Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 12:36 PM
49 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, JonF, ringo, Stile, Taq, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (8 members, 41 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,600 Year: 9,636/19,786 Month: 2,058/2,119 Week: 94/724 Day: 26/68 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Author Topic:   A personal question
nator
Member (Idle past 340 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 193 (20493)
10-22-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
Why do we crave sex?

So our genes get passed on.

Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.


After reading this again, I realized that this is very interesting.

Gene, what is the difference between a genetic "abberation" and a genetic "variation"?

In what instances (other than homosexuality) would you consider relatively rare variations in a population to be unnatural?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Mammuthus, posted 10-23-2002 10:26 AM nator has not yet responded

    
compmage
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 123 of 193 (20494)
10-22-2002 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by John
10-22-2002 9:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

Yeah, I agree. I should have been more clear with my response. What I can't argue with is the idea that people do get to choose. The LDS is not some Leviathan that can force its will on people.


No, it isn't, as to people choosing...while I agree when it comes to adults converting to LDS (though I'm sure some convert without knowing the churches stance on some matters), what about children that are raised in the LDS church? How many of these actually evaluate the values they have been taught? How critical will they really be when too question the church is a sin? How much of a choice is it when other options are feared?

Again, I don't know about the LDS church, I'm just using it as an example because it is the church being discussed here.

------------------
compmage


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by John, posted 10-22-2002 9:13 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:38 PM compmage has responded

    
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 193 (20510)
10-22-2002 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
10-22-2002 10:36 AM


Dear Schrafinator and John

I just have a question, why is it so (you can correct me if Im wrong) that animals that arent intelligent and that dont have an own opinion or can consider their actions from a second or third perspective dont express any type of homosexual behaviour.

In my view, homosexuality is a choise and can only be made from an intelligent being, that choise dont have to coincide with the natural way but is done because of the personal pleasure.

So consider this, a childs mind isnt fully formed, but is made to learn from their surrounding, mostly their parents or relatives.
So, would it be fair to let this child be raised by parents with the same sex, did it have a choise, dit it wish to be borned without the normal figures, mom and dad?
Furthermore, this child is going to have his views of mom+mom or dad+dad heavily questioned even at an early stage by society(friends,etc)
AND, as that wasn`t enough, the cild finds out at an early age that he or she was adopted.
Is it really fair to let this child experinece all this because of his parents desicions.

And if the pair decides to not have any children and not influence the surroundings ( example: children that passes by when the pair is walking hand in hand down the street), then were should they go, should they hide their choise for the rest of their lives and always fear to get caught.

And even if all of society embraced homosexualism with open arms, there is a question.
If THAT boundary has been transgressed, what is to stop society from other unappropriate sexual behaviours, sure there is a law against some of them , but still.. the law was against homosexualism but that law doesnt exist anymore?

Laws can be changed, some of them in the same pace as moral values are neglected.

Sincerely Delshad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 10:36 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Itzpapalotl, posted 10-22-2002 3:43 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 126 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:14 AM Delshad has not yet responded

  
Itzpapalotl
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 193 (20512)
10-22-2002 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Delshad
10-22-2002 2:14 PM


"In my view, homosexuality is a choise and can only be made from an intelligent being"

Studies on many animals have shown homosexual behavior in animals is not a choice and certainly in mammals (sheep, see refs.) seems to be related to structural changes in the brain caused by environmental factors such as exposure to hormones in the womb. This would explain why it is still common despite being a trait that is unlikely to be passed on.

a comprehensive survey of homosexuality in animals can be found in: Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.
Bruce Bagemihl. St. Martin's Press; ISBN: 031225377X

this is a good review of homosexuality in sheep: "Review: brain aromatization and other factors affecting male reproductive behavior with emphasis on the sexual orientation of rams. K.L. Pinckarda, J. Stellflugb, J.A. Reskoc, C.E. Rosellic, F. Stormshaka. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 18 (2000) 8396"

"Hormone Behavior 1995 Mar;29(1):31-41 A comparison of LH secretion and brain estradiol receptors in heterosexual and homosexual rams and female sheep.Perkins A, Fitzgerald JA, Moss GE."

"Journal of Animal Science 1992 Jun;70(6):1787-94 Luteinizing hormone, testosterone, and behavioral response of male-oriented rams to estrous ewes and rams. Perkins A, Fitzgerald JA."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 2:14 PM Delshad has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 340 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 126 of 193 (20565)
10-23-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Delshad
10-22-2002 2:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Dear Schrafinator and John

I just have a question, why is it so (you can correct me if Im wrong) that animals that arent intelligent and that dont have an own opinion or can consider their actions from a second or third perspective dont express any type of homosexual behaviour.


Well, I suppose I want to hear your definition of "intelligent", but in lieu of that, there are examples of homosexual behavior in non-primate animals such as dogs, cats, cows, and dolphins.

I would say that the animals that display homosexual behavior are often have very complex social structures in which social bonds and cooperation are important for survival.

quote:
In my view, homosexuality is a choise and can only be made from an intelligent being, that choise dont have to coincide with the natural way but is done because of the personal pleasure.

In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?

Please define "natural".

quote:
So consider this, a childs mind isnt fully formed, but is made to learn from their surrounding, mostly their parents or relatives.
So, would it be fair to let this child be raised by parents with the same sex, did it have a choise, dit it wish to be borned without the normal figures, mom and dad?

Define "normal".

So, now you are condemning all "non-traditional" families. What about children raised by single parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc?

Again, what evidence do you have that being raised in a non-traditional family has any negative affect upon children at all?

quote:
Furthermore, this child is going to have his views of mom+mom or dad+dad heavily questioned even at an early stage by society(friends,etc)

Look, the children of marriages of mixed faith, mixed ethnicity, mixed social class, mixed regionality, mixed country of origin, etc., all have had to deal with greater or lesser problems from bigots and hate-mongers and ignorant people all along. I expect there will be stupid people who will give a kid a hard time because they are prejudiced against their parents, but any child born out of love and raised in a loving home will be able to handle it. And time has, and will, integrate these people until it is simply not a big deal. We see this today.

quote:
AND, as that wasn`t enough, the cild finds out at an early age that he or she was adopted.
Is it really fair to let this child experinece all this because of his parents desicions.

Many lesbians produce their own children, actually.

quote:
And if the pair decides to not have any children and not influence the surroundings ( example: children that passes by when the pair is walking hand in hand down the street), then were should they go, should they hide their choise for the rest of their lives and always fear to get caught.

That's exactly the point. They shouldn't have to hide. THEY are not hurting anyone. It is the culture which is hurting THEM.

quote:
And even if all of society embraced homosexualism with open arms, there is a question.
If THAT boundary has been transgressed, what is to stop society from other unappropriate sexual behaviours, sure there is a law against some of them , but still.. the law was against homosexualism but that law doesnt exist anymore?

You are assuming that a boundry was ever needed or appropriate in the first place.

You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.

Thankfully, most places in the US no longer have laws which govern what consenting adults do in the privacy in their own home.

quote:
Laws can be changed, some of them in the same pace as moral values are neglected.

Why is love between two people immoral just because they are of the same gender? Who does it hurt?

{Unbolded non-quote text - Adminnemooseus}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 2:14 PM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:29 PM nator has responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4646 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 127 of 193 (20568)
10-23-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by nator
10-22-2002 10:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Why do we crave sex?

So our genes get passed on.

Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.


After reading this again, I realized that this is very interesting.

Gene, what is the difference between a genetic "abberation" and a genetic "variation"?

In what instances (other than homosexuality) would you consider relatively rare variations in a population to be unnatural?


***************************
Actually by his definition of aberration, any behavior which jeapordizes the individuals ability to pass on genes is an aberration. So altruistic behavior would be an aberration and thus the basis for complex social interaction. Especially altruism i.e. saving a non related persons life at the expense of your own would then have to be an aberration.

Also, for a fluke it is amazing that homosexuality is both common among diverse species and is found at a relatively high frequency in different human cultures throughout the world (i.e. not a restricted or isolated event i.e. fluke)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 10:54 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:21 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded
 Message 134 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 4:28 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 128 of 193 (20588)
10-23-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mammuthus
10-23-2002 10:26 AM


[QUOTE][B]Actually by his definition of aberration, any behavior which jeapordizes the individuals ability to pass on genes is an aberration. So altruistic behavior would be an aberration and thus the basis for complex social interaction.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually that sounds like the kind of philosophy we could get from evolution sans religion. That *is* the evolutionary scenario, is it not, everything is about passing on genes? Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Anyway, no I think that altruism is also a natural tendency (complex social interactions are selected for) therefore it (altruism) is natural and not an aberration, even in a completely naturalistic worldview.

If Schrafinator is correct in that homosexual behavior forms a social network in bonobos, it may also be selected for. However, as I have stated in a prior post, being selected for does not necessarily make something morally correct. Lots of nasty behaviorisms in nature have been selected for, after all.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mammuthus, posted 10-23-2002 10:26 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 129 of 193 (20589)
10-23-2002 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by nator
10-23-2002 10:14 AM


[QUOTE][B]In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Good point! Yes. As long as there is the possibility of being homosexual, one *must* choose, at some level, to be heterosexual.

BTW, you opened the door for this when you insisted that people aren't 100% heterosexual.

[QUOTE][B]You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Homosexuality, as far as I can tell, is not harmful. But that does not make it moral. I think it should be allowed to be practiced in the open. I think homosexual partners should have the same legal rights as nonmarried heterosexual partners. I'm not sure about my opinion on homosexual marriages, I feel like I could argue that either way.

My problem with your reasoning is that you think that moral values are based entirely on what is and is not harmful to others. You don't recognize the possibility, that with some kind of ID and a sense of "purpose" for gender differences, it becomes more complicated than that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:14 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:13 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 130 of 193 (20590)
10-23-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by compmage
10-22-2002 11:02 AM


[QUOTE][B]No, it isn't, as to people choosing...while I agree when it comes to adults converting to LDS (though I'm sure some convert without knowing the churches stance on some matters), what about children that are raised in the LDS church? How many of these actually evaluate the values they have been taught? How critical will they really be when too question the church is a sin? How much of a choice is it when other options are feared?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I have actually wondered this about all religions, and never reached a solution. Do parents have the right to teach their children their religious values? (I can hear lots of people recoiling in horror right now). The question is absurd, but I don't *really* know the answer. However, should I rear children, I'm sure you can all guess what religion they will first be exposed to...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 11:02 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by compmage, posted 10-24-2002 2:48 AM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 131 of 193 (20591)
10-23-2002 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
10-21-2002 10:21 AM


[QUOTE][B]It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

What does not hurting anyone have to do with it still being around, from a naturalistic perspective? Cannibalism is quite popular in the animal kingdom, probably more so than homosexuality, and you can't argue it doesn't hurt "anyone".

As for social bonding, see my war analogy.

[QUOTE][B]But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I have not claimed that it did harm heteros. You're building a strawman.

[QUOTE][B]How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Because the analogy proves that being predisposed to a behavior does not necessarily justify that behavior. I still stand by the analogy.

[QUOTE][B]I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Good.

[QUOTE][B]I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I didn't get that implication from reading, or rereading it for that matter.

[QUOTE][B]I have many gay co-workers and friends.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

You are implying that my opinion is based upon a lack of experience around homosexuals. However, it is equally valid for me to claim that your opinion is based upon your being around homosexuals all the time, and therefore you have become biased.

I suggest we leave our respective environments out of it. The ideal environment is probably in between these two extremes anyway.

[QUOTE][B]If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I will allow that it is "natural" in the sense that it occurs in nature (and its presence in nature has no relevance to morality). I do not allow that it is "natural" in a different connotation, that it is a part of God's plan.

My fault for not being clear.

[QUOTE][B]Didn't God make them the way they are?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

"God made us, and made our weaknesses as well. The test is if we can overcome our weaknesses and immoralities, that is, if we can prove that our sense of reason and morality is stronger than our genes. If we can, then we are valiant and noble creatures indeed, and have proven true agency."

(From: The World According to Gene90; 2002 edition )

By the way, God also made sociopaths. I'm sure that under different circumstances you would have pointed that out by now.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:21 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:40 PM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 132 of 193 (20592)
10-23-2002 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
10-21-2002 10:37 AM


[QUOTE][B]It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually homosexuality was rampant in Greece, even outside the military. Even the word "Lesbian" is derived from the Isle of Lesbos, which was a Greek city-state. The widespread homosexuality of the Spartan army could have partly been because it was believed to form close relationships, but it probably had everything to do with the fact that those men didn't have access to their wives for years at a time.

Now tell me, if being gay is simply an expression of a person's "nature" (that people do not choose to be gay), why was it so common in Greece and not in other cultures?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:37 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:52 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 133 of 193 (20593)
10-23-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by John
10-22-2002 2:29 AM


[QUOTE][B]It seem to be a request that the side making the iconoclastic claim provide the evidence. What is interesting is the assumption that Schraf and I are making the iconoclastic claim.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I was the one that was attacked, and I am the one that is outnumbered.

The way I see it, starting up these little arguments against Mormon theology with me is often tantamount to harrassing Mormons on the streets. I feel like I was (once again) pulled into this one, and while I'll defend myself, I'm not going to allow it be any harder for me than it is. I don't think I'm the iconoclast. Some cultures in history have taken up homosexuality but traditionally the US is not one of them.

[QUOTE][B]I am interested in knowing what you consider "natural" in that case.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I've been really slippery with use of the word "natural". In this context I think it the way a person is or should be. I don't think that a predisposition to something, whether its violence or something rather innocuous like homosexuality, justifies that person deciding to be that way.

That's different from me claiming that homosexuality does not exist in nature, it does. It is also different from claiming that gay people are not predisposed to homosexuality by their biology, they are, at least most of the time.

[QUOTE][B]Look around. Sex is everywhere. Do you really think all that is about making babies?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Ultimately yes. But I've had to concede that sex plays a role in society as well. But society still exists to raise babies.

[QUOTE][B]It could be that it simply isn't harmful.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

You know that isn't true. I'm about to get very un-pc by pointing this out but where was HIV first discovered? Anytime you exchange bodily fluids you have potential for disease transmission. Homosexual sex, just like hetero sex, can kill you. And it won't make babies. It's an evolutionary hazard with no immediate evolutionary reward, unlike heterosexual sex, that sometimes produces pregnancy.

I agree it isn't harmful to heteros but it *can* be harmful to its practitioners, just like hetero sex.

[QUOTE][B]We ARE nature, Gene.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That's debatable. In fact a lot of the more extreme environmental groups will happily disagree with you. But it's not my fight.

[QUOTE][B]But do you truly believe that male/male sex or female/female sex is an crime equivalent to murder?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

No! I thought I had pointed that out. I frankly don't care, same-sex sex isn't bothering me. I'm simply arguing that it isn't "moral". And your root problem is that my moral values are more complicated than "it's not hurting anyone so it's ok" so I don't see how this debate can be settled.

[QUOTE][B]You could if you had evidence for the belief.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I didn't know there were any "evidences" for even the existance of morals. I thought they were a subjective thing. Oh well.

[QUOTE][B]Nor can the concept of natural vs. unnatural be used to condemn homosexuality.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

It is if you presuppose that the sexes were made for particular purposes by an IDer. That's that huge difference in our worldviews I keep pointing that means we won't agree.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by John, posted 10-22-2002 2:29 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by John, posted 10-23-2002 6:00 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 140 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:16 PM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 193 (20595)
10-23-2002 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mammuthus
10-23-2002 10:26 AM


Originally posted by Mammuthus:

Atually by his definition of aberration, any behavior which jeapordizes the individuals ability to pass on genes is an aberration. So altruistic behavior would be an aberration and thus the basis for complex social interaction. Especially altruism i.e. saving a non related persons life at the expense of your own would then have to be an aberration.

Also, for a fluke it is amazing that homosexuality is both common among diverse species and is found at a relatively high frequency in different human cultures throughout the world (i.e. not a restricted or isolated event i.e. fluke)

You're wasting your time. To the theists it is a sin and a choice and no amount of evidence will change their minds on this. It is bad enough, to them, when heterosexuals engage in sex other then for reproduction. They concider sexuality of any kind to be evil and dirty, even when they deny it. They will even compare it to things which are totally unrelated. I.E. pedofilia, mental illness, and cannibalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mammuthus, posted 10-23-2002 10:26 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:32 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1993 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 135 of 193 (20596)
10-23-2002 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by nos482
10-23-2002 4:28 PM


[QUOTE][B]It is bad enough, to them, when heterosexuals engage in sex other then for reproduction. They concider sexuality of any kind to be evil and dirty, even when they deny it. They will even compare it to things which are totally unrelated. I.E. pedofilia, mental illness, and cannibalism.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

There's our Strawman of the Day.

I suppose he is partly correct, some sects have claimed in the past that sex is dirty...the Shakers for one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 4:28 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:02 PM gene90 has responded

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 193 (20602)
10-23-2002 5:29 PM


My intentions in my previos posts was not to insult anyone, and I have never stated that it would be harmfull in the way you are emplying.

Perhaps I could explain my perspective with this analogy: Someone offers you a key, but you havent seen anyone before and you do not know where it goes.
(This is like the bunny, hold out your foot infront of it and it yould try to have sexual intercourse with it, because of ignorance).
If you ask the giver, where does this key go to and he says, to that door, then you will use it in the right way.
(As the man, who can learn from others that the organs have a purpose.)

However , I dont despite the same sex relationships and who am I to stop them from doing what they want.
Im simply stating that man and woman relationships is the moral norm that leads society and deviations should be accepted but not embraced.

Sincerely Delshad


Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:06 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 144 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:40 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 152 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:00 PM Delshad has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
10111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019