Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Just like us: at least half of gay marriages open

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    Fair enough, then, but it's still inaccurate to automatically conflate the term with behavior alone.
    But in the context of this debate you should know that it's behavior that is at issue.

    I agree with the first sentence, but as you might've guessed, the reason I have no issue with same-sex marriage is precisely that I don't believe homosexual sex is necessarily harmful. You appear to be inferring that homosexual sex must be harmful because you accept the premise that it's sinful from traditional scriptural interpretations, whereas I'm starting with an observation that it's not necessarily harmful and thereby inferring that it's not necessarily sinful.
    Your arguments against harm have been in a physical sense only so far. You also miss that the "traditional interpretation" is the one that has all the weight behind it. From as early as Genesis to the NT homosexual sex is condemned in the most explicit terms. It's even put on par with bestiality, and is among the listed sins for why the Canaanites were expelled from the Promised Land.

    Hmm...I'm no medical expert, but I'm unconvinced that glass can actually pass through the digestive tract with no harm. And it's true that we do need certain metals, but aren't people with pica disorder consuming those substances in much larger quantities than is healthy?
    I remember seeing a special one time where a woman would eat chips of glass. It was in small quantities, but there was no damage to her digestive system that the doctors could find. They were doing all kinds of tests too. As for metal, in solid forms many metals aren't going to thoroughly digested at all. Think of all the loose change over the years that has very little removed from it despite being swallowed, and expelled.

    But even if this is true, it's merely an issue of number/subcultural norms. That is, there's no inherent reason that large numbers of gay people supposedly aren't abstinent or monogamous, and no inherent reason that large numbers couldn't eventually choose abstinence and monogamy.
    You keep saying that, but I see no reason to accept that. How do you know that there isn't something that's common to the people that's causing these "subcultural norms", instead of something that the culture is enforcing on them?

    Besides, I admit that currently this is just conjecture, but I suspect that higher rates of abstinence and monogamy among straight people are due in large part to Christian traditions pervading our culture, even among secular folks. But I also suspect that gay people are less likely to hold to Christian-based traditions precisely because so many Christians have made them believe that being gay and being Christian are incompatible. If the church had consistently preached from the beginning that the two can go hand-in-hand, I figure that abstinence and monogamy rates would be much higher within the gay community.
    Odd that you would say that, since it's in the very Christianized culture that gay "marriage" is attempting to normalize itself. Odd that they would try so hard to gain acceptance in a culture that you claim they reject so fervently. That would be like me trying to gain acceptance in a predominantly Muslim culture by going into polygamy, or certain other distasteful parts of Mohammed's "sunnah". It doesn't make sense, and seems rather ad hoc.

    Well, yes, we can--we're supposed to--eat metals without causing ourselves harm, but a healthy amount is only a few milligrams per day. How exactly can people with pica do so while consuming far more than that?
    This would be due to the metals themselves, and how resistant they are to being digested. See my earlier examples.

    This is a new one. Ordinarily I hear "that it's possible to engage in the activity safely essentially does make it natural, but being natural doesn't make it right." If our physical nature is capable of engaging in it without causing immediate harm, how is it unnatural? I thought being unnatural was essentially defined by the presence of immediate harm.

    People can put molten metal on their tongues with no harmful effects, is that natural? What about having motorcycles attempt to pull them apart? Walking on burning coals with no protection? Swallowing swords? All of these things can be done, and have been done without harm, but would you really call them "natural"?

    So what non-scriptural reasons are there that homosexual sex wouldn't also apply? And what non-scriptural reasons for the homosexual aspect itself? Straight couples can safely engage in anal sex, for instance, but I've never heard anyone argue that such an act is sinful when done within the context of committed straight relationships. Straight couples can perform oral sex on each other, and I've never heard anyone argue that the act in such a context is sinful.
    Remember, your argument was about things being inherently harmful, which was why pica was a disorder, and homosexuality was not. Do you still consider pica a disorder since it's not "inherently harmful"? If you do, then on what basis do you reject homosexuality as a disorder? That something can be done "safely" doesn't keep it off of a list of disorders.

    As far as non-scriptural arguments, that would go to the "natural law" arguments. They are philosophical, and not derived from Scripture, although appear to be endorsed by Scripture as accurate. Sexual union is supposed to be primarily* about procreation. This is not possible with homosexual couples. Their bodies do not even match up in the way a man and a woman clearly do.

    You do realize that the context for sex at all is in a heterosexual marriage, right? That's how God intended it from the very beginning, and which Jesus affirmed. While the Bible does say that the "marriage bed is not defiled", it also says this.

    1 Corinthians 10:23New International Version (NIV)

    The Believer’s Freedom
    23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.

    Personally I think anal sex is a bad idea period. That something can be done, and even safely, doesn't mean it should be done. Even when taking precautions you are more likely to cause problems. Personally, I think the same is likely true of oral sex. I could be wrong, but I think our mouths are exposed on a regular basis to different kinds of bacteria than the genital region. This alone could cause problems, even if protection is used(condoms aren't exactly foolproof), and the couple is monogamous. Now, I could be wrong about possible dangers involved in oral sex.

    *I'm not saying that there are not other good things about sex, but those are more of an "icing on the cake".

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by hamster View Post
      There are more abstinent gay people than people realize. It's not a large population compared to non-abstinent gays but we do exist. You never hear about us because we're not politically useful to the right groups.
      I'm glad to hear that.

      Depends on what you mean when you say "attractions." If you mean feelings that appreciate someone's beauty which leads to feelings of affection I guess I agree...but it's still the result of a malfunctioning system somewhere in the brain and/or body and can lead to bad decisions. Hormones, serotonin, dopamine, etc. can make you "drunk" if you're not careful. It is a very frustrating and painful experience to have feelings which can go nowhere like a train running into a brick wall.
      Actually, I know what you mean, but for different reasons. I'm in such pain all the time that being with someone intimately is not an option. That's even if I had someone who I was married to. My hormones don't know any better though.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        So a man who thinks he is a dog is not considered to have a mental disorder so long as he is not harming himself or others?
        This hypothetical man would have psychosis--a complete break with reality--which is a severe type of disorder that's way beyond what was being discussed. Aside from that, the common criteria doesn't really include "harm" per se, but dysfunction and distress and deviance. If a man believed he was literally a dog, that would certainly constitute a dysfunctional life, whereas being gay itself doesn't impede people from functioning in society.

        How about someone who thinks he hears voices from his television compelling to him to run around his house once an hour but is otherwise harmless? Does he have a mental disorder? How about someone who can't walk past a lightswitch without flipping it up and down five times? Is that a mental disorder?
        If you're hearing voices, you have an onset of psychosis, and also it's difficult to function in society if you have to run around your house once every hour. Someone who feels a compulsion to flip every single light switch five times would probably feel distressed by this behavior and also be somewhat dysfunctional, which is why OCD fits the criteria for being a mental disorder. Some gay people do feel distressed by their homosexuality, but this is almost always because society tells them that it's something to be ashamed of. They feel no distress after accepting it or being told that it's nothing to be ashamed of, whereas people with OCD feel distress independently of cultural impositions.

        How about someone who fantasizes about having sex with children but doesn't act on it? Does he or she have a mental disorder?
        Pedophilia is considered a disorder because the thoughts/desires in question could never be safely acted upon. Pedophilia by definition is a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent children (attraction to teenagers who aren't yet 16 or 18 is ephebophilia), and prepubescent children not only can't consent, but aren't even physically developed yet. Not so with homosexuality, since gay people can always choose consenting partners.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by fm93 View Post
          This hypothetical man would have psychosis--a complete break with reality--which is a severe type of disorder that's way beyond what was being discussed. Aside from that, the common criteria doesn't really include "harm" per se, but dysfunction and distress and deviance. If a man believed he was literally a dog, that would certainly constitute a dysfunctional life, whereas being gay itself doesn't impede people from functioning in society.


          If you're hearing voices, you have an onset of psychosis, and also it's difficult to function in society if you have to run around your house once every hour. Someone who feels a compulsion to flip every single light switch five times would probably feel distressed by this behavior and also be somewhat dysfunctional, which is why OCD fits the criteria for being a mental disorder. Some gay people do feel distressed by their homosexuality, but this is almost always because society tells them that it's something to be ashamed of. They feel no distress after accepting it or being told that it's nothing to be ashamed of, whereas people with OCD feel distress independently of cultural impositions.


          Pedophilia is considered a disorder because the thoughts/desires in question could never be safely acted upon. Pedophilia by definition is a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent children (attraction to teenagers who aren't yet 16 or 18 is ephebophilia), and prepubescent children not only can't consent, but aren't even physically developed yet. Not so with homosexuality, since gay people can always choose consenting partners.
          My point is that saying "X doesn't cause harm; therefore, X isn't a disorder" is wrong for a number of obvious reasons.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            But in the context of this debate you should know that it's behavior that is at issue.
            I had specific behavior in mind. Look at Darth tying homosexuality to grossly (and probably falsely) stereotypical acts like having sex with five people in a sketchy bathroom, for instance. Or automatically tying it in with AIDS.

            Your arguments against harm have been in a physical sense only so far.
            Well, there doesn't appear to be any good evidence of inherent mental/emotional harm. I suppose that would leave the option of spiritual harm, but, well, how can that possibly be verified or examined? As I'll explain in this next part...

            You also miss that the "traditional interpretation" is the one that has all the weight behind it. From as early as Genesis to the NT homosexual sex is condemned in the most explicit terms. It's even put on par with bestiality, and is among the listed sins for why the Canaanites were expelled from the Promised Land.
            ...you can argue that the Bible says it's a sin, but then that just leads to one of the issues that makes it so confusing. We look at the things that the Bible indisputably calls sin--murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness, etc--and we can clearly see why they would be condemned. The people who engage in such things are clearly causing harm. They're clearly acting in a way that is contrary to a full, fruit-bearing life. But when I observe and interact with gay people who happen to be in committed relationships, I don't see that. They don't appear to be causing harm. They do, however, appear to frequently exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control--things that you might recognize as the fruit of the Spirit, as mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23. Some of them are even Christians themselves. Meanwhile, people who are doing indisputably sinful things like murdering, cheating, stealing and lying tend to not exhibit those. There is such a substantial difference that I cannot make myself believe that the relevant Biblical passages can in fact be labeling all same-sex relationships as wrong and sinful and also be true.

            I remember seeing a special one time where a woman would eat chips of glass. It was in small quantities, but there was no damage to her digestive system that the doctors could find. They were doing all kinds of tests too. As for metal, in solid forms many metals aren't going to thoroughly digested at all. Think of all the loose change over the years that has very little removed from it despite being swallowed, and expelled.
            So...if the metal can go through without being digested, that's clearly a sign that something's wrong. Foods are supposed to be digestible. But I'm not sure that this really applies to homosexuality. In the case of gay men, you may argue that the anus isn't naturally designed to accommodate a penis, but what of lesbian women who engage in vaginal intercourse via artificial penises? The devices are in the same shape as that which vaginas are naturally "designed" to accommodate, and I don't believe a good argument can be made that any artificial object being inserted is sinful--unless one wants to argue that it's sinful for women to use tampons.

            You keep saying that, but I see no reason to accept that. How do you know that there isn't something that's common to the people that's causing these "subcultural norms", instead of something that the culture is enforcing on them?
            Well, I'm not aware of any good evidence that there exists a polygamy/promiscuity gene or prenatal factor that's somehow inherently tied to homosexuality.

            Odd that you would say that, since it's in the very Christianized culture that gay "marriage" is attempting to normalize itself.
            Marriage itself is not as closely associated with Christianity as abstinence is--after all, marriages have been common to many cultures, several of which weren't Christian.

            People can put molten metal on their tongues with no harmful effects, is that natural? What about having motorcycles attempt to pull them apart? Walking on burning coals with no protection? Swallowing swords? All of these things can be done, and have been done without harm, but would you really call them "natural"?
            Oh, that's what you meant.

            Remember, your argument was about things being inherently harmful, which was why pica was a disorder, and homosexuality was not.
            Technically, that's not the criteria I used for whether something qualified as a disorder. I was just pointing out a substantial difference between the two.

            Do you still consider pica a disorder since it's not "inherently harmful"? If you do, then on what basis do you reject homosexuality as a disorder?
            Pica is deviant, dysfunctional (people can't subsist on metal and glass), and probably distressful as well. Homosexuality could be said to meet the deviance criterion, but it doesn't impede people from functioning in society and isn't distressful if people are told that it's nothing to be ashamed of.

            As far as non-scriptural arguments, that would go to the "natural law" arguments. They are philosophical, and not derived from Scripture, although appear to be endorsed by Scripture as accurate. Sexual union is supposed to be primarily* about procreation. This is not possible with homosexual couples. Their bodies do not even match up in the way a man and a woman clearly do.
            What exactly are these arguments from natural law? I'm not convinced that we're justified in saying sexual union is "supposed" to be primarily about procreation. It's biological function is about procreation, obviously, but as even the deeply conservative James Dobson of Focus on the Family has approvingly said, couples usually engage in sexual union for purposes of emotional bonding and affection more so than actually procreating.

            You do realize that the context for sex at all is in a heterosexual marriage, right? That's how God intended it from the very beginning, and which Jesus affirmed.
            Well no, I don't "realize" that because I don't believe it actually says that. I assume you're alluding to Matthew 19:5, but it seems to me that Jesus is primarily emphasizing the "one flesh" aspect--after all, in that specific chapter he's arguing about the Pharisees about divorce.
            Last edited by fm93; 03-10-2015, 02:14 PM.
            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by fm93 View Post
              unless one wants to argue that it's sinful for women to use tampons.
              It's certainly been argued before.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #52
                As to the scientific question of the 'disorder' or harms of homosexuality, the submission from the leading associations of psychologists, physicians, and mental health professionals in the US to the US Supreme Court was publicly released today.

                I encourage anyone seriously interested in what current science has to say about the subject of homosexuality to read their submission. Scroll past the 20 pages of tables of contents, and the actual text itself is pretty easy reading.
                From their summary:
                "Scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality; that gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects; that same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children, and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted; and that denying same-sex couples access to marriage is both an instance of institutional stigma and a contributor to the negative treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people."
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #53
                  Meanwhile, the Family Research Council found that children of homosexual parents fared considerably worse than children raised by a traditional family (married mother and father). They found that children raised by a lesbian couple:
                  • Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
                  • Have lower educational attainment
                  • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
                  • Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
                  • Are more likely to suffer from depression
                  • Have been arrested more often
                  • If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

                  And children raised by a gay couple:
                  • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
                  • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
                  • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
                  • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
                  • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
                  • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
                  • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
                  • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
                  • Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
                  • Use marijuana more frequently
                  • Smoke more frequently
                  • Watch TV for long periods more frequently
                  • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

                  http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-st...vious-research

                  Then, of course, there is the fact that "Homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that 'no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology,'" and that "homosexuals are at greater risk than heterosexuals for sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of illness and injury [...] because of high-risk behavior patterns, such as sexual promiscuity, and because of the harm to the body from specific sexual acts" (Source).

                  But it's O.K., because this is all "normal and healthy" according to our lords and masters at the almighty and infallible APA.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Meanwhile, the Family Research Council found that children of homosexual parents fared considerably worse than children raised by a traditional family (married mother and father).
                    The FRC is a tad biased, being a conservative Christian organization. I'm a bit skeptical of their findings.

                    (Disclaimer: I'm equally skeptical of findings by liberal organizations, and I'll leave open the possibility that the FRC might have some halfway decent findings mixed in there.)
                    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      The Family Research Council which you cite in both your links, has been labelled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, due to their regular defamation of and "false claims" about gay people based on "discredited research and junk science." The study by Mark Regnerus which you cite via them was deliberately bogus and has been repeatedly debunked both in scientific journals and in court. Nothing of what you stated from that study is in any way actually true. It's akin to me saying "Christians are all pedophiles because I just wrote down a bogus study that says so and tricked someone into publishing it by getting my friend to sign off on it" - it constitutes absolute and complete defamation, slander and lies (which is why this group has been designated a hate group).
                      Last edited by Starlight; 03-10-2015, 09:35 PM.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        The Family Research Council which you cite in both your links, has been labelled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, due to their regular defamation of and "false claims" about gay people based on "discredited research and junk science." The study by Mark Regnerus which you cite via them was deliberately bogus and has been repeatedly debunked both in scientific journals and in court. Nothing of what you stated from that study is in any way actually true. It's akin to me saying "Christians are all pedophiles because I just wrote down a bogus study that says so and tricked someone into publishing it by getting my friend to sign off on it" - it constitutes absolute and complete defamation, slander and lies (which is why this group has been designated a hate group).
                        SPLC is itself hardly a credible source (that's just the first thing that turned up in a google search; I could find better sources on request), and although the Regnerus study doesn't say exactly what the FRC wants it to, neither is it complete junk. Regnerus is, believe it or not, a competent sociologist. You can contextualize the data differently than FRC or even Regnerus, but to dismiss the study itself outright is reckless.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate group.
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            They are indeed a credible source. Your link tells me that lawyers get rich... is that news?

                            neither is it complete junk. Regnerus is, believe it or not, a competent sociologist.
                            Regnerus was paid by his clients to produce a study showing that gay parenting resulted in worse outcomes. So, being well aware of the standard social-science finding that children of divorced parents fare worse than children from unbroken homes, he constructed a study in which he compared children from broken homes with children from unbroken homes. He then deliberately mislabeled the group of children from broken homes as children 'raised by same-sex parents' despite knowing that this was not true. He was well aware that his sample group did not contain any significant number of children raised by same sex parents. He nevertheless pretended that his study had some sort of relevance to the topic of same-sex parenting. These issues have now been hashed out several times in court.

                            You can contextualize the data differently than FRC or even Regnerus, but to dismiss the study itself outright is reckless.
                            After several witnesses, including Regnerus himself, had presented evidence about his study in court, the Reagan-appointed judge ruled his study and testimony "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."

                            The American Sociological Association - the professional organisation to which Regnerus belongs/belonged, wrote this week in its testimony to the Supreme Court:
                            "[Regnerus' work] cannot be used to argue that children of same-sex parents fare worse than children of different-sex parents. ... [Because the] paper never actually studied children raised by same-sex parents ... the study did not analyze children of two same-sex parents. ... the paper obscures the fact that it did not examine children raised by two same-sex parents. ... If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus['s work], it is that family stability is predictive of child wellbeing."

                            Basically, the study is totally fraudulent, and deliberately so.
                            Last edited by Starlight; 03-11-2015, 04:53 AM.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Basically, the study is totally fraudulent, and deliberately so.
                              Interestingly, all related scientific and professional non-partisan organizations find that homosexual parents are no less fit and their children no less healthy than straight parents and their children. The idea that homosexual parents are less fit comes from the same place as the idea that the Earth was created 5000 years ago or that vaccines cause autism: I want this to be true, therefore it is true.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                                The FRC is a tad biased, being a conservative Christian organization. I'm a bit skeptical of their findings.

                                (Disclaimer: I'm equally skeptical of findings by liberal organizations, and I'll leave open the possibility that the FRC might have some halfway decent findings mixed in there.)
                                And the APA isn't biased?
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                163 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X