Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

^Actually, I think your definition kind of proves westerninterloper's point.  A sexual orientation doesn't "reflect the attitudes and values of a person or group" so much as it reflects who they want have sex with- full stop.  More to the point, "lifestyle" is a potent political word in this area, because it (quite consciously by the religious right) connotes the conspicuous cultural flamboyance of a sub-segment of the male gay community.

 

Hts121, anecdotally anyway, there seem to many ordinarily straight prisoners who would gladly accept your million dollar challenge. I agree with your main point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't really reflect values so much as biology. Homosexuality is pre-values formation. It's more basic. That's the point. So it's not a "lifestyle". It's a (neuro)biological attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clueless, you are not born with a "lifestyle"

 

Hts121, anecdotally anyway, there seem to many ordinarily straight prisoners who would gladly accept your million dollar challenge. I agree with your main point though.

 

Then they are not "straight".... they are either gay or bi-sexual (which very well may be an understated segment of the population, especially among prisoners *stops short of psychological rant*).  If you are physically capable of being aroused by a man bending over in front of you, then you are not straight by my definition of that term.  Not that there's anything wrong with that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't really reflect values so much as biology. Homosexuality is pre-values formation. It's more basic. That's the point. So it's not a "lifestyle". It's a (neuro)biological attribute.

 

As someone who has a biology degree and works in the medical field this is a given.

Obviously the physical attraction (homosexuality or "gay" in the vernacular) to the same sex is an innate characteristic. There is no choice in this biological makeup. Although someone's particular environment in their formative years may enhance or hinder this characteristic not to mention the nature of culture at large.

 

Now the degree to which someone is immersed in the gay culture...that is a choice.

It's apparent that there must be some sort of gay culture or lifestyle. Just read this thread. For example... politically, someone comes on here, says they've voted for Republican candidates and they are run roughshod over for not conforming.

I was just trying to say that choosing to "f^ck someone up the ass" doesn't make you gay.

The title of this thread is "Gay Rights" not "F^ck someone up the ass Rights".

 

Of course this discussion is heavily leaning towards male sexuality and disregards the whole topic of lesbianism.

 

 

Don't worry Hts, if you do that, we won't think you're gay.

BTW Strap in this day and age this is much more prevalent than prison.

My field of work allows a different insight to this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just trying to say that choosing to "f^ck someone up the ass" doesn't make you gay.

 

Could you personally make that choice with the cooperation of your body?  Without any form of medication, of course.  And I am presuming that you are a straight man.

 

Never tried it myself, but I have the strong presumption that I would not get the necessary physical reaction to perform the task.  There would be an issue with arousal.  But you may be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think you're ignoring the sex appeal of $1 million.  Seriously though, there's nothing inherently arousing about inflatable plastic or any number of other things that some men somehow perform with by themselves.  My guess is that prison rape victims are essentially toys, not object of attraction for who or what they are.  Also, plenty of closeted men are able to pull the physical act off with their wives or girlfriends, despite a lack of sexual attraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing your eyes and imagining that it's Kris, not Chris, in front of you doesn't count.  And, like I said, there are many, many people that are legitimately aroused by both genders.  I know a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't really reflect values so much as biology. Homosexuality is pre-values formation. It's more basic. That's the point. So it's not a "lifestyle". It's a (neuro)biological attribute.

 

As someone who has a biology degree and works in the medical field this is a given.

Obviously the physical attraction (homosexuality or "gay" in the vernacular) to the same sex is an innate characteristic. There is no choice in this biological makeup. Although someone's particular environment in their formative years may enhance or hinder this characteristic not to mention the nature of culture at large.

 

Now the degree to which someone is immersed in the gay culture...that is a choice.

It's apparent that there must be some sort of gay culture or lifestyle. Just read this thread. For example... politically, someone comes on here, says they've voted for Republican candidates and they are run roughshod over for not conforming.

I was just trying to say that choosing to "f^ck someone up the ass" doesn't make you gay.

The title of this thread is "Gay Rights" not "F^ck someone up the ass Rights".

 

Of course this discussion is heavily leaning towards male sexuality and disregards the whole topic of lesbianism.

 

 

Don't worry Hts, if you do that, we won't think you're gay.

BTW Strap in this day and age this is much more prevalent than prison.

My field of work allows a different insight to this.

 

 

As a gay man, and as an educator, we should rethink what 'biological' means. I do not believe that being gay is an innate characteristic; if biology has anything to tell us, it's that someone might be more predisposed to one trait or another, but biology is not destiny. "Genetic" is, as my students said this morning, a lazy way to explain a complicated process. I don't feel genetically "gay" any more than I felt genetically "straight" in my early 20s, before I ever had relations with a man.

 

I agree with Straphanger's assessment of my criticism of 'lifestyle'. If being gay is a lifestyle, then so is being straight. If its biological for straights, then it is for gays. Hetero and homo are along the same continuum, so consider your own life experience: some of you may not have ever imagined anything other than what you are, others' lives are more fluid. I'm much more interested in the freedom to 'pursue happiness' in my personal relationships without the prejudice of pulpit thumpers and scientists interpreting my life for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing your eyes and imagining that it's Kris, not Chris, in front of you doesn't count. 

 

Why wouldn't it count for the million dollar physical performance challenge?

 

This is definitely the strangest UO discussion I have ever had, by the way.  Knock on wood I'm never sent to prison for field tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok Ok scratch 'lifestyle'.

Replace with 'culture'. culture

 

"Biology is not destiny" I alluded to when I accounted for environmental factors especially in someone's formative years. Science is the enemy now?

BTW formative years are not necessarily relegated to child/toddler.

One can have formative years anytime including their 20s and beyond.

 

I want to repeat the statement that this discussion is being seen through only the prism of male sexuality. One-sided.

 

Also nobody ...and I mean NOBODY... should be chastised if they don't vote the conformist way.

The bullying directed at is ridiculous.

 

Can we all agree that sexuality is a spectrum at which, in any given point and time, someone may be.

I completely understand it's complexity.

 

 

I will also repeat "f^ck someone up ass' does not make a man gay. That is such a narrow defiinition

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Give us a broader definition, even though you are totally miscontruing the point I was making.  My point was that either you are or you are not, without further assistance, sexually aroused by men or women, or both.  That is not a choice.  That is not a lifestyle.  That is not a culture.  No moreso than your race or gender is your choice.  Personally, women 'do it' for me, and men do not.  I couldn't change that if I wanted to.  If I could, then I would be a switch-hitter.

 

You never answered my question of whether you, personally, could do it.

 

And who would have guessed that voting the pro-gay rights candidate is the "conformist way" and those who do not live in fear of bullying.  I suppose times are a changing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very interesting things I've learned today...

Being gay is not biological.

Being gay is not a choice.

There is no gay culture or community.

There is not even a hint of a gay lifestyle.

 

What is the answer then?

Please let me know if it's something as simple as sending out membership cards. Because there is this really cute guy I have my eyes on and I could send him one of those membership cards.  :-P

 

EDIT:

I FORGOT!

All you have to do is "F^ck someone up the..."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is the problem with this thread. It's not really about "rights" it's about tolerance of someone else's attractions.

 

I'm all for equal rights but marriage doesn't really seem to be a right.  Marriage is a religious/social construct.  I think the state should just back way out of the relationship business all together. 

 

And as for the military, sexuality shouldn't be discussed at all.  In this way, I guess I see DADT as beneficial to non-heterosexual persons.  It'd be interesting to know the circumstances of those gays who were discharged for "being gay".  I thought the policy was Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That doesn't mean you can't "be gay" you just shouldn't talk about your sexuality.  Same goes for straights.  If DADT was correctly and honestly enforced, I'm starting to think that there should be a lot more straights being discharged than gays.  But maybe there are a lot more gays in the military than conventional wisdom would have us believe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.  Its about rights.  The right to equal protection under the law.  I'm totally shocked (sarcasm definitely intended) that a self-proclaimed liberty lover like yourself can't see that.  The way you are viewing the issue is exactly how the contemporary religious right wants you to view it, or at least is satisfied with you approaching it that way. 

 

Nobody is seeking to force YOUR church to marry gay people or even recognize a gay marriage within the walls of that church.  Nobody is seeking to force you to welcome gays into YOUR home.  So, its not about YOUR tolerance of someone else's attractions.  You can remain as intolerant as you want regardless if the (please excuse my profanity) 'progress' sought is achieved.  No one's will lose their right to hate gays if they choose.  What we are trying to do is make sure the law treats gays the same as it treats straights.  You do remember the law, don't you? (*channeling Denzel*).

 

You know full well that the State is not going to "back way out of the relationship business all together".... but it gives you a good line to say in response and wipe your hands clean of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for equal rights but marriage doesn't really seem to be a right. Marriage is a religious/social construct. I think the state should just back way out of the relationship business all together.

What if MY church supports gay marriage? Shouldn't my church be able to perform those marriages and shouldn't those marriages be recognized by the state? Also, it is a bit naive to think that the government is going to get out of relationships with a flick of a wand. So, while the government is still engaged in recognizing marriages, shouldn't gays be allowed to get married and receive the same benefits of marriage that heterosexuals do? Are we not citizens of this country just like you? What makes you better than me? Do you believe that because you are straight that you are somehow more important than me? Why should I be demoted to a second class status?

 

It'd be interesting to know the circumstances of those gays who were discharged for "being gay". I thought the policy was Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That doesn't mean you can't "be gay" you just shouldn't talk about your sexuality.

Yeah, if only that were true. Amy Brian was kicked out when a co-worker saw Brian kiss her girlfriend while on a trip to Walmart and Mike Almy was discharged after the Air Force went through his private e-mails. So, there are two (recent) cases right there where there was no asking or telling, just third parties invading the lives of two soldiers. You could find similar cases by going to sldn.org.

 

While there (at the sldn.org website), read some of the stories from soldiers who have been discharged or who have yet to be discharged. Then you can find out about the difficulties those soldiers must go through in order to hide a part of their nature. For example, they can't share too much about their personal lives or answer simple questions without the fear of ruining their entire career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know full well that the State is not going to "back way out of the relationship business all together".... but it gives you a good line to say in response and wipe your hands clean of the issue.

 

Excellent.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What if MY church supports gay marriage? Shouldn't my church be able to perform those marriages and shouldn't those marriages be recognized by the state?

 

Fair question.

It's a political hot potato though.

 

Our current president is against gay marriage.

For political irony... Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Elton John, Hillary Clinton (and other politicians and pundits ad inifinitum) are all against gay marriage.

They are, however, for civil partnerships/civil unions.

According to the (probably-hated) Elton John, "Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships".

 

 

fyi, Elton John is currently in a civil partnership with David Furnish.

 

 

P.S. Help support downtown Cleveland businesses today

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question for people against gay marriage is always this:  Why do you care?

 

It's not like by banning gay marriage you are going to stop people from being gay or stop gay people from being in a relationship.

 

The benefits of being married that a gay couple might receive have no impact on you.  There is no cost to you associated with hospital visitation rights, allowing partners to be covered under health insurance policies if they become unemployed, or allowing them to get survivorship benefits.

 

And if you're religious and think it's a sin, I can understand why you are against it.  But didn't God give humans free will?  And won't He make people atone for their sins at some point?  So why is it your job to play God?  Why can't you just let them sin away and they'll get theirs while you frolic around in heaven?  I mean, for religious beliefs that find being gay to be a sin, so is adultery...but you're not pressing for laws against that.

 

I just seems like such a non-issue to me.  Allowing gay marriage has no impact to anyone who is straight.  Banning it only discriminates against gays.  So why would anyone be against it?  Who cares what you believe marriage should be.  Believe what you want, and let other's believe what they want...thier beliefs don't infringe on yours so what does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Well said.  It always struck me as strange that many of the same people fixated on the dangers of the "gay lifestyle" (i.e., including promiscuity) are also dead-set against allowing gays access to the very institution that helps promote monogamy and more serious relationships.  Gay marriage, in a very literal sense, is unequivocally "pro-family." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because your post is right after mine, were you asking me all of those questions?

 

In order to get real change you shouldn't ask a peon like me, you've got to ask the politicians why they take a certain stand on whatever issue it is.

I'm sure that Barack Obama's reason for being against gay marriage is very different than, say, Jim DeMint's.

Obama's is probably for political expediency (but we aren't for sure about that) whereas Jim DeMint's probably has something to do with old timey religion.

The thing driving the 'political expediency' dilemma for Democrat politicians is that a majority of Amrerican citizens are against gay marriage (as of today --- that may change in just a few short years, who knows?).

They know it is a political loser (i.e. they want to keep their jobs so, in the grand tradition of politics, they talk platitudes and double-speak when campaigning).

 

 

P.S. Help support downtown Cleveland businesses today

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for the military, sexuality shouldn't be discussed at all. In this way, I guess I see DADT as beneficial to non-heterosexual persons. It'd be interesting to know the circumstances of those gays who were discharged for "being gay". I thought the policy was Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That doesn't mean you can't "be gay" you just shouldn't talk about your sexuality. Same goes for straights. If DADT was correctly and honestly enforced, I'm starting to think that there should be a lot more straights being discharged than gays. But maybe there are a lot more gays in the military than conventional wisdom would have us believe....

 

Have you ever spent more than a few hours with another human?  Banning all service members from ever mentioning their spouses, significant others, dates, attractions, high school experiences, etc., all of which betray someone's sexual orientation, strikes me as little unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because your post is right after mine, were you asking me all of those questions?

 

My question is for anyone who opposes gay marriage. 

 

And while I don't expect massive change to come from posting on UrbanOhio, if one person's opinion of gay marriage is swayed, that's one more person to provide political support for the issue.  But I'm not gay so I really don't have that much stake in the game...but it's sad that it's a political issue (and obsticle) to get change for policies that affect people and their personal lives...and that if reversed, would have no impact on anyone other than those negatively affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing driving the 'political expediency' dilemma for Democrat politicians is that a majority of Amrerican citizens are against gay marriage (as of today --- that may change in just a few short years, who knows?).

They know it is a political loser (i.e. they want to keep their jobs so, in the grand tradition of politics, they talk platitudes and double-speak when campaigning).

 

 

Actually, by some polls, it's already changed: check out #37A from this CNN poll from August: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/rel11a.pdf

 

I agree with your main point, but it's not about majority opinion, it's more about electoral college, median voter and voter motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that some people who are not affected by the current system, truly understand how deeply it can impact one's life.  Allow me to share a brief story of someone I am currently trying to help:

 

I'll call her Susie.  Susie is about 60 years old.  She was in a long term relationship with a woman who is about 20 years younger, who I'll call Niki.  10 years ago, they decided they wanted to raise a family.  Instead of looking into adoption, which they knew would be difficult as a gay couple, they decided to use an IF procedure to impregnate Niki.  Susie cared for and supported Niki while she was pregnant.  They had a beautiful baby girl, Sara, who refers to Niki as Mommy and Susie as Momma.  They raised that girl for 10 years, equally sharing the parental responsiblities.  But, as relationships often go, theirs began to dissolve.  Niki eventually went out and found a "younger model", and moved out of the house with Sara.  Susie had no say in the matter.  Susie fears that Niki might return to her native country with the girl, but has no recourse.  Ohio does not allow second parent adoption so Susie is technically not Sara's "parent" and has no custodial rights.  She wants to visit her, but Niki won't allow it with the bitterness of the separation still fresh.  Susie has some options for recourse, but nothing is guaranteed.  The bottom line is that Susie is currently in a position that no parent should ever find themselves.

 

^Tell Barack Obama and John Boehner et al

 

Obama is in favor of repealing DADT.  He needs Congress to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because your post is right after mine, were you asking me all of those questions?

 

My question is for anyone who opposes gay marriage.

 

And while I don't expect massive change to come from posting on UrbanOhio, if one person's opinion of gay marriage is swayed, that's one more person to provide political support for the issue. But I'm not gay so I really don't have that much stake in the game...but it's sad that it's a political issue (and obsticle) to get change for policies that affect people and their personal lives...and that if reversed, would have no impact on anyone other than those negatively affected.

 

Hootenanny better watch out before shs96 becomes my favorite conservative leaning forumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because your post is right after mine, were you asking me all of those questions?

 

My question is for anyone who opposes gay marriage. 

 

And while I don't expect massive change to come from posting on UrbanOhio, if one person's opinion of gay marriage is swayed, that's one more person to provide political support for the issue.  But I'm not gay so I really don't have that much stake in the game...but it's sad that it's a political issue (and obsticle) to get change for policies that affect people and their personal lives...and that if reversed, would have no impact on anyone other than those negatively affected.

 

Hootenanny better watch out before shs96 becomes my favorite conservative leaning forumer.

 

Better look out...I might slip in a line item repealing Obamacare in my Gay Marriage bill ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the answer then?

Please let me know if it's something as simple as sending out membership cards. Because there is this really cute guy I have my eyes on and I could send him one of those membership cards.  :-P

 

First he has to be able to recite in order of importance each item on the Gay Agenda, and have his wardrobe inspected by MTS.

 

See, this is the problem with this thread. It's not really about "rights" it's about tolerance of someone else's attractions.

 

[ ... ]

 

I see an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance to me is putting up with someone's improper or potentially damaging choices or behavior, whereas acceptance means coming to recognize that the things that differentiate someone have no bearing on my interaction with them as a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc. Tolerance, though preferable to overt hate, especially hate that may lead to cruelty, still implies fundamentally unyielding bias, whereas acceptance implies maturity and the rational thinking that accompanies it.

 

Irrational intolerance deprives the intolerant of full participation as free citizens, just as it tries to do with its targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, that was well-stated...'what was oft thought but n'er so well expressed', as Shakespear said (I think).  I've always was uncomfortable with the "we'll tolerate you" sentiment, and you pretty much verbalized and explained, perhaps, the difficulties I have with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  You tolerate a toothache until you can get to a dentist, or tolerate an inconvenience knowing that it is, hopefully, temporary.  In an ideal world people would embrace the diversity of humanity, and celebrate it.

 

As for gay marriage, the very false idea that the whole fabric of our society rests upon the sanctity of heterosexual monogamous marriage is pure bunk. If this were the case, the very first thing to do would be to outlaw divorce, make adultry a crime, outlaw premarital sex.  Most straight couples I know lived together before marrying.  The other arguement surrounding gay marriage centers around children and the stability of the father/mother relationship, seemingly overlooking the divorce issue, the single parent issue, and children who were adopted. 

 

Decided not to give my opinion on the role of religion in the matter....as I feel religion is probably the largest cause of the world's problems today.  Power, greed, subjugation all in the name of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What is the answer then?

Please let me know if it's something as simple as sending out membership cards. Because there is this really cute guy I have my eyes on and I could send him one of those membership cards.  :-P

 

First he has to be able to recite in order of importance each item on the Gay Agenda, and have his wardrobe inspected by MTS.

 

 

LMAO! Rob

 

 

 

P.S. Help support downtown Cleveland businesses today

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know full well that the State is not going to "back way out of the relationship business all together".... but it gives you a good line to say in response and wipe your hands clean of the issue.

 

No, I'm serious. That's my honest position and I can't understand why you'd insinuate otherwise unless you think my intolerance of the state's coercive power is somehow a cover for an anti-gay agenda. And that on its face is laughable.

 

See, this is the problem with this thread. It's not really about "rights" it's about tolerance of someone else's attractions.

 

[ ... ]

I see an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance to me is putting up with someone's improper or potentially damaging choices or behavior, whereas acceptance means coming to recognize that the things that differentiate someone have no bearing on my interaction with them as a friend, neighbor, co-worker, etc.

What you're calling acceptance, I call tolerance.  Acceptance implies agreement.

 

Tolerance, though preferable to overt hate, especially hate that may lead to cruelty, still implies fundamentally unyielding bias, whereas acceptance implies maturity and the rational thinking that accompanies it.

 

Irrational intolerance deprives the intolerant of full participation as free citizens, just as it tries to do with its targets.

All true, but for the sake of discussion on UO (which is what I was talking about) tolerance is the best I could ever hope for. Maybe you hope for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge orders ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ injunction

By Jennifer Vanasco

10.12.2010 3:36pm EDT

 

(Riverside, Calif.) A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge orders ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ injunction

By Jennifer Vanasco

10.12.2010 3:36pm EDT

 

(Riverside, Calif.)  A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

 

Read More...

Ha! I was just getting ready to post that, plus this comment:

 

If writers and commentators in the news media had to pass a test determining whether they were willing or able to get a clue, there'd be a lot of unfilled job openings in the profession.

 

I've gone off on this before, so I'll try to rein it in. The news articles refer to "the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops." Long before 1993 the US Armed Forces banned gay men and lesbians from serving, whether openly or closeted. Suspicion or rumor was enough to trigger an investigation, and military investigators would go so far as to snoop around someone's hometown, asking questions of family, friends, neighbors, former classmates, etc. They followed people they were investigating when they left the installation for an overnight or weekend, and at a detachment on a university campus where I spent some time, staff members would go through the dorms at night with pass keys, barging into rooms and flipping on the lights hoping to catch someone in the act.

 

DADT only said they couldn't try to dig up stuff, and so long as you didn't out yourself or get caught you'd be OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that is a bit sad for someone who's apparently the "editor in chief" of 365gay.com.  If it weren't for the title I'd be more willing to just go with it making the logical leap that they are viewing DADT as a separate and unique ban from all other bans preceding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, I understand your point, but I am glad to have some (temporary) good news. Hopefully this ruling will be upheld when it is appealed. Now, more news...

 


Feds appeal Mass. rulings against US marriage law

By The Associated Press

10.12.2010 5:53pm EDT

 

(Boston) The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday defended the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman by appealing two rulings in Massachusetts by a judge who called the law unconstitutional for denying federal benefits to gay married couples.

 

In two separate cases, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in July ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage and denies married gay couples an array of federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

 

The notice of appeal filed Tuesday did not spell out any arguments in support of the law. The appeals eventually will be heard by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

 

Read More...

Share this post


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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...