Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > AlmostSmartism > Front Page

Front Page The threads which appears on the front page. Add your comments or create your own front page threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-09-2015   #21
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
P.S. I have other social media accounts but I'm not copy/pasting from them and spamming the forum (it's really, really lame to quote yourself and then call it a "must read"). Nor do I think that setting a Disqus profile to "private" really does anything, but it's cute to try.
Not sure what your issue is here. Making those kinds of assumptions makes one the judgmental one here. And would you rather I just put forth feelings-based opinions? Or is not providing sources (typically from pro-homosexual, independent government, and medical sources) just simply a more righteous approach to take? As far as the articles and links I cite, I'm giving the reader the opportunity to investigate for themselves. And even though some sources are from what you would call Conservative, much of them are not, and the ones that are contain content and data that isn't either. Whether an article is authored or published by somebody you disagree with politically or religiously, one still has to deal with the content and data within the articles themselves. You can argue that an article full of independent medical and socio-economic data is just tooting my own horn just because I might be the author of that non-editorial or just because the publisher doesn't share the same ideology or worldview as you. And if you don't want to review the reference citations, you don't have to - but others may actually see that as a sign of intellectually laziness and evidence of a poor argument. This is ultimately an insult to the intelligence of 3rd party readers whenever you try to frame it in such a disingenuous way, but by all means, go ahead and continue to try to pin that on me.


Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Clearly child abuse.
A child that young doesn't know if they are abused or not. Of course he may appear happy for that brief, public photo (is anyone going to abuse their kids in front of paparazzi? But you don't know what goes on behind closed doors or in the child's life. It may not be all kittens and sunshine. If children don't have the right to a father and mother, do they have a right to two parents at all? Who decided 2 adults are the magic number? Does a child have a right to even one parent, and if not who will take care of it? If a child is so little that she or he doesn't understand the harm of not having a mother or father, why should we just assume it's all sunshine? There is a reason why every pro-homosexual activist same sex parenting study (Gartrell & Bos, Patterson, ACHESS, Michael Lamb) has only surveyed/questioned the same sex couples who are raising the children. It is about the experience of same-sex couples and not the children themselves. By only questioning the couples, we don’t hear from children. We don't know if the parents’ feedback will be reflected in children’s own experiences when they become adults being that they only used an age range of 0-17. And even if we ignore this fact, there are still questions regarding the length of the relationships that are being examined and the long-term impact on children. That's not even specified in these studies, so will these reported "positive results" on general health and family cohesion be the same in 5, 10 and 20 years time?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/251078014/...s-Brief#scribd

""The comfort J.M. receives is not that his missing parent is replaced by his two mothers, but that he realizes that everyone experiences pain when they have lost a parent." - Katy Faust adult child raised by two women

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/


The "mother and father don't matter" studies also ignores the ethical questions raised by creating children through donor conception and surrogacy. http://anonymousus.org/stories/?cid=2#.Ux2zAIWa_9Y

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...al-father.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/14-y...ime-goes-viral

I recall when homosexual activists didn't want the marriage argument to be about children, because not one single same sex couple can conceive a child and that having a child is not a requirement of marriage. Now, they have a new tactic and that is to manufacture children, so they can use them as bargaining power into getting the extra rights and tax exemptions etc that come with marriage.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Consenting adults should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult that they want to. Marriage started (before Christianity existed) as a patriarchal business transaction but has evolved into a social status expressing love and legal status expressing commitment, which is why "gay" people want to share it. There is no biological definition of marriage; if there were, our species' most natural state and that of our closest relatives is polygamy, so still not the "one man one woman" idea.
So marriage isn't Christian and that's why homosexual advocates love it, but marriage is patriarchal, so why do they want it? So polygamy (which was described in the Bible, not proscribed, btw) is the natural state yet monogamy is more desirable despite that? Why would persons caught up in homosexual practice (or the ancient "patriarchs" for that matter) wish to swap the "natural, biological state" of polygamy for the artificial, legal commitment and business transaction of monogamy?
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015   #22
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Yes, everyone used to have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Now everyone has the right to marry someone of the same sex, too. Everyone gained rights!

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"I think everyone should be allowed to worship as they want to, provided that their worship does not infringe on others."

"I oppose discrimination based on race, gender, sex, sexuality, and socioeconomic status."
The question has to do with public policy and legislation, and how it affects society and individuals. If discrimination is an infringement on others, then anyone who disagrees with homosexual practice is forbidden to speak or act on their belief.

So children don't have a right to a father or mother, but same sex couples have the right to legally redefine marriage for all of society? Nobody is forcing you to accept man-woman marriage as the only kind. There are no laws forbidding anybody to live as if married and draw up legal contracts to share wills, property rights, retirement funds, hospital visitation rights, etc. If same sex "marriage" were recognized by the state, it would effectively force everyone to accept that behavior or activity akin to an immutable race, via anti-discrimination laws and also through government funding or spending relevant to marriage and families. The occurrences of case like Cakes by Melissa, Memories, Pizza, Barronelle Stutzman, Kelvin Cochran, the list goes on and on...

http://barbwire.com/2014/07/07/300-e...m-homofascism/

^ yeah that's another barbwire piece. can you point out where in the content of this piece is merely an echochamber of Christian and Conservative dogma?

I have no issue with political pluralism, but the moment you force a Christian or Christians to recognize the legitimacy of a behavior, activity, or relationship that Christians do not believe is moral and/or healthy, you are violating the tenets you espouse.

You don't want relationships limited to God's design and purpose for whatever reason, that's fine, you will answer to Him at the day of judgment, not to me. But the moment a Christian baker is forced by law to treat same sex couples as man-woman marriages, then you have forced YOUR religious values and YOUR morality on them.

This is the problem with same sex "marriage." If we believe in the first amendment, then the Federal government (as well as the states under the fourteenth amendment) can only legalize marriage in relationship between the couple and the government, not between the couple and the rest of society.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Children do not have a right to their biological parents, a right to a mother, or a right to a father. We don't force single parents to marry to fill this supposed void, nor do we force biological parents to raise their own children.
Not every marriage produces children, but every child is born from a mother and a father. With single parent homes, the child is usually a product of divorce. This isn't the intended structure. Even if it was, there is still always a chance that an opposite sex partner can come into a relationship with that single parent and help raise that child. With same sex couples, the children is DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY denied motherhood that only a woman can provide or fatherhood than only a man can provide for the lifetime of that relationship. Marriage between one man and one woman helps protect children by recognizing their connection to biological parents. If biological connections are obsolete, optional, and unnecessary, children are at greater risk to be used as commodities. If you don't have a problem with that, then all is left is to pray for you.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
You are welcome to have your own ideas for your own relationship(s), but it's horrid to expect society to follow your ideas of "natural" families as the only valid family unit, of heterosexual love as the only valid form of love, and of procreation as the only valid goal of marriage. Not everyone shares your religious beliefs and they should not be forced to live under your religion's rules.

I stated my reasons why. your retort is "just because you think this or that, doesn't make it so." Anybody can say that, rather than really get into the claims made and challenge them on their own merits. Do they hold up when tested? Just because certain ideas and behaviors exist, doesn't mean they are all the same and will have the same results.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I am not a Christian, so I can have all of the enjoyable, non-procreative, unmarried, consensual sex I want to.
Thanks for sharing your personal private morals with us publicly. And that's just the problem with the left. The very definition and nature of homosexual ACTIVISM is what is making what should be a private bedroom matter, an in everybody's faces matter. For years whenever we spoke out against passing laws that publicly promoted homosexual practice as a good thing, we were/are met with the retort, "what do you care what people do in the privacy of our own bedrooms?" They themselves are the ones who are making it a public "in everybody's faces" issue, not us.


Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I also enjoy the fact that you're pointing out your own key ideas to posts; perhaps you are getting help constructing your inane arguments. My "shallow" ideas of equality are not limited to the US, nor are they restricted to women's rights and LGBT rights. I think everyone should be allowed to worship as they want to, provided that their worship does not infringe on others. I think some courts are currently biased towards women with regard to custody, alimony, and child support, and that should be corrected. I think parents (regardless of sex or biological relation to the child) should have paid family leave time for birth or adoption. I think the draft should be abolished. I think the death penalty should be abolished. I think people should be allowed to sterilize themselves for any reason. I think people should be able to divorce their spouse for any reason. I think every person should have an education, including comprehensive sex education. I think people should be paid living wages. I think everyone has the right to health care, and that single-payer systems are the best medically and economically. I think everyone should have access to contraception and should be allowed to use it. I oppose discrimination based on race, gender, sex, sexuality, and socioeconomic status.

I think you're free to have your own opinions, but I'm also free to point out how discriminatory and disjointed they are.
Throughout your responses here, you have expressed that you believe everyone should have the right to believe and do as they please and at the end of it here you write that you opposes discrimination of any kind, which if legislated (if it is) cancels out all the rights you says you believes in.

So why should government give incentives and promote these kinds of relationships? What special benefit do they offer society when compared with other kinds of relationships? You have also made lots of "I think.." and "my idea..." statements throughout your comment. What are the reasons why you hold those views and what moral authority are you appealing to? Do you believe in absolute truth or not?

Um yeah, and this too... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fjk...ature=youtu.be

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-01-2016 at 12:40 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2015   #23
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Not sure what your issue is here... go ahead and continue to try to pin that on me.
It is incredibly intellectually dishonest to use yourself as a "must read" source without disclosing your authorship. I don't give a shit whether the forum is liberal or conservative, a biased source is a biased source. If I look through your citations (and believe me, I did) and virtually all of them are from one viewpoint and self-referential (it seems there's a few Facebook groups and websites you continually plagiarize from, which reference each other). The problem with secondary sources is that they are nearly always subject to biased interpretation of the data. For example, you posted STD rates and domestic violence rates of homosexual couples as evidence that these sexualities are unsafe and that behavior should be avoided. It is equally true that people who remain virgins throughout their lives will likely not get STDs and those who never enter into a relationship will not be subject to domestic violence. Neither of those is proof that all people are meant to be alone and frigid forever, or that the benefits of relationships (the companionship, the support, the pleasure of sex) outweigh the risks. If you go into the data assuming that homosexuality is sinful and seeking scientific "proof", your bias is going to determine how you interpret the data.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
A child that young doesn't know if they are abused or not... general health and family cohesion be the same in 5, 10 and 20 years time?
It takes a village to raise a child. No one does it alone, and not even couples do it alone. Two adults is not a magic number, and many societies have communal parenting.
If we don't have evidence of the children's experiences, then your assumption that it is detrimental is just as unfounded as you claim my assumption that it is not influential.
In fact, many studies find that children raised by homosexual parents are no different than children raised by heterosexual parents: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." (Herek GM (September 2006). "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: a social science perspective" (PDF). The American Psychologist 61 (6): 607–21)

This is why the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association all support same-sex parenting.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
The "mother and father don't matter" studies...
Are you opposed to heterosexual couples using surrogates?
I don't see how this is any different (in terms of loss of biological parent connection) than single parenting, adoption, or step-parenting, all completely socially acceptable practices.
Adoption also "deliberately" deprives a child of his or her biological parents. Do you oppose adoption of non-orphaned children?

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Now, they have a new tactic and that is to manufacture children, so they can use them as bargaining power into getting the extra rights and tax exemptions etc that come with marriage.
They already have the extra rights and tax exemptions without having children. If two gay men get married, there's no requirement for them to have children to get the legal benefits of marriage. This argument is nonsensical.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
So marriage isn't Christian and that's why homosexual advocates love it, but marriage is patriarchal, so why do they want it?
Because the social idea of marriage has changed over time. It is between those persons in a relationship whether they want the monotony of monogamy or if polygamy is acceptable within their relationship. You can be married and still have sex outside of marriage, hopefully with your partner's permission. It's not my place nor yours to tell others what adult, consensual sexual practices are acceptable within their relationship.
Some couples don't want marriage, and that's okay, too. But those who wish for the legal benefits of marriage should not be discriminated against because of their genitalia.

Even within the Bible, the concept of "one man, one woman" is laughable. The old testament is full of polygamy, mistresses, and concubines. Even the new testament (Mark 12:19) stipulates that if a man dies, his brother must then marry his widow, without the exception of the brother first being unmarried, and they must strive to conceive children (definitely a proscription).


Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
The question has to do with public policy and legislation, and how it affects society and individuals. If discrimination is an infringement on others, then anyone who disagrees with homosexual practice is forbidden to speak or act on their belief.
That's just not true. The first amendment protects your right to free speech, not actions without consequence. You're allowed to disagree with gay marriage. No church is being forced to perform gay marriages.
However, society has decided that certain forms of discrimination are not acceptable. A county clerk can deny a marriage certificate because she disagrees with the relationship, but her boss can fire her for it. She does not have a right to that job. If a person's beliefs interfere with her ability to do her job, she may lose the job.
Similarly, private businesses are protected in certain ways. They are not required to produce products, but they are required to not discriminate against customers. A baker can refuse to make wedding cakes for anyone, but can't choose to not sell a cake specifically to an interracial couple. If his beliefs interfere with his ability to do his job, he might lose business or get sued for discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
So children don't have a right to a father or mother, but same sex couples have the right to legally redefine marriage for all of society?...
Same-sex couples did not redefine marriage, society as a whole did. Same sex marriage IS recognized by the states, but that does not force you to accept that behavior. It does prevent you from being an asshole to somebody because of their sexuality. Your religious beliefs do not give you the right to treat others poorly or to oppress them; you are allowed to have the belief, but your actions are not protected.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
I have no issue with political pluralism, but the moment you force a Christian or Christians to recognize the legitimacy of a behavior, activity, or relationship that Christians do not believe is moral and/or healthy, you are violating the tenets you espouse.
I don't believe that your religious beliefs (nor anyone's) give you the right to infringe upon others, to deny others rights. I stated that explicitly. Your rights end where another's begin. Muslims don't have the right to murder aspostates. Is that forcing them to recognize the legitimacy of a behavior they do not believe is moral? If I decide that my religion doesn't recognize Christians as persons, does my belief trump the rights of Christians?

Unless you live in a theocracy, your religious beliefs must coexist with the beliefs and morals of others. In this case, the belief that same-sex marriage is unacceptable was not supported by society as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
You don't want relationships limited to God's design and purpose for whatever reason, that's fine, you will answer to Him at the day of judgment, not to me. But the moment a Christian baker is forced by law to treat same sex couples as man-woman marriages, then you have forced YOUR religious values and YOUR morality on them.
I'm utterly terrified of your god. Perhaps you're frustrated that society is infringing on your Christian right to stone unbelievers to death. Surprisingly, no one's protesting that outside SCOTUS.

They are not forced to do that. They have the option of closing their bakery or not serving wedding cakes in order to not do that. They have the rights to their beliefs, bu they do not have the right to their job if they cannot perform it within legal constraints (just as they cannot put excrement in the batter or have slaves instead of employees).

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
This is the problem with same sex "marriage." If we believe in the first amendment, then the Federal government (as well as the states under the fourteenth amendment) can only legalize marriage in relationship between the couple and the government, not between the couple and the rest of society.
How is that different for heterosexual marriage? It's fine to argue that the government has no business in marriage, but it's only logically consistent to apply that to all marriages, not just same-sex ones.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Not every marriage produces children, but every child is born from a mother and a father. With single parent homes, the child is usually a product of divorce. This isn't the intended structure. Even if it was, there is still always a chance that an opposite sex partner can come into a relationship with that single parent and help raise that child. With same sex couples, the children is DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY denied motherhood that only a woman can provide or fatherhood than only a man can provide for the lifetime of that relationship. Marriage between one man and one woman helps protect children by recognizing their connection to biological parents. If biological connections are obsolete, optional, and unnecessary, children are at greater risk to be used as commodities. If you don't have a problem with that, then all is left is to pray for you.
Hey! There's a girl with three biological parents, not just a mother and a father: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28986843

Whose "intended" structure? Can't say nature, because most animal babies live without any parents, and of the remainder most are raised by only a single parent or a social group (which includes our closest relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, where one male has children by many females). Two parent child raising is really only common in birds (and even then, true monogamy is uncommon and homosexual couples with children are common).
Why is adoption of non-orphans not deliberately and intentionally depriving a child of their biological parents?
Plenty of women conceive from sperm banks. Aren't they also deliberately and intentionally depriving a child of a father?
Plenty of infertile heterosexual couples use surrogates. Is that also despicable?

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
I stated my reasons why. your retort is "just because you think this or that, doesn't make it so." Anybody can say that, rather than really get into the claims made and challenge them on their own merits. Do they hold up when tested? Just because certain ideas and behaviors exist, doesn't mean they are all the same and will have the same results.
You've basically stated that you think homosexuality is wrong, and therefore it is dangerous and not acceptable. I've been challenging your ideas on their merits and bias, providing alternative examples of similar situations that you ignore because they don't fit your narrative, and showing that, regardless of the legitimacy of your beliefs, you still don't have the right within our society to force others to live under your beliefs. Society has decided that same-sex marriage is acceptable and that same-sex couples make fine parents.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Thanks for sharing your personal private morals with us publicly. And that's just the problem with the left. The very definition and nature of homosexual ACTIVISM is what is making what should be a private bedroom matter, an in everybody's faces matter. For years whenever we spoke out against passing laws that publicly promoted homosexual practice as a good thing, we were/are met with the retort, "what do you care what people do in the privacy of our own bedrooms?" They themselves are the ones who are making it a public "in everybody's faces" issue, not us.
Both heterosexual and homosexual couples who get married are sharing their personal relationships with us publicly. Why do you consider one to be acceptable and one to not?

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Throughout your responses here, you have expressed that you believe everyone should have the right to believe and do as they please and at the end of it here you write that you opposes discrimination of any kind, which if legislated (if it is) cancels out all the rights you says you believes in.
You have a right to your belief, but no one has the right to do things that persecute others. Keeping Christians from bullying homosexuals is not persecution of Christians-- you are still allowed to have your beliefs and do not have to recognize homosexual relationships within the confines of your religion. Once you participate in society, you have to place nicely with other and live by the rules that society has decided are acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
So why should government give incentives and promote these kinds of relationships? What special benefit do they offer society when compared with other kinds of relationships? You have also made lots of "I think.." and "my idea..." statements throughout your comment. What are the reasons why you hold those views and what moral authority are you appealing to? Do you believe in absolute truth or not?
I believe there is an absolute reality, but not that we can know it because everyone's perceptions of it are different. We can know some things empirically, but morals are not empirical.
I don't think that there is a moral authority. I think that individuals' morals are all different, and that society picks the ones that most of its constituents agree on. Because there is no single authority, individuals' and societies' morality can evolve as their own ideas and populations change.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Listen to it enough, and it will literally make you stupid Funk*Sonic*7 Music 23 05-28-2007 12:47 AM
A simple love to give.. Mr Stabby Writer's Corner 9 08-17-2005 12:10 PM
My German Love Pup hai Jay Jokes & Comedy 13 10-13-2004 12:19 PM
love tynie General 29 06-04-2004 05:02 AM
Where is the love? StaticBUrnOut89 Debate & Politics 5 12-07-2003 12:53 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2006, Almost Smart