Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Same Sex Marriage
Thread: Same Sex Marriage [ This thread is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (10) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ]
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
NPC
posted October 31, 2003 02:01 AM

i'm stating the point, that if you take humanity in its most natrual form, homosexuality, along with the things I mentioned, are invented.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted October 31, 2003 02:05 AM
Edited By: Khaelo on 30 Oct 2003

Shadowcaster wrote:
Quote:
Why do so many children rebel against their parents, who gave them life and support them, when all they usually accomplish is getting in trouble?

Like I said before, I do not know the minds of homosexuals, but I can answer the above question. They resent the limits their parents put upon them,one of the most prominently debated issues being curfews. Perhaps homosexuals resent the limits society puts on them (or something of the sort) and rebel against those limits. They are not always right, even though they may believe so.

So, you're claiming that gays are permanently stuck in the adolescent rebellion-mode?  That they are not mature adults like everyone else?  Forgive me if I find this deeply offensive!  

Aside from being non-PC (which is, admittedly, independent from being truthful), this theory has logical issues.  Many people hide their gayness (closets, anyone?).  Some even force themselves to marry and have children.  If the rebellion theory were true, the issue of gayness would have been prevalent in our society much earlier.  The more repressive society was, the more these "resentful" individuals would be compelled to defy it.  The looser society becomes, however, the less effective homosexuality is as rebellion and so fewer people will choose it.  But, what we actually see is just the opposite.  As society loosens up its sexual repressiveness, the people feel more comfortable to express alternative sexualities.

This explaination also throws a monkey wrench into the other theory floating around, namely that gay parents will cause adopted children to become gay as well.  Under the above scenario, children adopted by gay parents will actually become straight!

My conclusion:  the resentment hypothesis is, like the curiosity hypothesis, excrement of a male bovine animal (to borrow a phrase ).  I continue to hold that the reason it is so difficult for you to explain "why homosexuals stay homosexual" is because the Choice Theory simply doesn't allow for gay people to stay gay under society's current pressure.

Celfious wrote:
Quote:
2: Well, sex as just a thing I do look down upon but Ive had alot of it and just may be interested to play but my soul quest is not for sex

Mm, I happen to think sex is holy, though not a suitable object for a soul-quest.  Then again, my opinion's kinda moot here...
Quote:
3: What I meant is. There was a large state full of bi sexuals, and the right opinion prevailed in short time.

What society are you referring to, if not ancient Greece?
Quote:
4: I know for sure, that it's not wrong to love a member of the other sex.

No one's disagreeing with you.

Quote:
its an easy thing to invent like murder, wife beating, rape, self mutilation, suicide, general homicide, got any other ideas? I could list a few more.
Trisexuality, animal cruelty, no sexuality, slavery,

If those are natrual on one hand then sure, homosexuality is too

Well, there's a mixed list!
1) As burgessia notes, no one "invented" murder.
2) Victims...Murder has an innocent victim.  Wife-beating has a victim, rape has a victim, animal cruelty has victims, slavery has victims.  To address some of the other crimes that conservatives tend to associate with homosexuality: pedophilia, adultery, and beastiality (a form of animal cruelty) have victims, too.  Homosexuality...has two people who are mutually happy with the arrangement.  It's only other people, who have nothing to do with the love affair, who get annoyed!
3)Suicide, self-mutilation, and asexuality (no sexuality) are for another thread.    In short, I believe most cases are the result of disease and therefore irrelevant here.
4)Trisexuality...???  If you're referring to transexuality (someone who feels they were born the wrong gender), that can be corrected by surgery and hormone treatments.  That, too, is a topic that could sustain its own thread.

<Edit>:
Quote:
i'm stating the point, that if you take humanity in its most natrual form, homosexuality, along with the things I mentioned, are invented.

What do you mean by "invented"?  I think I lost your point here...
<End Edit>

Shadowcaster wrote:
Quote:
Didn't homosexuality originate in Sodom and Gomorrah?

No, no more than Cain invented murder.  Someone would have come up with murder no matter what, just as someone gay would have popped up no matter what.

In the Bible debates that I've seen, the actual crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah were related to hospitality.  For a society living under harsh conditions, hospitality was a critical virtue and inhospitality was an unforgivable vice.  The residents of Sodom and/or Gomorrah were attempting to rape angels who were staying at Lot's place.  First off, this was rape to establish power-over and had nothing to do with sexual desire.  (The Vikings apparantly raped captive, both male and female, in this way as well.)  Secondly, the angels were Lot's guests and therefore entitled to the most courteous treatment.  The residents of the city were not repectful of this, hence the smiting.  Later commentators, unfamiliar with the mores of the historical time, misread the incident as a condemnation of homosexuality when it was nothing of the sort.

If you are looking for a true Biblical injunction against male homosexuality, I believe there is one in Leviticus.  There might be something in Paul's letters, too.  But don't quote me -- I'm not Christian.  

Oh, and for the record, in my above hasty comment about society "getting over" Christianity, I meant that in a legal context only.  I have no objections to people being Christian.  But religion has no place in the Legislature.  

Okay, I think that's all I have to say for now...

Edit:  Hmm, maybe not.  
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted October 31, 2003 02:48 AM

Quote:
The fact that you think your arguments are better is in and of itself an opinion.

Huh? Where did I say this?
No, what I mean is something that should be taken for granted in every discussion: The willingness to change oneīs opinions if the other sideīs arguments are better. Whatīs the point of arguing with a person whose attitude is:"Lalalalala, you can say what you want, this is my opinion and I wonīt change it, no matter what."
With this attitude by the way, we would still be living in caves and knocking each othersī heads with big tree-sticks.


____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shadowcaster
Shadowcaster


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
posted October 31, 2003 03:24 AM

To Khaelo:
Yes, Paul does condemn homosexuality in Romans, I didn't know about Leviticus though, I've always thought that book would be a rather boring read. Guess I was wrong. I'll check it out.

And you're right, I can find no way to definitively label homosexuality as a choice. All I can do is offer up theories, and every time they are proven wrong, I learn something. I benefit either way.

To Lews_Therin

Quote:

Huh? Where did I say this?
No, what I mean is something that should be taken for granted in every discussion: The willingness to change oneīs opinions if the other sideīs arguments are better. Whatīs the point of arguing with a person whose attitude is:"Lalalalala, you can say what you want, this is my opinion and I wonīt change it, no matter what."
With this attitude by the way, we would still be living in caves and knocking each othersī heads with big tree-sticks.



Point taken. I simply misunderstood you. I agree with this; people should never completely shut out others ideas, no matter how opposed to that viewpoint they are. Besides, it is more fun to try and disprove people anyway.
____________
>_>

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted October 31, 2003 03:27 AM
Edited By: Lews_Therin on 30 Oct 2003

Quote:
Ok anyone tell me a reason why hetro siders should re think their opinion.
Hetero siders? Well, I am a hetero sider, strictly heterosexual with girlfriend and all that stuff . Reasons why homophobes should rethink their opinions ... well, first of all I recommend reading Bortīs and Peacemakerīs contributions to this thread. And the short one where I informed you about what modern empirical science says on this subject.

Quote:
Here iss a couple why you should rethink yours.
1: What brings life is man and woman

Yes, and due to the fact that our planet is overpopulated, this means we need more gays!
Quote:
2: no matter how hard you try, you cant prove that man & woman is unnatrual but its easy to think homosexual is not natrual

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality appear in nature, so I suppose that makes both natural. Did you know that gay dolphins are quite a common sight, by the way?
Quote:
3: There was an entire community 1nce that thought Bi is ok. And they were over powered by the RIGHT opinions.

Yes, my home country has once been overpowered by the RIGHT opinions, too.
Quote:
4: If you cant figure out if homosexual is right or wrong, then you should just go with what you know is right (hetro)

But how do I know that hetero is right? According to your argument 1), hetero is the main reason for poverty and starvation in the world.
Unfortunately, sexual orientation has very little to do with choice. Or do you feel yourself attracted to men and women likewise?
Quote:
5: The very years (BC, and AD) are from a religion that says "thou shall never lay with another man" visa versa..

The same religion which claims that two of every vertebrate species have been living on a ship for more than a year, without eating each other or suffocating in their own dung? Iīd recommend you to base your opinions on more reliable sources.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
bort
bort


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
posted October 31, 2003 03:30 AM

Question to the "what is natural" school of thought.  What does "natural" have to do with right and wrong?  Isn't the whole point of morality and law to not be governed by the law of the jungle which is, essentially, the bigger, stronger one eats/rapes the smallwer, weaker ones?
____________
Drive by posting.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
NPC
posted October 31, 2003 04:06 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 30 Oct 2003

Well I can end with this.

If we die and go to an afterlife, you'll probably see the error of your thinking
If we die and there is no afterlife, who cares?

I wouldnt be suprised if I'm wrong, but I'm alot more ready and think that I will see for sure that homosexuality is wrong (if theres an afterlife). Just cuz someones wrong dosnt mean they are bad..

im probably not done, I'm just not willing to do quote argues with everyone right now.

I guess a good question is "What do you want us to think?"
Direct train of thought please, cuz I still dont know besides for us to think gay marrige is ok.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted October 31, 2003 05:14 AM
Edited By: Lews_Therin on 31 Oct 2003

Quote:
If we die and go to an afterlife, you'll probably see the error of your thinking


Uhm, no. First of all, there are ten thousands of gods that are or have been believed in. Hereīs just a short lists of greek gods from A to D:

Acidalia, Aello, Aesculapius, Agathe, Agdistis, Ageleia, Aglauros, Agne, Agoraia, Agreia, Agreie, Agreiphontes, Agreus, Agrios, Agrotera, Aguieus, Aidoneus, Aigiokhos, Aigletes, Aigobolos, Ainia,Ainippe, Aithuia , Akesios, Akraia, Aktaios, Alalkomene, Alasiotas, Alcibie, Alcinoe, Alcippe, Alcis,Alea, Alexikakos, Aligena, Aliterios, Alkaia, Amaltheia, Ambidexter, Ambologera, Amynomene,Anaduomene, Anaea, Anax, Anaxilea, Androdameia,Andromache, Andromeda, Androphonos, Anosia, Antandre,Antania, Antheus, Anthroporraistes, Antianara, Antianeira, Antibrote, Antimache, Antimachos, Antiope,Antiopeia, Aoide, Apatouria, Aphneius, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apotropaios, Areia, Areia, Areion, Areopagite, Ares, Areto, Areximacha,Argus, Aridnus,Aristaios, Aristomache, Arkhegetes, Arktos, Arretos, Arsenothelys, Artemis, Asclepius, Asklepios, Aspheleios, Asteria, Astraeos , Athene, Auxites, Avaris, Axios, Axios Tauros,Bakcheios, Bakchos, Basileus, Basilis, Bassareus, Bauros, Boophis, Boreas , Botryophoros, Boukeros, Boulaia, Boulaios, Bremusa,Bromios, Byblis,Bythios, Caliope, Cedreatis, Celaneo, centaur, Cerberus, Charidotes, Charybdis, Chimera, Chloe, Chloris , Choreutes, Choroplekes, Chthonios, Clete, Clio, clotho,Clyemne, cockatrice, Crataeis, Custos, Cybebe, Cybele, Cyclops, Daphnaia, Daphnephoros, Deianeira, Deinomache, Delia, Delios, Delphic, Delphinios, Demeter, Dendrites, Derimacheia,Derinoe, Despoina, Dikerotes, Dimeter, Dimorphos, Dindymene, Dioktoros, Dionysos, Discordia, Dissotokos, Dithyrambos, Doris, Dryope

You see, chance of a christian hell is rather slim.

And maybe youīll go to some native American godīs afterlife plane, who hates homophobes and spends thousands of years chewing on their souls !?!
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
NPC
posted October 31, 2003 05:20 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 31 Oct 2003

we'll see lews.. we'll see.

You dont know, i dont know. So what do you know? What are you trying to tell me?

I'm telling you, it's most natrual to be and say "hetro" is correct. Im telling you, the provided evidence would, in the court of natrual law by humans, would lead to the conclusion that "Hetrosexualism is most  correct"

So what can you say to me that would make me think wrong?
I think nothing because what I've said is correct. Hetro, is more correct! and homosexuality will remain contriversial until we die and mabey then we wont even know

And most of those greek gods are worthless accept to humans belifes. The amount of other gods makes christianity nothing more or less possible! It either is, or is not. 50/50

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shadowcaster
Shadowcaster


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
posted October 31, 2003 05:29 AM

How many of those gods are still considered relevant gods to believe in today? Not many, it seems, because most have been disproven or dismissed as downright trivial. There are only a handful of widely accepted and believed gods in today's society.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted October 31, 2003 05:37 AM

Shadowcaster:
Thunder put up a bunch of Biblical references way back on page 4, so that might save you some trouble.  

Bort:
I think part of the problem is a rather slippery definition of "natural" that's running around this thread.

If one takes "natural" to mean "genetic predisposition" (my normal stance in this sort of situation), it's morally neutral.  However, I think it relates to what Shadowcaster identified as the key question of choice.

If one takes "natural" to mean "what feels right," one must contend with the many different things that "feel right" to different people.  I've been accepting this definition as the expression of genetic predisposition, although nurture has a much bigger role in what people feel.

If one take "natural" to mean "what nature intended" (for the species? for the individual?), then we're into the law of the jungle, not to mention trying to read Nature's mind.    To take "natural" as a moral guide implies trust in Nature as a moral being.  Her Survivial of the Fittest rule may work for some systems of morality (LeVey's Satanism?), but not the ones expressed here (mostly Christianity and secular humanism, that I see).

What form of "natural" are people using?

Sorry if this is completely off your point.  I'm just thinking out loud here.  

====
Afterlife, gods, ect:
That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
If you haven't had experience with my gods, how can you call them worthless or trivial?

If you want to discuss gods, start a new thread for them.

And on that note, I'm getting offline now, because tomorrow is a holy day and I have to get my homework done before midnight!  Uh oh...
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
NPC
posted October 31, 2003 05:57 AM

The slippery nature word =|

I developed a strange understanding of "natrual" while writing an essay. That I recieved a D in, because the teacher dosnt understand.

I didn't explain it to him either, especialy not like this:  

If you were god, and you were looking down on a table (His table to us is what we call universe)

On the table you put agriculture, water, dress the skies & ground, create elements, and atoms, and physical beings. (Humans and animals)

And in humans you put the special abilities of four hands (2 to walk 2 to use fingers accurately). You put extra communication abilities. And in them you add the breath of life & understanding..

It is human nature, that these humans on the table (we use the word humans I wonder what they would use), discover leadership, agriculture, langauge, ect.. It is natrual that we physicaly do work, and physicaly try to make things most eloquent and luxurious.

It's NATure,, that the humans on this table, say that man and woman are more compatible for eternity in their own eternal universe. Because of to spend eternity with the same is not likely. And to replace the mortality with 2 like beings, is to in a sense throw away what you want for eternity.

At this same time i realize that men and womans souls might not be different things. But on this earth its seperated for what could very well be a reason.

I hope within this, you have precieved the devine definition of natrual. You ca say, that its natrual humans do unnatrual things. And I cant say whats surely right or wrong. ONly what seems most correct for us.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted October 31, 2003 06:42 AM

Quote:
How many of those gods are still considered relevant gods to believe in today? Not many, it seems, because most have been disproven or dismissed as downright trivial. There are only a handful of widely accepted and believed gods in today's society.


Disproven? No. The christian god has been "disproven" insofar that in 2000 years, noone could solve the problem of Theodizee - an almighty, all-knowing and all-benevolent god gouverning this world of mass suffering, of mass starvation, and of Auschwitz.
Those gods did not dwindle because they were disproven, they were no more or less rational than yours. The reason is rather that their believers were mass murdered and converted by force, by the hands of your Christian forefathers.

Sorry for being off-topic here, if you like to further discuss the subject of the last few postings, it might be better to start a new thread. God was brought into this discussion when Celfious ran out of wordly arguments ... maybe someone of the homophobe faction can help him out
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
NPC
posted October 31, 2003 07:11 AM
Edited By: Celfious on 31 Oct 2003

Quote:
celfious ran out of wordly arguments
Lews, for 1 you said for yourself you saw no arguments.

For the most
2:
God was brought up many times. Lews, not when you aparently think it was.

After you go to the north and find the bronze palace (the room for zues and his female wife is the highest room) tell me and we can say you proved a point by bringing up ancient greek gods. (funny they used the term bronze it was one of the few pure metals they knew)

And you just want to bounce me off with your attacks, lets see what happens to your mind next time you try to find legitimate reasons.

I presume you would normaly get childish right now, but lets here a worthy account of words from you before or during the time you start bouncing me with no legitimate reason & this isnt a blood session either. So make a point & dont quiver up attacking me!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vadskye91
Vadskye91


Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
posted October 31, 2003 12:43 PM

every1 makes posts of about 7 lines plus!  *claps*

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted October 31, 2003 05:00 PM

Quote:
Quote:
And maybe youīll go to some native American godīs afterlife plane, who hates homophobes and spends thousands of years chewing on their souls !?!


Lews, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying here, but if it's what I think it is, I just want to make something known.  In the American Indian Tribes  I am familiar with, homosexuality is both present and accepted (and has historically been so).  Many tribes actually have names / labels for individuals who are attracted to the same sex, and society has roles for them that are specific.  Such individuals are even considered somewhat holy in some Tribes.

And I don't know of anybody (Indians) who believes some crazy god is going to chew your soul when you die.  But maybe you know something I don't know.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted October 31, 2003 05:17 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 31 Oct 2003

(I can't figure out how to do multiple quotes in one post, so I'm doing this one separately.)

Quote:
It is human nature, that these humans on the table (we use the word humans I wonder what they would use), discover leadership, agriculture, langauge, ect.. It is natrual that we physicaly do work, and physicaly try to make things most eloquent and luxurious.


"Human nature" is a dangerous thing to hang one's hat on.  It's a little like Manifest Destiny.  To assume that "human nature" implies a singe cultural trajectory (i.e. western progress) is to be completely blind to all tribal existence.  It is precisely this thinking that has led western society to legitimize colonialization and genocide that has led to the extinction of most indigenous tribals all over the world.

For tribals, "human nature" means an utterly divergent ethic and mindset.  It is NOT "human nature" (in the Tribal Mind) to manipluate and rape the doo doo out of one's environment in order to achieve what the dominant society thinks of as "progess" in order to create "comfort" and "convenience."  Generally speaking, Tribal life is a balanced, spiritually-centered subsistence existence that leads its members to find great happiness and contentment without all that external nonsense to rely on.  

In fact, I tend to think of the dominant society's notion of "progress" as somewhat of a treadmill with a great big TV set in front of it, that has its constituency thinking they are moving "forward" toward the goal of "happiness"  when all the culture is doing is creating some exterior goal that can never really be achieved.  The idea that one's life will somehow be "improved" by changing things outside onesself is an illusion created mostly by individuals in control of marketing tools.  The mindest is so ingrainged in all of us that we cannot see that we never reach the end of the treadmill.

So I guess my point is, "human nature" is a relative concept depending on where you're from.  If you want to look to human nature, look to ALL of it or you will be excluding important viewpoints.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Delfontes
Delfontes


Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
posted October 31, 2003 05:26 PM
Edited By: Delfontes on 31 Oct 2003

**off topic, answer to question**

Simple, just do it manually.

What I do is copy/paste their entire post.

Then just do [ quote ] *text* [ /quote ] .

Do that without the spaces, around every paragraph you want quoted.

Ex:

[ quote ] Their statement [ /quote ]
Your rebuttal
[ quote ] more of their statement [ /quote ]
Your argument

Would be:

Quote:
Their statement

Your rebuttal
Quote:
more of their statement

Your argument



____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
NPC
posted October 31, 2003 10:11 PM
Edited By: Celfious on 31 Oct 2003

Peacemaker I didnt have to see more viewpoints after what you said cuz I'm not leaving out many viewpoints.
I'm looking from the center.

and I'm still for
taking all factors available and creating worldly progression theories into the most likely correct interpretations of what should, and should not be.

Just because indians did it, dosnt meant they are right or that we are wrong.

I'm for the homosexuals but against their message.
do what you want but leave kids out of it, and our message should be heard not yours.

The consentual thing between 2 homosexuals=do whatever you want
But the world dosnt have to consent to your relasionships being aok.
and frankly I dont think we should.


____________
go drunk, you are home

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lews_Therin
Lews_Therin


Promising
Famous Hero
posted November 01, 2003 04:41 AM

Celfious, no, saying that someone is bouncing on you is not an argument either.


Hello Peacemaker,

Iīd like to apologize if you felt offended about my posting. I very much respect native American cultures and their ethics (though I must admit that I know rather little about them). And I should not have put them into that context. I do not think either that such an inhuman idea as the Christian hell has existed among native American tribes.

Still I do find the idea funny, that someone discriminates against a minority group of people for all of his life, with no rational reasons and just because some "holy" book tells him so - and afterwards finds out that he had been quite misinformed.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (10) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1440 seconds