Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 1:04 PM
443 online now:
14174dm, Aussie, DrJones*, Faith, james121515, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Percy (Admin), Porosity, Tanypteryx (10 members, 1 guest login, 432 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,165 Year: 6,771/21,208 Month: 2,532/2,634 Week: 195/525 Day: 28/82 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
49NextFF
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7395
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 481 of 734 (802817)
03-20-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Faith
03-20-2017 1:51 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Why is this a question?

Why did you change the subject?

I asked to clarify your meaning. It's the same subject. The purchasing of a wedding cake.

The point of its being a wedding cake was that even if they were having a civil union and not a wedding all the terminology that was used referred to weddings, and I believe that is how it was presented to the bakery too.

If they'd been asked for a birthday cake although using a cake in the wedding category, there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

See? You went ahead and cleared up something for me. Thank you. I thought it best to ask for clarification rather than leaping into a counter argument with you under a misapprehension as to your position.

So if the gay people called it a wedding does that make it a problem? Or does it only explain why the bakers thought there was a problem?

Same sex marriage wasn't legal in Oregon at the time, so if the issue here is that they mistakenly thought it was for a same sex marriage when in fact it was a perfectly acceptable same sex commitment ceremony - then might it have been the polite thing to do to clarify this point before refusing service?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:51 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:34 PM Modulous has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12448
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 482 of 734 (802818)
03-20-2017 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
03-20-2017 1:29 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
quote:

What are you so worried about?

I'm not worried, I'm just countering your spin.

quote:

The law says we can't so we can't and yet you go on bleating about it

The law in some States says that you can't, but that wasn't my point. My point is that you have your idea of marriage - you're only prevented from withholding services to others, and then only in some places. You don't have to worry about people withholding services from you - and even if you did the same laws might well protect you.

quote:

Proof thatour view of marriage is not enforced against anybody is that Christian businesses get punished for refusing service to a gay wedding

Proof that "Christians" aren't doing it is that some are being punished for doing it ?
And the fact that you are complaining bitterly about that punishment hardly reassures me that it isn't something you want to be allowed.
And what about the States where gays aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws ?

quote:

Just to say it again, refusing service for a gay wedding, is not discrimination against persons as I've pointed out again and again, but specifically refusing to legitimize a particular social institution.

Obviously it IS discrimination against persons - and in support of further discrimination.

quote:

Yes, I think you do know you're fighting against God Himself.

No, I think I'm fighting against Faith, the pathetic Satanist.

quote:

Can't object without being punished. Why do you pretend that wasn't the point? Anything to obscure the truth.

You see. Pointing out that your claim is false is "obscuring the truth". It's silly lies like that that earned you the title of Faith, the pathetic Satanist.

quote:

Again, I could not care less what keeps us from objecting to gay marriage

Yes, you don't care about the truth of the matter. But you certainly care about blaming the SCOTUS decision for it. You just don't care whether what you are saying is true or not.

quote:

the only point is that we CAN'T object without being punished.

And that isn't true. You can't object in certain ways, and the ways vary from State to State. But the only one you complain about is the right for businesses to refuse services that they would offer to straight couples. You don't consider other ways, like for instance posting here to object, as you keep doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 483 of 734 (802819)
03-20-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Faith
03-20-2017 11:30 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Marriage is marriage, it is defined by God for all peoples in all times no matter what any other authority thinks about it. Gays CALL it "marriage," they refer to their "wedding," I've even been told by a gay guy about his male "wife" -- that is how THEY think about it so don't pull a semantic trick here.

You can't have it both ways, Faith. If it isn't a real marriage then people shouldn't have a problem servicing it.

If people get to have a problem servicing it, then it should be considered a real marriage.

But simultaneously saying it is not a real marriage and that people should get to have a problem servicing it looks bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 11:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 484 of 734 (802820)
03-20-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 3:35 AM


Re: related issues
quote:
Yeah, I'm not gonna read all your psycho-analysis bullshit. And correcting your misunderstandings of what I think is too laborsome.

So when you wrote what you wrote, you didn't actually write it? When you directly said what I quoted you as saying, you didn't actually mean it?

Is English not your first language? Or do you have problems reading, or something?

Of course what I wrote is what I wrote, what I meant though, is open to interpretation.

You have failed miserably at interpreting what I meant from what I wrote. It's, like, the opposite sometimes.

Either you have some severe mental disabilities or you're a liar.

And yet you have been quoted as saying that directly.

No, you've interpreted what I wrote to mean what you wanted it to mean.

If you're not retarded then that is dishonest.

But, let's assume you're walking it all back and want to start again.

Let's not.

You're simply not worth my time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 3:35 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28453
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 485 of 734 (802821)
03-20-2017 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
03-20-2017 1:29 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
Faith writes:

(I suggest that you know that we represent the true God and you have to shut HIM up because he DOES have power over you. Yet here you've pretty much shut him up with laws and yet you go on yelling about it.)

No Faith, we know that you are simply marketing a picayune little god you all made up and there is absolutely no need to shut HIM up since he has never said anything.

Faith writes:

Yes, I think you do know you're fighting against God Himself. Nobody wins that fight. You can have thousands of gay marriages, and all the Christians could disappear -- and maybe we will -- but you can't get rid of God.

No Faith no one is doing anything but pointing out that you are not marketing God but rather just another caricature, a cartoon. Such fights get won all the time. And as a Christian it is our duty to expose the false gods that you market.

Faith writes:

The usual stupid nitpick to distract from the point, which is that we CAN'T object without being punished.

Of course you can object. No one is stopping any of you from objecting. In fact it would be great if the baker had gone home and told his family, "Man I baked a cake for a gay wedding today. It was about the most wonderful cake I have ever made but I really object to doing stuff like that. And you now what else I object to? They put mayo on my hamburger even after I asked them not to."


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 486 of 734 (802822)
03-20-2017 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Percy
03-20-2017 1:41 PM


Re: Gay marriage is an attack on theocratic tyranny
Yes I claim that the Bible is the truth, about marriage and everything else, but when I said I made no such claim what I meant was that I don't claim there are no other views or that they don't have power or however that was said. That is certainly not true and I didn't claim it was.

You very clearly just declared that marriage is defined by your religious beliefs the same way across all peoples. It is not.

Well, not quite. I claim that marriage is defined by the Bible as quoted and that it governs all cultures and peoples, but I didn't claim that all cultures and peoples recognize it, because clearly they don't. They all have some law about marriage, however, that in most cases reflects the basics of God's law, man leaves family and cleaves to one wife. Remember I said "in most cases" and "reflects" because there's plenty of deviation and sin involved too. The reason marriage laws imperfectly reflect God's law is because humanity is fallen, lost our contact with God and since then have lost true memory of Him, which is why God gave us the Bible, to teach us what we lost.

I think there has been a bit of agreement with you in this thread that people shouldn't be forced to write things that are against their beliefs or philosophy. For example, were I a baker I can imagine being asked to write things on cakes that I just couldn't bring myself to write. I agree that one shouldn't be required to write just anything that anybody requests.

On the other hand, one can't refuse to sell a cake to anyone if you're a baker, just as you can't refuse to rent a room if you're a hotel, or seat a customer if you're a restaurant.

Nobody is refusing "to sell a cake" -- they can have all the cake they want for any purpose they want except a cake clearly intended for a gay wedding. As the Guardian author concluded about the bakery in his story, they did not discriminate against PEOPLE but against an idea, a concept, a belief system. We're refusing a service for a particular occasion that represents gay marriage which we are bound by God to deny, but the people themselves, the gays themselves, are welcome to anything else in the bakery.

Freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion, is a good thing. Separation of church and state works in both directions. It not only protects others from your religious beliefs, it also protects you from others' religious beliefs. Everyone is free to practice the religion of their choice, as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of others.

But they can interfere with ours, sue us etc., if we act on ours against their point of view. Theirs isn't even called a "religious" opinion yet it's protected against ours.
'
Please consider the thinking of the writer of the Guardian piece (Or Message 469). He started out defending the gays against the bakery and ended up defending the bakery's right to their religious view of gay marriage. In that case it was writing on a cake, in the American cases it's the cake itself as a symbol of a wedding we cannot accept as legitimate.

The point has been made several times now that you're not being asked to legitimize Christian gay marriage. You're being asked to stop interfering with a couple's right to be united in marriage.

I guess you can fiddle with semantics all you want, and make up all the definitions you want to try to disqualify ours, but ours is the one we act on. When asked to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding we are being asked to treat gay marriage as legitimate. All of us see it that way, funny you don't get it.

And just cuz you tried to denigrate it by calling it hyperventilating I think I'll repeat my last line here:

TRUE freedom is gone, TRUE justice is gone, TRUE diversity is gone, we are now under totalitarian leftist rule, though nobody here is willing to acknowledge it.

How true.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Percy, posted 03-20-2017 1:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Percy, posted 03-20-2017 5:13 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 487 of 734 (802823)
03-20-2017 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2017 2:08 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
You can't have it both ways, Faith. If it isn't a real marriage then people shouldn't have a problem servicing it.

If people get to have a problem servicing it, then it should be considered a real marriage.

But simultaneously saying it is not a real marriage and that people should get to have a problem servicing it looks bad.

Oh NONSENSE.

We don't want to do ANYTHING that even MAKES IT LOOK LIKE we accept gay marriage as legitimate. Good grief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2017 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2017 2:51 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 488 of 734 (802824)
03-20-2017 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Modulous
03-20-2017 1:47 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
they6 called it a marriage, they called it a wedding, that is what the bakery objected to. I don't see any place for figuring out the legalities involved.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 1:47 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 3:52 PM Faith has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 489 of 734 (802827)
03-20-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:32 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
We don't want to do ANYTHING that even MAKES IT LOOK LIKE we accept gay marriage as legitimate.

What!? Really? It's your appearance that you're worried about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 490 of 734 (802829)
03-20-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2017 2:51 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
I said "even" makes it look like...

In other words we don't want EVEN to create the impression that we are in favor of gay marriage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2017 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2017 3:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7395
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 491 of 734 (802830)
03-20-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Tangle
03-20-2017 5:33 AM


Well hopefully by now you'll have noticed that I'm not discussing individual cases?

It's been painfully obvious that you won't either give general guidelines on what the correct strategic approach is or point to specific cases that are problematic. I figured the former would be much more difficult to argue than the latter, but if you want to try you are welcome to do so.

I should note that I did at least in one post (Message 303), not addressed to you, discuss a specific case, and you commented on my post regarding that specific case in a manner that was strongly suggestive that you disagreed with the action taken that case (Message 308)

You also commented about certain actions we don't even have any evidence ever happened such as when cited the problems that likely would follow from the 'gay activists' deliberately 'targeting' certain bakers so they could be sued.

And finally, you raised and are now discussing, the Belfast Ashers case.

The more general question of whether it's right to bring these prosecutions at all is what I'm interested in discussing.

And that is what I've been trying to talk to you about. Do you have a response to MLK's retort to this general line of questioning:

quote:
{The} moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods" Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Can you show that more harm than good is likely to follow? Can you show that this probability outweighs the need for justice? Do you disagree that justice delayed {indefinitely} is justice denied? Do you have anything other than the question? Can I not turn the question back on you and ask 'Is asking the question without adding any substance doing more harm than good?'

I'm now finding it interesting that in simply bringing up the question, I'm regarded as the enemy and subjected to a torrent of abuse.

You weren't subjected to a torrent of abuse from me. You were criticised for questioning the actions but not following that up with any substance. It's not that you questioned them. It's that you Just Questioned them, and nothing more. I'm not saying you were 'JAQing off', but it looks to be a close cousin. Possibly differentiated by its intentions, but the potential for similar consequences of introducing FUD remains. And thus the questions must be themselves questioned. Are they legitimate? Do the concerns voiced in them have any substance? Etc.

While Tatchel's own contrary views, held wrong in law, are apparently valid and pefectly ok.

Because he said exactly what the issue was that concerned him, cited a specific case where that problem arose, and the unintended consequences that might follow and exactly how and why he thinks those consequences might follow.

I disagree with him, but I do agree that there are valid concerns to discuss with that case.

Presumably he was right both when he railed against the baker's refusal and when he changed his mind and supported them? Intellectually sound arguments in both directions? (Personally I think so.)

There are certainly some good arguments both ways - I think Tatchell's argument fails in that there is no protected class of people who can be identified by wanting a picture of Mohammed, or who deny the holocaust and so on.

I do think there would be a valid case if a Muslim baker that did custom cakes refused a cake with a Star of David on it, as that would be refusing on the grounds of religious identity. But I think that same Muslim should be allowed to refuse to bake 'Allah is a wanker' without discriminating against a particular group.

It's a fairly nuanced argument though, and in my opinion where there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt should go towards the protected class. The phrase you mentioned earlier was bayoneting the wounded? I think that applies aptly in that situation. It's the queer that are the wounded in this case however - and there are some people who will try to find any loophole to bayonet them with.

Did Ashers deliberately try this? I doubt it, but again - the benefit of the doubt should go to the protected class. There have been, and would be without the protections more discriminations against gays by homophobes than against homophobes by gays (where 'gay' and 'homophobe' are used loosely for brevity). Even if we concur that Ashers were the victims of an individual injustice, if the sum total effect is the reduction of injustice this might be...justifiable.

The age of consent for sex springs to mind, perhaps because of Milo's recent scandal. While one 14 year old may be in a better position to consent to have sex with a 28 year old than another 16 year old - we tend to err on the side that the 14 year old cannot consent. A pragmatic decision that may not always be right, but is right often enough to protect the maximum amount of people from exploitation.

Northern Ireland has had certain recent 'troubles', as you well know, with religious/political divisions and these laws were an attempt to stop those divisions harming others.

But it's a good corner case, Tatchell makes a decent presentation of a grey area.

But could it be that the messenger matters more than the message? I dread to mention it again, maybe a little bit of a blind spot? You know, the 'p' word?

Why would you say that? Do you think that because I identify as queer that I must necessarily give Tatchell's opinion more weight? That seems quite prejudicial of you to think, doesn't it? It isn't who Tatchell is that means I am concurring he has a point. It's how he made his point that gives it the weight I gave it. It's quite the opposite from a general 'Taking action against bakers might be a problem', but 'This is specifically one way in which taking certain actions can result in setting a precedent that is unsustainable', along with a detailed explanation.

abe:
You do in fact believe that rather prejudiced belief, as you have explicitly stated in Message 455:

quote:
They're conflicted. They use the argument that unless I agree with everything they say, I'm part of the problem. But when it's one of them saying it, it's ok.

It's the outsider/insider thing. The general assertion is that an outsider has no right to comment unless it's in support. Different rules for insiders


Besides, I had already read some of the court documents before I read Tatchell's opinion (unsurprisingly - I am interested in legal matters generally and gay rights particularly) and had seen the case the defence brought and I agreed with some of their points. I swung about for a while on my opinion with regards to it, thinking along some of the same lines as Tatchell expresses, but ultimately I agreed with the decision.

Despite your protestations, it's pefectly possible to question or disagree with some actions and still be supportive of the cause.

I haven't protested otherwise. I completely agree that it's possible to do these things. The issue I have been pushing back to you on is that while yes, you might be right, do you have any evidence to support that in the particular case of same-sex couples and wedding services that is in fact a real risk that is either manifesting or a reasonable prospect of manifesting? Do you have anything more than Betteridge style questions and weasel words like 'might'?

Merely questioning (as in questioning alone, with no argument or support of any kind to go along with it) something can harm a cause, even as you support it - see MLK's letter for his reasonable argument as to this. Without support, without any reason it is at best a useless gesture, at worst it can raise the consciousness of others to also baselessly question things eroding cultural/social support for 'the cause' that you have concerns regarding.

I approached this as if your contribution was the neutral case and tried to elicit details from you. You seemed unwilling to do it. When I pointed out that with the same amount of evidence you have given, I could turn the question back on you, you became apparently fixated on the notion that I was calling you part of the problem.

I acknowledge Tatchell raises some valid points, even as I ultimately disagree with him, - and you raise the 'question' that insinuates that this might be because of the messenger not the message evidencing some kind of prejudice on my part? This is abject silliness.

Just admit you have no argument of your own with regards particularly to the wedding cake issue, that you have no evidence of gay activists targeting bakers, that there is no more reason to suppose these actions are doing more harm than good than there is to suppose they are doing more good than harm. Or provide the evidence, provide the reasons. Is this not a reasonable request/criticism? You make the claims, you raise the questions - is it so petty of me to ask you questions in return and have some kind of expectation of a response?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 5:33 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 4:52 PM Modulous has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 492 of 734 (802832)
03-20-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Faith
03-20-2017 3:28 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
I said "even" makes it look like...

Sorry, I didn't see it over the shouting.

In other words we don't want EVEN to create the impression that we are in favor of gay marriage.

Wow. That's, just, sad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7395
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 493 of 734 (802833)
03-20-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by ringo
03-20-2017 11:46 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
What's the difference between being "required" to bake a wedding cake and being "required" to serve shellfish if you work at Red Lobster? Or being "required" to sell cotton-polyester blends if you work at Sears? The Bible puts them on the same level as homosexuality.

You did sneak in a difference here. In most cases that I've seen it is the business owners that are refusing, not merely employees.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ringo, posted 03-20-2017 11:46 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7395
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 494 of 734 (802834)
03-20-2017 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:34 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
they6 called it a marriage, they called it a wedding, that is what the bakery objected to.

OK, now I know. Can we agree that your former statement:

quote:
It's GAY MARRIAGE that's the problem because of the SCOTUS RULING that requires me to treat it as legitimate which the Bible says I cannot.

Is a red herring? It's nothing to do with the SCOTUS RULING and everything to do with what words people, not just the government. choose to use, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 3:56 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 4:08 PM Modulous has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23990
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 495 of 734 (802835)
03-20-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Modulous
03-20-2017 3:52 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
It doesn't matter what the legal basis for punishing the bakery is, the point is refusing to serve a gay wedding is subject to punishment. Any law, the SCOTUS ruling, or just the fact that the courts are disposed to punish Christians for acting on our objection to gay marriage, it's all the same in the end.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 3:52 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 4:05 PM Faith has responded
 Message 532 by ringo, posted 03-21-2017 11:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
49NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017