Jump to content

Homosexuality


Morpheus

Recommended Posts

It's all jumbled in my head. I was told it was naturally wrong, biologically wrong etc. Perhaps because there weren't as many homosexuals before. I'm not sure actually; but I think there has never been as many non-heterosexuals as there are today and onwards, or were they all just suppressed before?

Not a history buff, but I think at some point in time there the non-hetero population was close to zero. So something might have happened? Could it have been some sort of evolution? I think it might have been a stickiness to the old traditions...

But you've convinced me there isn't anything wrong with it, as long as they are happy and not forcing anything upon anyone, I think things should be fine.

Maybe far back in evolutionary history (i.e. pre-history) that may be true, but the middle-ages prosecution of homosexuality was certainly not how it always was. One need only look to the ancient Greeks, where homosexuality was very common (I'm not certain of numbers, but it may even have been as prominent as heterosexuality amongst men).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethics is one of the most subjective AoK's for the simple reason that ethical norms have varied in different cultures across the centuries and resulted in conflicting opinions. The path that ethics take when developing is often convoluted as is the case in India. As the country from whence Kamasutra came and as the country with the second largest population on earth, one would expect society to be somewhat relaxed and open about sex and sexuality. Instead, the very word 'sex' is taboo and children are never given 'the talk'.

The primary WoK that affects people's opinion on homosexuality is emotion. At a basic, emotional level, most people have been indoctrinated into believing that love can only occur between a man and a woman. While occasionally purposeful, this indoctrination has been largely the byproduct of modern culture. Almost every piece of entertaining material available today contains at the least a minor romantic subplot - always a heterosexual romance. In fact, it is perhaps not the fact that homosexuals engage in intercourse with one another that so alarms people but rather the fact that they can feel 'love' or 'romance' towards others of the same gender. This indoctrination is in fact the root cause of many homosexuals still remaining 'in the closet' as they are ashamed of their own emotions and feel that something is terribly wrong with them.

Applying reasoning, the other main WoK for this issue results in several arguments against homosexuality. Considering that the primary function of human sexual organs is reproduction, it seems logical that homosexual intercourse violates the laws of nature. However, as an extension of the same logic, one might also come to the conclusion that oral sex (whether hetero- or homosexual) violates the laws of nature and that anal sex is the same. Taking the logic one step further, one might even say that any form of birth control such as condoms or 'unwanted-72' is a violation of said laws. But is it truly a violation of these laws at all? Nearly all animal species that have been observed for significant periods of time display an occurrence of homosexuality that ranges from 1% to (in certain cases) almost 50%. No species that has been observed has yet displayed any kind of social stigmata towards homosexuals. The only species that we know of that does this is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Finally, from a ethical standpoint, it seems logical that one person should not have a say in the life of another unless the other person is damaging the lives of other human beings. Homosexuality does no damage to other peoples' lives - indeed it can enrich them by expanding their horizons and (if the 'other person' is homosexual and attracted) perhaps even lead to an enhancement of their life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

But, what I disagree with is the modern obsession with political correctness and anti-discrimination laws in terms of the government regulating PRIVATE views. Just as homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, homophobes DO have the right to their own opinion, and freedom of speech/expression. Just as Does that give them an excuse to target homosexuals for consistent and traumatising bullying? No, but they DO have the right to say they don't like the idea of homosexuality and whatnot. If they say it, they will bear consequences in terms of loss of respect etc, however for them to be legally punished impugns on their freedom of thought and speech. Just as homosexuals have the right to choose a partner as they wish, others have the right to judge (preferably keeping it to themselves, however) the relationship - just as they are allowed to believe that it's a bad match for countless other reasons, they should be allowed to believe that the same-sex nature of the relationship is a bad thing, if they so wish. Prosecuting beliefs legally simply because they are considered 'offensive' is a slippery and dangerous slope towards Statism. We may as well prosecute people simply for saying

As for discrimination? A PRIVATE religious organisation has the right to admit whomever they wish, just as a PRIVATE firm should have the right to hire as they please. This applies to gender discrimination as well. If a manager or owner of a company doesn't wish to hire someone based on personal discrimination, they have the right to exercise their judgement as they wish - they don't have to pay anyone they don't want to. Is it stupid? Most definitely. But if they choose to turn away more qualified applicants on the basis of something irrelevant to their skills and suitability for employment, ultimately it will be THEIR business that will suffer for it. In Australia in particular it's ridiculously hypocritical - if a private company refuses to hire someone on grounds of them being homosexual, a massive discrimination lawsuit can be launched; yet the government still refuses to right of marriage to someone based on their sexual orientation. Private individuals and firms may say and do as they wish, provided they do not directly intrude on the liberties of others (so, they cannot harass, bully or abuse others; but they can choose to hire and think as they wish); however the government's job is to represent and protect the entirety of the population, thus discrimination on their part is wholly inexcusable.

If I was in the mood I would write a more extensive response, but please answer me this. Do you not know what hate speech is? If people came up to you every day and told you that you should die, you are an abomination, you will rot in hell, you shouldn't even be alive, it would be better if you killed yourself, etc. is fine? No, mate, it's not. There is a line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Since physical abuse is not permitted by the law then why allow hate speech? You may not be physically hurting a person but words have an impact too. They leave scars behind (and no this is not melodramatic) especially to 7,8,9 year old kids growing up hating themselves. You seem to have a vociferous opinion without ever having experience hate towards you.

And when it comes to discrimination, I'm not even going to comment on that. It's like you are saying that you could fire people because they are left handed and you don't like it. Please don't flaunt your views like they are right and it is logical to permit discrimination and hate speech because it simply IS NOT. Above everything else, we are all humans and as your libertarian fellows should have taught you, we are all equal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I would cut the ad-hominems if I were you, particularly when they're based off of completely ungrounded assumptions. I highly doubt there's anybody who's never experienced hate towards them; and if there were I certainly do not count within their ranks by any approximation. I've been hated on, to extents that psychologists called acute trauma and even clinical depression, I grew through that and got over it.

Targeted abuse is quite different from freedom of expression. What's your argument, that everybody should be perpetually censored in order to offset the chance that they may offend somebody? Are we to introduce the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime?

The same applies to the idea of employer discrimination. Are you saying that an employer does not have the right to choose who they do or do not wish to accept as an employee? Seems quite ridiculous, considering that it is their time and money they would be investing in doing so.

Any debate involves the promotion and attempts at justifying views, asking me to hide my views simply because they are not in accord with yours is patently ridiculous. In any case, you would be guilty of the very same offence.

If we are all equal, how do you justify vilifying individuals simply for holding a different viewpoint? If we were all truly equal, would we not all think the same way and hold the same viewpoint, anyway? Each human is a unique individual.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I would cut the ad-hominems if I were you, particularly when they're based off of completely ungrounded assumptions. I highly doubt there's anybody who's never experienced hate towards them; and if there were I certainly do not count within their ranks by any approximation. I've been hated on, to extents that psychologists called acute trauma and even clinical depression, I grew through that and got over it.

Targeted abuse is quite different from freedom of expression. What's your argument, that everybody should be perpetually censored in order to offset the chance that they may offend somebody? Are we to introduce the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime?

The same applies to the idea of employer discrimination. Are you saying that an employer does not have the right to choose who they do or do not wish to accept as an employee? Seems quite ridiculous, considering that it is their time and money they would be investing in doing so.

Any debate involves the promotion and attempts at justifying views, asking me to hide my views simply because they are not in accord with yours is patently ridiculous. In any case, you would be guilty of the very same offence.

If we are all equal, how do you justify vilifying individuals simply for holding a different viewpoint? If we were all truly equal, would we not all think the same way and hold the same viewpoint, anyway? Each human is a unique individual.

1. Targeted abuse like the "attacks" by groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (here is a link to their website: http://www.godhatesfags.com/) yes, I do believe should be censored. Especially when they go to funerals of dead soldiers and say that God killed them on purpose because some of them were gay. It's like, bitch please.

2. No no, mate, we are not talking about who to employ but who to fire. If you have an astonishing CV, you are hired but then your boss finds out you are gay and fires you then I do believe that it should not be permitted. If that is, then employers should be able to fire people based on their religion, color, etc.

3. I never asked you to hide your views. Stop "crying".

4. So we are not equal? Being individual human being and being equal is not the same. Treating everyone with the same civil rights has nothing to do with your viewpoints. Don't confuse the two.

Oh and fyi, asking you not to flaunt your views is not asking you to not express them at all.

Btw you are telling me that you wouldn't want that man to stop preaching? http://ac360.blogs.c.../><br />'

Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church went on to preach his solution to "get rid of all the lesbians and queers."'

"

"Build a great, big, large fence 150 or 100 mile long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified 'til they can't get out and feed them. And you know what, in a few years they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce," he said."

These places he is suggesting are no different than Hitler's camps and there are people listening to him saying "amen". You really wouldn't want to stop that guy? He also suggested to people cracking the wrists of their sons if they displayed effeminate behavior and several similar practices. Some people would be dumb enough to listen to him and their kids would suffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all be given equal rights no matter what. Anyone is hardly going to be affected negatively by the sexual orientation of someone else. Sure, it can be uncomfortable witnessing gay acts but people find it uncomfortable for anyone to show any public display of affection either. A lot of people go ahead and claim, "They can be gay they just have to keep their gayness to themselves and I'm fine," but they don't say any of those comments when an unfavorable person goes ahead and flirts with them. Just because they're gay they experience a greater negative impact. It's something they're not accustomed to seeing and thus, we experience dismay.

In my opinion, gay people should have the same rights as any couple who ties the knot with one another. If society doesn't want to call it "marriage" then go ahead, whatever one calls it doesn't really matter in the end. What does matter is if they do not have the same benefits as married couples do even though they are bonded as such just because they are homosexual.

Homophobia defaces humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I would cut the ad-hominems if I were you, particularly when they're based off of completely ungrounded assumptions. I highly doubt there's anybody who's never experienced hate towards them; and if there were I certainly do not count within their ranks by any approximation. I've been hated on, to extents that psychologists called acute trauma and even clinical depression, I grew through that and got over it.

Targeted abuse is quite different from freedom of expression. What's your argument, that everybody should be perpetually censored in order to offset the chance that they may offend somebody? Are we to introduce the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime?

The same applies to the idea of employer discrimination. Are you saying that an employer does not have the right to choose who they do or do not wish to accept as an employee? Seems quite ridiculous, considering that it is their time and money they would be investing in doing so.

Any debate involves the promotion and attempts at justifying views, asking me to hide my views simply because they are not in accord with yours is patently ridiculous. In any case, you would be guilty of the very same offence.

If we are all equal, how do you justify vilifying individuals simply for holding a different viewpoint? If we were all truly equal, would we not all think the same way and hold the same viewpoint, anyway? Each human is a unique individual.

1. Targeted abuse like the "attacks" by groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (here is a link to their website: http://www.godhatesfags.com/) yes, I do believe should be censored. Especially when they go to funerals of dead soldiers and say that God killed them on purpose because some of them were gay. It's like, bitch please.

2. No no, mate, we are not talking about who to employ but who to fire. If you have an astonishing CV, you are hired but then your boss finds out you are gay and fires you then I do believe that it should not be permitted. If that is, then employers should be able to fire people based on their religion, color, etc.

3. I never asked you to hide your views. Stop "crying".

4. So we are not equal? Being individual human being and being equal is not the same. Treating everyone with the same civil rights has nothing to do with your viewpoints. Don't confuse the two.

Oh and fyi, asking you not to flaunt your views is not asking you to not express them at all.

Btw you are telling me that you wouldn't want that man to stop preaching? http://ac360.blogs.c.../><br />'

Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church went on to preach his solution to "get rid of all the lesbians and queers."'

"

"Build a great, big, large fence 150 or 100 mile long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified 'til they can't get out and feed them. And you know what, in a few years they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce," he said."

These places he is suggesting are no different than Hitler's camps and there are people listening to him saying "amen". You really wouldn't want to stop that guy? He also suggested to people cracking the wrists of their sons if they displayed effeminate behavior and several similar practices. Some people would be dumb enough to listen to him and their kids would suffer.

How on earth does it appear that I'm "crying"? This has devolved well beyond any reasoned debate, and I shall take no further part in this farce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only be arrested for inciting hatred so presumably he was doing more than just that (?).

Anyway I am pro people doing whatever the hell they like provided it doesn't impact on me negatively without my choosing it.

I'd much rather ban smokers who make you breathe in their nasty fumes than gay people who don't negatively impact on my life at all!

If they want to be gay, they can be. Indeed it is said that you don't choose to be gay, so it's more like if they are gay then they are, not that they necessarily want to be. Although it'd be weird not to want to be yourself blink.gif

As for gay marriage, that's for the church to be all bitter and twisted about by themselves, I think the state should have nothing to do with it except for preventing people from being harassed and made into objects of hatred, as they would with any thing else. If individuals want to disagree with something they can, but they shouldn't let their disagreement impact negatively on the people they disagree with. Live and let live, even if you don't like each other.

I only partly agree with that. If people would shoot each other in your country would you be ok with it too? By your definition at least you would as it would have no direct impact on you (neglecting the reason why they are shooting each other ofc) I too, am pro gey but I think that your argument is incorrectly phrased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only be arrested for inciting hatred so presumably he was doing more than just that (?).

Anyway I am pro people doing whatever the hell they like provided it doesn't impact on me negatively without my choosing it.

I'd much rather ban smokers who make you breathe in their nasty fumes than gay people who don't negatively impact on my life at all!

If they want to be gay, they can be. Indeed it is said that you don't choose to be gay, so it's more like if they are gay then they are, not that they necessarily want to be. Although it'd be weird not to want to be yourself blink.gif

As for gay marriage, that's for the church to be all bitter and twisted about by themselves, I think the state should have nothing to do with it except for preventing people from being harassed and made into objects of hatred, as they would with any thing else. If individuals want to disagree with something they can, but they shouldn't let their disagreement impact negatively on the people they disagree with. Live and let live, even if you don't like each other.

I only partly agree with that. If people would shoot each other in your country would you be ok with it too? By your definition at least you would as it would have no direct impact on you (neglecting the reason why they are shooting each other ofc) I too, am pro gey but I think that your argument is incorrectly phrased.

Yeah I kind-of meant it to be interpreted as generalising the attitude so that "me" was = any person's me. Not me as in literally me myself one individual! :P That would be pretty extreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I only partly agree with that. If people would shoot each other in your country would you be ok with it too? By your definition at least you would as it would have no direct impact on you (neglecting the reason why they are shooting each other ofc) I too, am pro gey but I think that your argument is incorrectly phrased.

You missed Sandwich's point. If people started taking the lives of other human beings in my country that would be an infringement of a human's right to life. Since it is an attack on their right to live, it too would be an attack on my own right to live, thus it does have direct impact on me as I too may fall victim to this infringement. To put this into context of homosexuality, if two gay men wanted to become a couple they would not be infringing upon any of my rights (namely to life and liberty). Therefore, it is no business of mine to interfere or prevent a mutual agreement between two other individuals.


This comes back to the issue of government involvement in marriage and why gay marriage should not be 'legalised'. People who support the 'legalisation' of gay marriage see it as a civil rights issue, conservatives who are against it see it as an example of a vocal minority imposing policy on a silent majority. But both sides are missing the point. The question isn't whether gay marriage should be legalised, the question is 'why is the government getting involved in the most personal and private parts of our lives?' 'Legalisation' is simply code for more government beauracrats, regulations, investigations ect. Marriage is a symbolic (and sometimes religious) event, what right does the government have in dictating who can marry who and who can't? This extends to heterosexual marriages as well. Why must couples register their marriage with the government, give details such as bank statements, length of their current relationship, how many children they intend to have...ect?!

Each individual has their own standards, some people like to get married in a church with a wedding, some like to get civil contracts, some just like to propose and put rings on their fingers, others don't even have a ceremony. But I have never heard of a couple claiming that the ultimate symbolism of their relationship would be represented by answering questions of a government beauracrat and signing papers in a government office. There is nothing stopping gay people from getting married, many gays have been married for years, just not to 'bureaucratic and regulatory standards'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


This comes back to the issue of government involvement in marriage and why gay marriage should not be 'legalised'. People who support the 'legalisation' of gay marriage see it as a civil rights issue, conservatives who are against it see it as an example of a vocal minority imposing policy on a silent majority. But both sides are missing the point. The question isn't whether gay marriage should be legalised, the question is 'why is the government getting involved in the most personal and private parts of our lives?' 'Legalisation' is simply code for more government beauracrats, regulations, investigations ect. Marriage is a symbolic (and sometimes religious) event, what right does the government have in dictating who can marry who and who can't? This extends to heterosexual marriages as well. Why must couples register their marriage with the government, give details such as bank statements, length of their current relationship, how many children they intend to have...ect?!

Each individual has their own standards, some people like to get married in a church with a wedding, some like to get civil contracts, some just like to propose and put rings on their fingers, others don't even have a ceremony. But I have never heard of a couple claiming that the ultimate symbolism of their relationship would be represented by answering questions of a government beauracrat and signing papers in a government office. There is nothing stopping gay people from getting married, many gays have been married for years, just not to 'bureaucratic and regulatory standards'.

Couples don't get married only to show how much they love each other, marriage is not only symbolic; it is a social and legal contract. Marriage comes with a long list of rights and benefits like the right of inheritance of property. Perhaps many gay couples have been living together for a long time but still, they can't have access to the rights and benefits that come with marriage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes back to the issue of government involvement in marriage and why gay marriage should not be 'legalised'. People who support the 'legalisation' of gay marriage see it as a civil rights issue, conservatives who are against it see it as an example of a vocal minority imposing policy on a silent majority. But both sides are missing the point. The question isn't whether gay marriage should be legalised, the question is 'why is the government getting involved in the most personal and private parts of our lives?' 'Legalisation' is simply code for more government beauracrats, regulations, investigations ect. Marriage is a symbolic (and sometimes religious) event, what right does the government have in dictating who can marry who and who can't? This extends to heterosexual marriages as well. Why must couples register their marriage with the government, give details such as bank statements, length of their current relationship, how many children they intend to have...ect?!

Each individual has their own standards, some people like to get married in a church with a wedding, some like to get civil contracts, some just like to propose and put rings on their fingers, others don't even have a ceremony. But I have never heard of a couple claiming that the ultimate symbolism of their relationship would be represented by answering questions of a government beauracrat and signing papers in a government office. There is nothing stopping gay people from getting married, many gays have been married for years, just not to 'bureaucratic and regulatory standards'.

As mentioned in the aforementioned post, you've reduced the importance and social position of marriage to an insignificant level. The first edict of social behaviour, which would come to be known as 'law' was passed with 23 social rules of conduct, 15 of these pertained to marriage.

Marriage has symbolised more than an agreement for two people to live together and spend their lives together, it is a legal agreement that allows both to enjoy certain rights and benefits, and more importantly, to grant their children the same. In times of old, before DNA and blood testing, a father could simply deny that a child was his and none would be the wiser, or claim that he owes no responsibility towards his children as they were conceived out of wedlock. Marriage as a submitted, written document afforded parties the right to be able to claim the legitimacy of their or their children's rights.

In the modern age, marriage grants and creates a host of legal rights that are intended specifically to afford married couples and their burgeoning families an extra layer of protection. The rent acts enumerate nearly 97 laws, 43 of which pertain to the rights of married couples under leases. That is only one example, but the reason that the state 'intrudes' and gathers information of married couples is to be able to produce sound proof of the irrefutability of a marriage claim, should the need for such ever arise.

Have you ever wondered why 'civil unions' were accepted when marriage was not for gay couples? Surely the couples being allowed to legally live together, behave like married couples, and essentially live their lives as such should have been enough, even if the legal title of their relationship was different? The truth is that a 'civil union' was specifically accepted as a form of legal union between gay couples because it explicitly excluded them from enjoying and benefiting from the rights that married couples were allowed to obtain as the legislation would specifically refer to: married couples.

Take for example, once again the Rent Acts of England and Wales. Gay couples were not allowed to benefit form these rights as their civil unions were excluded. Sometime in the late 1980s (around '88 I think), a case was brought before the Court of Appeal that addressed this issue as a gay couple that had been living together for over 40 years was not protected by the Rent Acts. In this case, the flat they occupied together was under one partner's name, and that man died intestate. The family of the dead then tried to evict the living partner from the apartment, as he could not claim any rights, whatsoever, and the title of leasehold estate (ownership) passed onto the remaining relatives (who disapproved of the gay lifestyle and wanted the apartment back). In a landmark ruling, Denning MR said that the living partner was entitled to rights of a married couple under the Rent Act, even though the legislation specifically excluded him, because "there is no fathomable reason why Parliament would have tailored an Act that discriminated to such an unconscionable degree." He used extra-judicial powers of the English common law to create a new meaning of the Rent Acts.

While in England and Wales, the discrimination was eliminated to a great degree, making 'marriage' and 'civil union' virtually synonymous in almost all respects, the same is not true for other parts of the world. Divergent legislation continues to perpetuate in several states in America, the same is true for Spain, Portugal, and Turkey. All three latter countries have pending cases in front of the European Court to deal with this issue because it is a violation of fundamental rights. Let's not even get to the East...

So yes, coming back to the point (I really did go off on a tangent there, ignore the irrelevant parts), not only is gay marriage important, but for the purposes of your argument, state and governmental involvement is generally imperative for social cohesiveness and for the legitimate verification of rights. Granted that can mean a limitation of privacy to an extent, but it is one limitation that is not disproportional to the good and social order that it creates on the other.

Just some food for thought. You're free to disagree with me, of course.

Arrowhead.

Edited by Arrowhead
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you hardcore TOKers think about things like equal rights for homosexuals, gay marriage and other issues such as...

A christian preacher in ENGLAND was arrested for quoting the bible and using phrases such as "stop homosexuality it's wrong" in public.

Your thoughts, please tongue.gif I'm interested :angel:

Morpheus x

Wow he must have been taking things really far if he was actually arrested! I think it's great to hear that he was removed from the situation, it sounds like so much unnecessary negativity. I think there is such a difference between having beliefs and having beliefs that give you a constant need to ''save'' everyone and everything around you i.e shoving it down innocent throats. I'm not really sure how to approach this from a ToK point of view though, haha! Was it ethically wrong to arrest the preacher? I'm sure he was handled in a very humane way :) This thread made me giggle!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be homophobic few years ago, until I came up to a book that really made me think. It was about a person in 90's, that was a part of a new spaceship crew. It was used to fight aliens of some sort. Anyway, what was special about that spaceship is that it could travel extremely long distances, but time passed slower in it - 3 months in that spaceship was equal to 10 years in real life. When that crew came back, they could see huge changes in the culture of Earth. When they came back after 10-20 years, 1/3 of human population were homosexual, it was normal for men to wear make-up, etc. After 100 years or so, everyone on Earth were homosexuals and babies were created artificialy. It was very convenient for government, since it could regulate the size of human population. Hence, everyone who was not homosexual were sent to concentration camps, where they were "trained" to live "the right way". The Captain, that was from the 90's was not trained, but he was considered a freak by everyone around him, because he liked women.

That really made me think - what if I wake up tomorrow, and everyone around me are homosexuals. Not only would I not be able to marry a girl I'd like, I also would be made fun and sometimes beaten because of my preferences, because others would consider it wrong. I understood that even under such a terrible pressure I wouldn't start liking men, I'd probably just hide that I'm straight. That's when I became much more accepting towards homosexuals and became pro equal rights. I always tell this story to my homophobic friends and it also makes them think. I think it's very important that not only gays would stand up for their rights, but that there would be heterosexuals who would join this fight for equal rights.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...