Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 332
Reputation: 108.9
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"...there are few things as sad as a 50-something gay guy trying to pick up some fresh 14-year-old."
Bugs, there are few thing as sad as any 50 - something guy trying to pick up any 14 year old. Gender has nothing to do with that.

"...they are taught that previous generations of men were racist homophobes who treated their women like sex objects."
Do you actually believe that they were't racist homophobes who treated their women like sex objects? Breaking news, we still are. The schools are trying to change that. Don't you believe we should be trying to treat one another with respect?
As to your study, just for the sake of argument, why does it matter if it is just a phase. You said most people go through it so why not ensure they are not punished for it by their parents and peers. I have serious doubts about this study but it doesn't matter one way or the other. People are people and everyone must be treated with respect.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6018
Reputation: 290.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gender has nothing to do with it? If a 50-year-old hetero tries to pick up a 14-year-old girl, he's risking jail. Does gender have anything to do with that?

Yes it does.

Do I actually believe the men we're talking about were NOT racist homophobes to whom their wives were sex objects?

I know very well what the were like. They stood up when a woman came into the room. They stood at the dining room table until the hostess was seated. They courted 20-year-old virgins and saw them as Dresden dolls. They were a zillion times more romantic than the current ...

Those guys took on the whole financial responsibility for a family when it was normal to have three, four, or five kids. There was no "pill". Single children were seen as being deprived.

You can try to demonize those people all you want, but they grew up in a depression, punched over their weight in a world war, and have been called the "greatest generation" by people who write books.

There is a lot of re-writing of the past going on here. Homophobes? It wasn't that homosexuality wasn't tolerated, it simply was kept in the shadows. If it stayed in the shadows, it was OK, but -- leave the kids alone! That was the feeling -- so they tried to keep the T-r00m scene (in public bathrooms) under control -- they still do. They discouraged public sex in parks or public places for both sexes. A big reason -- there were so many kids around most of those areas.

In those days, parents took their kids with them to places. Parks had attractions, like zoos, and athletic fields as well as gardens. There were a lot fewer cars. The 8-hour day had yet to be established -- men commonly worked at labouring jobs for ten, and twelve hours a day. My first summer job was 54 hours -- I had to come in for a half day on Saturday on top of 10 hour days.

You forget, the baby-boom came out of people who had long delayed their families because of economic conditions. They had no birth control, and penicillin was a new thing. You project these foolish values on a time when scarcity was a real thing, and make judgements that imply your own superiority. Sorry, you're only showing your ignornance.

As for racist, Ontario was the first place under British control to specifically outlaw slavery. That was Simcoe. The social innovation of Canada is it allowed communities to form on the basis of cooperation. They couldn't make things work if churches handled educaton, for example, so they dropped all the denominatioal crap, and ran a public school system. It was an innovation at the time.

They settlers came with European ideas of how to do things -- but they quickly had to cooperate with cultural outsiders, and even the British imperial types were outsiders to them. They became pragmatists. Later immigrants came to escape Europe, and they found out that they were left alone, cigarettes were cheap, they could buy a house, their kids could get an education ... and it was better than they could do anywhere else. A lot of those people had been shooting at Canadians five, six, seven years earlier.

And Italians and Poles and Ukranians and Sihks and Latvians all found they could make it work for them.

Everything you say is just wrong. Canada has never been as racist as it is now. You are an 'improvement' on them only because you don't have to deal with what they had to deal with -- and you likely don't do anything that would affect your own life chances.

Sorry, I am not going to get in line to condemn these people. You can have that pleasure all to yourself.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1219
Reputation: 120.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
I'm just amazed that anyone cares about other people's sexual orientation.

Even worse, they care AND they dont have the first clue what they are talking about. You see it because they always go to the sex acts as proof or something.

Do we ever talk about hetero's and their sex acts? Nope
Quote:

After ten years of being my Department's liaison with the University's Pride Centre and being on the University Provost's Advisory Committee on LGBTQ issues,

Ahh.. this is good to know. Im glad to see someone who is entrenched be able to speak from authority.
Quote:

I have to call the article quoted by Bugs as specious.

Let me help you here .

The article is a load of shit. Bugs knows it but would never admit it . His ridicu
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 332
Reputation: 108.9
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote: "There is a lot of re-writing of the past going on here. Homophobes? It wasn't that homosexuality wasn't tolerated, it simply was kept in the shadows. If it stayed in the shadows, it was OK..."
Actually it was illegal until PM Pearson's Justice Minister, Trudeau brought in an omnibus bill the legalized it.
Look at Allan Turing's experience.

"I know very well what the were like. They stood up when a woman came into the room. They stood at the dining room table until the hostess was seated. They courted 20-year-old virgins and saw them as Dresden dolls."

That is a lovely fantasy. It reflects my own childhood. However, it was not universal. There was an enormous social pressure on that ideal but I doubt there were many virgins in my high school. I know of half a dozen who "went away" in my Jr. High School and the Kootenays were not exactly a den of iniquity.
Your description of society was all very nice for men. What you don't mention is how the men went whoring so they wouldn't offend their dresden dolls. In the 1960's, my father went on a trade mission to Europe. When they arrived in Amsterdam, the Cabinet Minister leading the mission wanted to go straight to the red light district.

What about all those women who were pressured not to get a post-secondary education, or if they did, it was only for nursing or teaching. If they did take engineering, or any of the hard sciences, and made a real accomplishment, credit went to a man. Look at the women who crunched the numbers at NASA or the woman who developed the cobalt bomb to treat cancer (at the U of S :D ). They were denied credit.
Look at all the illegal abortions and the women who died as a result before the pill.

I am not demonizing them. That was the way society was. But society has changed.
The school boards are trying to educate their students to respect people and to be safe if they should engage in sexual activity. There is no compelling anyone to be gay. I spent 25 years dealing with male students who were borderline psychopaths when it came to date rape. So why do you have a problem with trying to change that? It should be the parents' job but they sure aren't doing it. In fact, a lot of fathers encourage it. If it isn't up to the schools, who should be doing it?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1219
Reputation: 120.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
I'm just amazed that anyone cares about other people's sexual orientation.

Even worse, they care AND they dont have the first clue what they are talking about. You see it because they always go to the sex acts as proof or something.

Do we ever talk about hetero's and their sex acts? Nope
Quote:

After ten years of being my Department's liaison with the University's Pride Centre and being on the University Provost's Advisory Committee on LGBTQ issues,

Ahh.. this is good to know. Im glad to see someone who is entrenched be able to speak from authority.
Quote:

I have to call the article quoted by Bugs as specious.

Let me help you here .

The article is a load of shit. Bugs knows it but would never admit it . His ridiculous claims that he spent time embedded in the gay lifestyle is so laughable to be embarassing.
Had he done what he professes he would have met lots of wondeful people , people who due to the climate at the time were likely confused marginalized but otherwise good people. One may originally experience discomfort being in a gay lifestyel scenario, but that is easily overcome... or you leave and never come back.

But thats not what happened if we are to believe what is written. He hung around with , snorting coke with screwed up people having fun but deeply unhappy people , people he hung around all the time with and he just knew were fighting their inner heterosexuality (WTF does that mean).

The rhetoric doesnt fit the attempted narrative .
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6018
Reputation: 290.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Bugs wrote: "There is a lot of re-writing of the past going on here. Homophobes? It wasn't that homosexuality wasn't tolerated, it simply was kept in the shadows. If it stayed in the shadows, it was OK..."
Actually it was illegal until PM Pearson's Justice Minister, Trudeau brought in an omnibus bill the legalized it.
Look at Allan Turing's experience.


Bugs sez: Yeah, it was illegal, but there were almost no arrests. Surely one of the funniest chapters in Canadian 'civil rights' cases is when they tried to use the courts to overturn the olde law. He couldn't get arrested! And that was the other side of this coin. There were almost no arrests. Like with drugs, there was an implicit deal. It was different in the civil service because it was well known that homosexuals were susceptible to blackmail, but they were tolerated, sub rosa, even in foreign affairs.

You are trying to suggest a persecution. That isn't fair. There was a time when those laws reflected public opinion. They gave police a power that they rarely used because homosexuals kept out of the sight of c'hildren. But not in our lifetimes.

Quote:
"I know very well what the were like. They stood up when a woman came into the room. They stood at the dining room table until the hostess was seated. They courted 20-year-old virgins and saw them as Dresden dolls."

That is a lovely fantasy. It reflects my own childhood. However, it was not universal. There was an enormous social pressure on that ideal but I doubt there were many virgins in my high school. I know of half a dozen who "went away" in my Jr. High School and the Kootenays were not exactly a den of iniquity.


Bugs sez: No it was not a fantasy, as you tacitly admit. I wasn't universal, you carp. Oh dear. It was the prevailing cultural pattern. Yes, there were "shotgun weddings" but only because there was a baby on the way. What's the better way to handle it? More importantly, what do we do today that works as well?

Quote:
Your description of society was all very nice for men. What you don't mention is how the men went whoring so they wouldn't offend their dresden dolls. In the 1960's, my father went on a trade mission to Europe. When they arrived in Amsterdam, the Cabinet Minister leading the mission wanted to go straight to the red light district.

What about all those women who were pressured not to get a post-secondary education, or if they did, it was only for nursing or teaching. If they did take engineering, or any of the hard sciences, and made a real accomplishment, credit went to a man. Look at the women who crunched the numbers at NASA or the woman who developed the cobalt bomb to treat cancer (at the U of S :D ). They were denied credit.
Look at all the illegal abortions and the women who died as a result before the pill.


Bugs sez: This is such a gross exaggeration. queenmandy might as well use the term "patriarchy'. It was definitely a different system, and all systems have down-sides. queenmandy brings up some of the valid down-side to the old arrangements. The shotgun weddings. The system worked on the assumption that the family was the main backup for individuals, not the state. And so, the two families would get together (often) and help the young people get their start. There were instances of cruelty, no doubt, and guilt and shame were involved -- but is it any different today.

Is abortion the only enlightened way?

But when he gets into the patriarchy, he is desperate. He can't find any evidence, on his own, that was really so bad. He has to fall back on the slogans of feminist activists.

For example, queenmandy maintains that women were discouraged from getting an education. I think this is totally without evidence, other than at anecdotal levels. Look at the schools that were built in this country in the 1930ies, up to the 1960ies, and you see what a lie it is. Central Tech in Toronto looks like a college at Cambridge, all stonework and with turrets and the like. They had the best in trades training. And teaching was one of the areas where women dominated. Look at the school where teachers were taught -- it looks as big a the legislature!

https://www.blogto.com/city/2017/03/history-schools-toronto/

In fact, the first female doctor was granted a license in 1880, and the first female lawyer was in 1897. They weren't banned, they were married and having lots of kids, certainly by today's standards.

People were poorer then. The brightest son may have been the first to go to college, but the daughter was the first to go to the dentist.

The problem queenmandy and the other guy (TC) have is they look on a life raising a family as a bad outcome, a failure. Who wouldn't rather have a career than be stuck at home? Sadly, most jobs aren't that wonderful. For most people, raising a loving family in a good community has its rewards. Or at least it used to. (Personally, I think that kind of family life has been ruined for the mainstream, replaced by the welfare state, which is the other option.)

What can I say except to remind them that half the population has a two digit IQ. Why is a social worker and an indebted government a better solution than leaving it to families?

[quote}I am not demonizing them. That was the way society was. But society has changed.
The school boards are trying to educate their students to respect people and to be safe if they should engage in sexual activity. There is no compelling anyone to be gay. I spent 25 years dealing with male students who were borderline psychopaths when it came to date rape. So why do you have a problem with trying to change that? It should be the parents' job but they sure aren't doing it. In fact, a lot of fathers encourage it. If it isn't up to the schools, who should be doing it?[/quote]

This is just wrong. What are you doing if not demonizing when you characterize whole generations of men as racist homophobic brutes? You do it because your own argument is so weak. Are present arrangements more productive of human excellence and personal fulfillment than the previous form of social organization? It's a hard case to make. Just so you know, polls indicate women are becoming less happy with every decade since the 1960es.

As for your dismissal of what's happening in schools, you simply don't understand. Many modern kids are almost never unsupervised. They have never made their own play. A lot of them were in daycare from the minute they were acceptable. So, they are passive. But they are in a social conditioning device, a set of fixed social relationships into which they must fit. And there is a right and wrong way for people to interact, depending on your sex, sexual preference, and race. Sorry, but that's called a social structure. And the social structure is where the manipulation is.

Let me give you an example. In the 1950ies Mutzaha Sherif managed to use group dynamics to create certain effects on the participants. He took two groups of boys brought them to a competitive high point, and then took them back to cooperating -- all without the participants knowing what was happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGNxRGgBwM

This is how it works. Schools literally create (1) behaviour, and (2) justifications for behaviour. Those things come to exist in a school as objective realities, the way things are. And they are tinkering with these things to get desired effects. Students are less being educated than they are being engineered to fit in a new society that does not yet exist! Think about that! And this is not science fiction.

Remember, the thing most important to teenagers is their place in their peer group.

The schools are not ridding the world or prejudice and ignorance. They are creating social scapegoats and increasing tensions between the sexes and races. Amongst other things. And standards of literacy and numeracy decline.

I don't expect queenmandy to believe it, but I ask you -- when in your lifetime has the social world been so messed up and bigotted about gender? About race? These factors control access to the best jobs in the country, that's how bad it is. If I said that all black men are potential rapists, you might get the point. How can you miss it if the target is white men?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 332
Reputation: 108.9
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is clear we will not agree. I think you (Bugs) and I have a bit in common. I would like to live in a rosy fantastical society. I am a militant Monarchist. I think Canada should do away with the position of Prime Minister and go back to direct rule. The high point in our history was when Charles II was our King.
I think I am headed for disappointment. I think we both are.
Fun debate, though. Thanks.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1219
Reputation: 120.6
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Gender has nothing to do with it? If a 50-year-old hetero tries to pick up a 14-year-old girl, he's risking jail.

Hes risking jail if he picks up a 14 yr old male. So?

Quote:


Do I actually believe the men we're talking about were NOT racist homophobes to whom their wives were sex objects?

So confusing and such scatterebrained thoughts.
Racist homphobes?

Which race are they also being homophobic against? Sex isnt a race.... novel thought huh?
Quote:

I know very well what the were like. They stood up when a woman came into the room. They stood at the dining room table until the hostess was seated. They courted 20-year-old virgins and saw them as Dresden dolls. They were a zillion times more romantic than the current ...

And wife beatings were high, rapes were unreported if reported at all. Abuse of family members/close family contacts occured with impunity, drunnk driving was all the rage .... oh yeah , fun times Ha ha.

You have zero historical perspective and make shit up time and time again. <golf clap> I suppose you now know what a ham and egger is? Good, keep it up.
Quote:

Those guys took on the whole financial responsibility for a family when it was normal to have three, four, or five kids. There was no "pill". Single children were seen as being deprived.

....and could abandon all of them with nary a worry. No one, not a court, not a social worker could make things different.
Ahhh, the good old days ! Fun times...Ha Ha.
Quote:


There is a lot of re-writing of the past going on here. Homophobes? It wasn't that homosexuality wasn't tolerated, it simply was kept in the shadows. If it stayed in the shadows, it was OK, but -- leave the kids alone! That was the feeling -- so they tried to keep the T-r00m scene (in public bathrooms) under control -- they still do. They discouraged public sex in parks or public places for both sexes. A big reason -- there were so many kids around most of those areas.


Speaking of " a lot of re-writing of the past going on" it would seem you, and only you, seems to engage in this.

Look we can surmise that education in your small town was virtually non-existent or relegated to you eating glue all day, but those of us with an education or interest in things prior know, without fail 100% know that shite you posted is laughably false.

You dont know about Operation Soap, Toronto gay bath raids do you ?
You dont know about the Stonewall Riots do you?

Well, there ya go. Learn about those, and then you can edit your post since you will have some....albeit small...knowledge of the truth.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6018
Reputation: 290.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only TC could report on unreported wife-beatings from sixty years ago.

He's making it up. In fact, there were far fewer sexual assaults in those days, and probably far fewer violent incidents in the home. (By the way, the best data shows that about 40% if the victims of domestic violence are men.) Also, all the other sex crimes that occur inside the home have skyrocketed since 'the welfare state came in.

The stats are clear. One-parent families (overwhelmingly female led) fail their children. A father in the house improves kids academic performance, results in less association with crime, drug addiction, and all the other pathologies, and reduces child abuse and neglect.

The Welfare State fails compared to having as many responsible fathers in their own homes as possible.

What TC neglects to mention is that a lot of family life -- before the welfare state -- was enforced by community opinion more than the law, and it was more effective than the law. The idea that someone could beat his family with impunity is absurd. There was tremendous social control exercised by one's community -- which, the further back you go, the more this was true. Anyone who was a wife-beater would have been ostracized.

Where this stuff happened is amongst people with no backup, immigrants in a new land, for example, bringing European practices with them. Even so, these familie were often tremendously stressed by post-war immigrant experience. But other isolated and marginal families had these pathologies as well. It was a fringe thing that now occurs more frequently, not less.

The stuff TC accuses me of making up queenmandy accepts, just quibbles that it wasn't universal. I know which one is right, do you? It's because queenmandy and I can remember that world.

Another worthy point -- the bathhouse raids. What TC ignores is that these places were promoting a kind of sexual freedom that everybody -- a term that used o include heterosexuals -- were prohibited from. If hetero's had had the equivalent of The Barracks he might have a case. But ironically, the bath house raids ended that era.

People don't understand that there were hardly any conventional bars in Toronto as late as the 1950ies. There were beer parlours, with separate sections for ladies and escorts -- to protect the ladies from the run-of-the-mill drunks. So for homosexual sex clubs to be carrying on so openly was an inducement to the police. But the police had little public support. The proprietor became an alderman out of it.

TC accuses me of having no sense of history. Amusing. He wouldn't recognize History if it kicked him in the nutz. But I have more to say than trading insults. (TC isn't even very good at that.)

My larger point is that we haven't paid the full price of the welfare state yet, but we can already see clearly that it has been a mistake in many important ways. It takes a citizenry and turns them into a managed population, like chickens in a poultry barn. And chickens raised in a barn are less, as birds, than they were in the wild.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 332
Reputation: 108.9
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote "...the further back you go, the more this was true. Anyone who was a wife-beater would have been ostracized."

The law said that you could not beat your wife with a stick thicker than your wrist.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6018
Reputation: 290.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's not true. Show me where that is specified.

The last time I heard this canard it was the claim that the term "rule of thumb" was the rule defining how big a stick a woman could be beaten with.

Sooner or later you have to realize that feminists lie. So do their supporters.

Why do these discussions end up this way?

This discussion started with a report on the findings of a longitudinal study of a large sample of young men. It corrects an important mischaracterization of homosexuality. It suggests that it isn't programmed in as an immutable identity. And the first thing you know we're into a discussion of falling in love ... or wife-'beating, or a list of all the supposed abuses our women have to suffer.

We are talking about the most indulged women probably in the whole of human history.

I make a lot of points about the preceding social era that queenmandy accepts, but pushes away. Yeah, but ... he says, and lists additional things onto the scale. Yeah but what about family violence? he says, as if men approve of wife-beating. I respond: Do you think that guys who were taught, from their youngest years that women were special, that they should honour them by standing when the entered the room, and tip their hats, and do all that rigamarole -- is that where you are going to find your wife-beaters? Or amongst the whelps of the welfare state?

People didn't report it in those days. How do you know? And of course they don't know It's an escape from conclusions they don't seem to want to concede because the stats don't back them up.

Why does it always end up like this? Why does it get into how bad heterosexual men treat their partners? I ends up with a spew of poisonous rhetoric about the moral inferiority of family life, compared to ... what? The meaningless and emptiness of the aging homosexual? In other words, the response is a slur against hetero men in general, revealing a lot of hate. It makes them solely responsible for what happens in relationships. It works on stereotypes. It uses everything in the bigot's tool chest.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 332
Reputation: 108.9
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leaving aside all the stuff about women and accusations against males, if the study is correct, who cares? Why does it matter if being gay is a phase or permanent? You say we all go through it. I'm getting on in years and it hasn't happened to me. I have a large number of friends in the LGBTQ community and I haven't observed it happening to any of them. As you will point out, if they did, it would be none of my business and you would be right. Still, people's orientation has no bearing on society. We have survived for the last 100,000+ years with homosexuality. I think climate change is far more important to worry about. Have a good weekend my friend.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6018
Reputation: 290.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's admit, at the start, that this is only one stream of those involved, at any one time, with homosexuality.

I think there are homosexuals who are 'lifers' as well, and who seem to have been propelled that way since adolescence. The study was taken from a narrow age group where perhaps people do try out different paths more than the would later.

With homosexuality, too, you always wonder -- is the guy getting 'the treatment' a homosexual or a thrill-seeker? A lot of times they don't even know each others' names.

It does, however, suggest that there's a fair amount of it going on with young guys. It is a study that probably can be generalized to male students these days. A lot of them experiment.

But to see that one's orientation has no bearing on society is wrong. If you have children in school, you want them to learn math and how to read and write. Parents expect that boys be 'taught' to treat girls as creatures they must respect. Or else.

But they don't expect themselves to be held up as negative role models for their children, or to be denigrated as an example of what your children don't want to be. They don't expect to be called homophobic racists who hate women by paid agents of the state who, by the way, isn't doing so great with the math.

When the hard-working men who are supporting their families like responsible adults are diagnosed as having 'toxic masculinity' as if they have a kind of moral leprosy that nobody would want to risk touching.

Nobody is out to get homosexuals here. This is one of the most tolerant countries in the world as far as that goes, despite what queenmandy says. And what do we get for it? We get homosexual groups who are out to get heteros.

I guess homosexuals are homosexuals, and that's all they are. They don't seem to be moved as Ontarians, or as Canadians, or even just as decent human beings. They prefer to take shots at those who simply chose another way.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Research shows that homosexuality is a stage

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB