mother (loving relationship etc. - able to gain male and female input into development), but i can easily see the benefits of 2 parents over 1, or even a mother and a father in a loveless relationship "just for the kids," or even parents that didnt plan to have kids.
There is no evidence that people become gay because of how they are raised and ample evidence against it. My views won't be changed because that hasn't happened and it won't. Some people are gay, most are straight, it's just how it is. There is a fuck ton of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom - none of them are choosing to be gay. It's just biology.
There is also developing biological evidence for why people are born gay. There isn't a gay gene per say, but it is believed to be due to hormones in the womb. I'm not a scientist, but no one is choosing / being nurtured into being gay.
Lastly, no one is saying that two dads is better than a mom and a dad, they're saying that there is more harm in only having ONE parent figure vs. two. It's gender neutral. It's more about having a true support system for the kid(s.)
Look, I'm not saying two gay people can't raise a kid. I'm sure they can just fine. First off, the barrier to entry for two gay people adopting a kid is way higher than two straight people having a kid (read: financial stability vs. the ability to fuck without protection). And I think that is what explains kids raised by gay parents doing 'better' than regular kids. In addition if you let gays get married (which you should), the logical next step is to let them have a kid (perfectly fine, let them do it).
But, that being said, I personally would never allow my children to be raised by gay parents (if I died or something). I have a feeling most people would agree with this whether or not they'll admit it in public.
Imagine your two dads get divorced and remarried. Youd have 4 dads cheering at your little league game, thats simply too many dads. I totally understand the argument against it now
I'm more lenient, I think the upper bound is 7 dads. I think after that it's probably too many.
The arguments now against gay people having children are very similar to those against inter-racial couples having children 50 years ago.
Look I'm on your side here but this is a tired argument. Just because two things appear the same doesn't mean they are. Simply saying, 'oh hey, this is Jim Crow 50 years later' is a lazy (and incorrect) way to analyze the situation.
Speaking of lazy arguments, resuscitate your claim.
"This time, things are different!"
Look, legitimate studies have been done that conclude that there are no issues with kids being raised by gay parents.
Just because some bigoted people think that gay is "wrong" based on nothing, doesn't mean we should take them seriously for any reason. Let alone some sort of gut feelings. (Note, this isn't really directed at you, I just wanted to use that first quote, haha.)
Was gonna comment on this, but KP did a fine job. Inter-racial couples and same-sex couples are not the same thing at all when it comes to having kids. One is biologically capable, the other isn't. So you're putting someone else's child into a new situation. I'm sure the "interracial children are going to have a hard time growing up with interracial parents" argument in the 50s didn't work too well, if such an argument existed.
I'm not arguing against it. Let gays adopt kids all day, I think they should. Just not my kids.
I agree with all the sentiment that a gay couple can easily raise a child and do it better than a heterosexual couple in a lot of instances. But the arguments really all stem from comparing bottom bucket hetero couples to gay couples with adopted kids (who pretty much have to be highly qualified given the unfortunate stigma) and that's not really the point I want to make. The question I'd ask is, if given two couples who are in all other ways equal, would you prefer a man and a woman or two men/women to raise you/your child? I'd be beyond surprised if anyone would say they prefer the same-sex couple. A heavy majority should say a man and a woman, with some maverick "doesn't matter" answers thrown in there as well.
There's no problem with the way things are now with gays adopting, but if we take the world at face value and assume that as homosexuality continues to become more commonplace, we'll have gay couples who are just as bad as straight couples. Add to that the expectation that the standards on adoption should converge between the two, and we have pretty equal qualities of parents between same-sex and heterosexual couples. So is there inherently more risk to the child being raised by a gay couple than a straight one? I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say there is, so that's my view on it. I'd never discourage a gay couple from adopting, but if I had to choose, I'd feel like my kid has a better shot with straight parents, all else equal.
Not saying I disagree BH, but where does that leave us? I'm apathetic from a moralistic standpoint, but I think the impetus behind this post is that gay marriage is now a political issue--whether it should be or not--and taking the agnostic, middle path is no longer viable.
I agree that it's anachronistic to compare the civil rights movement to the present situation, but: you can't run on a platform based on apathy or agreement with both sides. The harder question to answer, in my estimations, is why it should remain illegal. For the record, I agree with your observation that the studies done obviously pick from a stratum of gay couples that is biased toward sucessful couples (and thus qualified to adopt). Well said.
From a political standpoint, I'll never be able to have a good answer. When forced to pick a side, I walk away. Probably why I never have and never will vote for the President.
Thats Der Fuhrer to you compadre
From a political viewpoint it would be hard to actually take a side because yes, gay marrige should probably fall somewhere in seperation of church and state and the government shouldnt get involved. However, the issues that come along with gay marrige see: gay fathers adoption and I'm sure if you really thought about it you could come up with similar situations that is kind of grey area putting religon aside, causes gay marriage to stay in the illegal in some states because most people want to change it, but the political fallout could cause quite a mess if everything is not thought out beforehand, and no one wants to deal with that.
It would totally make immigrating to the US a joke. Pretty sure guys would marry their bros to help them get green cards. It's also a good money making scheme.
See, I think the bigger issue at play isn't which genders are tying the knot, but how committed they are to each other. So I think showing your dedication to your partner should be the only legal requirement, kind of like hazing to join a fraternity. It doesn't have to be so sloppy and bro-tastic though, we can definitely class it up a bit. So for instance, if you're travelling from overseas to get hitched, maybe part of the requirement can be a ritual where you each swim a few dozen miles in the cold sea with blindfolds and handcuffs on, starting from opposite ends, and have to meet each other half-way in the middle of the ocean under the moonlight. This would be so romantic, and would level the playing field a lot in the whole debate of who-should-marry-who. There could be several subcommitees that decide on the appropriate 'dedication ritual' for each pair of candidates that apply for marriage, and also the equivalent of pledge marshalls that are "out in the field" and make sure everything is carried out adequately. Just a thought.
Leave it up to the state's just like it is now. Marriage through government is nothing but another tax.
Very good question. I wish I had the answer. I am against government "controlled" marriage. Like I said above, it's just another "tax". I am married myself, btw.
I know this is one of those sensitive issues, but the whole "gay gene" thing... come on.
If the hypothetical question is based on bullshit pseudo-assumptions, then yes...it's hard to get someone to answer it.
You are going in with the assumption that being gay is something that is nurtured, which has been debunked. The only people arguing that gay is learned or chosen are far right evangelicals.
ok if we're going down the assumption that sexual preference is genetic, which gene is it that makes people prefer asian women, or large chested, or small chested. Your population set that shows sexuality is genetic cannot include same sex parents for obvious reasons. You have NO data to show this, which means you CANNOT draw a conclusion on it. I will repeat, you are arguing the black and white case of nature or nurture, when it could very possibly be both.
So I will repeat, given that we currently have no meaningful data on either nature or nurture for children raised by same sex couples, IF there is a strong correlation (positive or negative, significantly away from the same data from heterosexual parents) between the sexuality of the children, and that of the parents, would you see it as an issue or not?
I never said it is caused by a single gene. Ever.
1.) Just because you are born a certain way, it doesn't mean there is a single gene that determines sexuality. Many of our innate traits cannot be pinpointed by single genes. Arguing that that's the case would be imbecilic.
2.) We don't know the exact pinpoint reason that someone is gay vs. straight. It's likely due to a variety of physiological causes.
3.) You are the one asserting that there could be reason to believe that sexuality is something that is nurtured, not something that is completely innate. Therefore the burden of proof that such an argument should even exist is on you. The "argument" you're putting forth is, at best, an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity. Neither of which provide any reason for it to be compelling.
4.) You saying "we currently have no meaningful data on either nature or nurture for children raised by same sex couples" is based on nothing, it is just your assertion. In fact, there have been millions of adoptions by gay parents in the United States alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States
5.) You make these assertions as though there is any credible, widespread debate on the subject. There isn't. If there is, then provide it.
Frankly, I wouldn't even give a shit if gay people all chose to be gay (they don't). It wouldn't matter to me, who gives a shit what another person does in their private lives as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But, the fact is that there is no evidence to believe that having gay parents can make a kid gay. None. Just as there is no evidence that having straight parents makes you straight.
If you want to continue this debate, provide some level of positive evidence that even opens the door to the hypothetical argument you are making.
has been legal in the US since 2002, so taking the first google result for average age of adoption being 3 years and 8 months, these kids are on average, 14 years old now. We know about their sexuality how? I have no evidence for or against this, I'm raising the hypothetical scenario that in 10 years time, when they're 24, and either 1% or 99% are homosexual/heterosexual, that would be a pretty influential statistic in the nature vs. nurture debate. My question is, IF that scenario occurs, would that have any influence on the debate?
You're basically trying to tease out a distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Very clever bro you are.
Let's just keep in mind the basics:
1) Nature + Nurture doesn't mean 50/50 (to go from baby --> pro forma, you will probably need to make a fully linked model with inputs and drivers, maybe run some sensitivities)
2) 94.5% of all statistics are made up (this one is legit tho)
3) Biological output doesn't have to stem from one specific gene (could be the net result of a big bowl of gene soup with little chunks of brain)
4) You don't choose to be straight (but if you could, being bi gives you the most options!)
5) There are virtually zero advantages to being a gay bro (except maybe school admissions and diversity quotas! you might also be able to get away with hanging out in girls locker rooms which is always a plus)
I think what's frusterating is that it's impossible to have ANY sort of discussion about the topic in a logical manner because if you don't immediately agree that being raised by gay parents will have no effects on the kid, you are a bigot, closed book. Surely there are positive and negative parts of being raised by gay parents as opposed to straight parents.
No point in discussing this further. Your hypothetical has no basis in reality.
No point in discussing this further. Your hypothetical has no basis in reality.
See also: absence of evidence is not evidence.
See: Hypothetical situations. Amazing inability to debate an issue. Given that scientists have already modelled what would happen if the sun became a red giant (in a few billion years), being unable to answer the ramifications of a situation that might occur in 10 years time seems petty. I think I'll put you in the camp of don't want to be labelled as a bigot by the zealots if asked a question that you cant answer with a clap line.
Interesting discussion. I actually on the side of supporting gay-marriage AND the right to adopt a child.
BlackHat: You indicated that due to current restrictions that require gays to be of high socio-economic status to adopt, children adopted by gay parents are likely to be successful in life. You stated that it is unfair to compare them to children adopted by straight parents from "low-income" backgrounds, who are less likely to be successful. I interpret this as evidence that socio-economic status is the defining factor in a child's success rather than the sexual preferences of the parents. If this is true, we should base our adoption policies on socio-economic status and ignore sexual preferences.
To those of you arguing that they don't want their children adopted by gay parents: I don't see why you have a choice in the matter. Sure, I'd love for my kids to be adopted by a billionaire who is a loving, dedicated father with a committed wife. However, if I put my child up for adoption for whatever reason and a charity or the government is paying to support and raise my child in my absence, I believe I forfeit my right to dictate how that child is raised. It is up to the agencies entrusted with the care of the child to dictate who "qualifies" to adopt the child.
To add to that, I'd rather my child end up in the stable, loving home of two gay parents than end up being stuck in the foster care system or with straight parents who are just scraping by. Given our system today, it's never between two well-to-do straight parents and two well-to-do gay parents. Gay parents get shafted (excuse the pun) and end up moving down the preference list.
How come no one mentioned that if abortions were more widely used this whole adoption debate would be a non-issue?
Error consectetur facilis velit et repellendus. Repellat et animi et soluta dolores qui. Velit vel aut nesciunt sapiente veritatis vel.
Voluptas sint est et voluptatem qui voluptatem. Voluptatem suscipit molestiae tempore ut eius deleniti. Ducimus magnam quae non optio quia reprehenderit sint. Totam assumenda asperiores rerum a et repellat sequi alias.
Id rerum est veritatis dolores. Reprehenderit numquam exercitationem atque possimus exercitationem ipsa praesentium. Est ut harum nobis qui est. In occaecati delectus aut asperiores.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Itaque voluptas quam esse non nisi reiciendis. Quidem hic deserunt fugiat velit voluptatem mollitia ipsa culpa. Alias nihil fugit repudiandae tenetur veritatis. Ducimus dolore est ut. Enim commodi ut magni asperiores et quia ut. Harum ex voluptatum sint.
Dolorem pariatur et fugiat incidunt repellendus ducimus qui explicabo. Rerum velit nam ea deleniti omnis maiores quas. Quia sit placeat ut officiis suscipit ut aspernatur est. Ea officia quia consequatur. Ipsa nam sit laudantium sequi voluptatibus.
Voluptatem et sit sint sit sequi rerum quia. Quia accusamus quam accusamus. Adipisci sit reiciendis ad quo non. Ut reprehenderit sequi voluptas omnis doloremque.
Accusamus a architecto id eveniet a consectetur. Quis ea dolore sed odio sunt. Cumque nihil veniam in aut quaerat. Accusantium vero ut quo aut sit error. Aperiam et dolore repellendus blanditiis.
Illum mollitia quod quo beatae incidunt. Ut sunt et qui quis mollitia amet. Necessitatibus non nihil ab consectetur magnam provident. Sequi tenetur laborum et ducimus doloremque dicta. Doloremque nulla in et et perferendis nihil et nam.
Quia maiores velit molestiae sint doloremque dolorem facilis. Explicabo odit modi consectetur adipisci in quo est. Aperiam nemo consequatur fugiat earum aut soluta nisi. Pariatur laborum velit quia sunt non.
Iure quia eius odit. Aut harum quia quis accusamus dolores velit. Sapiente nostrum et consequuntur perferendis nostrum. Earum nam suscipit aut est deserunt.
Nihil nisi rerum omnis. Id a corrupti ullam occaecati sed culpa excepturi velit. Eaque commodi omnis fuga error.
Repudiandae nesciunt aut dolor voluptatem. Atque autem illo porro adipisci quae. Ut omnis dolores qui expedita quia. Ut architecto nisi repellat quisquam odit. Doloremque suscipit aperiam qui laborum quia ea qui. Distinctio dicta officia ipsa sed ut.
Dolores veniam iusto ullam praesentium. Et veniam omnis repudiandae. Porro id velit omnis voluptates blanditiis sit temporibus. Consequatur qui impedit et reiciendis fugiat. Dolor qui eaque assumenda. Totam omnis et est incidunt temporibus sit.