Continuing revelation in action.


riverogue
 Share

Recommended Posts

Elder Oaks declares in a church published video at, People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion, Elder Oaks Says that, "religious leaders should always be cautious and thoughtful that they are not advocating enactment of their own religious doctrine or their own religious practices into law" (min 13:10). This is not what the church did with Proposition 8. Does this show that the the general authorities were inspired by the Lord in learning that they were wrong by advocating law against gay marriage, whose position was based on our religious doctrine?

Edited by riverogue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that's an over interpretation. I think the Church had a much longer term goal than was evident in the Prop 8 campaign, and I do still think that, although the Church's image took a hit in the aftermath, it will eventually lead to a dialogue that results in a very good compromise.

There's also the possibility that not everyone in Church leadership was as on board with the Prop 8 support as we think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder Oaks declares in a church published video at, People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion, Elder Oaks Says that, "religious leaders should always be cautious and thoughtful that they are not advocating enactment of their own religious doctrine or their own religious practices into law" (min 13:10). This is not what the church did with Proposition 8. Does this show that the the general authorities were inspired by the Lord in learning that they were wrong by advocating law against gay marriage, whose position was based on our religious doctrine?

I do not believe that the church is opposed to gay marriage. Rather the church is family based and for the family and family values. The LDS church is for maintaining the sacred, honored, respected and valued relationship of marriage between a man and a woman as the necessary way of maintaining civilized society beyond a single generation.

If a non-religious person has any concept of evolution and survival of the fittest; they must recognize the primary importance of reproduction and biological families as the primary and necessary means to perserve humans as a species. The issue is not aproached by science or religion but by passion and desire - which historically have never benefited any contribution of man to anything worthwhile.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder Oaks declares in a church published video at, People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion, Elder Oaks Says that, "religious leaders should always be cautious and thoughtful that they are not advocating enactment of their own religious doctrine or their own religious practices into law" (min 13:10). This is not what the church did with Proposition 8. Does this show that the the general authorities were inspired by the Lord in learning that they were wrong by advocating law against gay marriage, whose position was based on our religious doctrine?

Freedom is a double-edged sword. Yes, our religious leaders are cautious in advocating religion into law but at the same time, they are fiercely protective of making laws that prevent the church from exercising their religious beliefs as well.

The intricate intertwining of the legal aspect and religious aspect of marriage in the USA makes the legalization of gay marriage a stumbling block for religion as it stands now. In the UK, not so much.

Therefore, the LDS leadership encouraged support for Prop 8 while, at the same time, they are opening dialogue in trying to untwine the legal and religious aspects of marital unions.

LDS leadership are not saying NO to legalization of gay marriage. They are saying NO to legalization of gay marriage right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the Church does not want laws passed that would infringe on our rights. I'm not sure about the recent controversy of gay marraige, but we should be leery of having laws that would force the ministers of a church to perform gay or other types of marraige. Just like in the old days pre 1978 when a lot of people thought that our church should be sanctioned for not allowing black people to have the priesthood ie. people thought we were discriminatory. No one wants that sort of thing to rear its ugly head again. No one wants the church to be accused of "discriminating" against anyone by not wanting to perform a gay marraige. I believe that this is the basis of the church's opposition of so called gay marraige laws.

I haven't read prop 8, but if it could conceivably lead to a scenario of being accused of discrimination, then the church would and should be against the proposed law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen so many things online about the whole Prop. 8 thing and it's annoying if anything. People voted for Prop. 8. And? People can talk bad about that all they want but voting is a constitutional right. As the Bible teaches, homosexuality is wrong. You'll find this in Leviticus and Jude. Does everyone deserve equal rights? Yes. However, there's no such thing as "gay rights". Nobody has a right to be gay. What was said by Elder Packer needed to be said. Making something legal doesn't make it moral. God created everyone equally yes; He also created us to marry someone of the opposite sex, not the same sex. Homosexuality was the very reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. He is an apostle of the Lord and he spoke the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen so many things online about the whole Prop. 8 thing and it's annoying if anything. People voted for Prop. 8. And? People can talk bad about that all they want but voting is a constitutional right. As the Bible teaches, homosexuality is wrong. You'll find this in Leviticus and Jude. Does everyone deserve equal rights? Yes. However, there's no such thing as "gay rights". Nobody has a right to be gay. What was said by Elder Packer needed to be said. Making something legal doesn't make it moral. God created everyone equally yes; He also created us to marry someone of the opposite sex, not the same sex. Homosexuality was the very reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. He is an apostle of the Lord and he spoke the truth.

Please learn from Josiah Bartlet.

(Just because they're funny)

YouTube - The West Wing - Call from the UN Secretary General

(Watch these in sequence)

YouTube - The West Wing - C.J. Root Canal

YouTube - The West Wing - After Josh's Briefing

YouTube - The West Wing - Secret plan to fight inflation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church had to draw the line in the sand somewhere. The moral decay of society is self-evident. The church isn't forcing "doctrine" on anyone. It was just advocating traditional marriage..what has always been.

If I come out against murder.. am I forcing my doctrine on someone?

If I come out against stealing... is that forcing the 10 commandments on someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the Church does not want laws passed that would infringe on our rights. I'm not sure about the recent controversy of gay marraige, but we should be leery of having laws that would force the ministers of a church to perform gay or other types of marraige. Just like in the old days pre 1978 when a lot of people thought that our church should be sanctioned for not allowing black people to have the priesthood ie. people thought we were discriminatory. No one wants that sort of thing to rear its ugly head again. No one wants the church to be accused of "discriminating" against anyone by not wanting to perform a gay marraige. I believe that this is the basis of the church's opposition of so called gay marraige laws.

I haven't read prop 8, but if it could conceivably lead to a scenario of being accused of discrimination, then the church would and should be against the proposed law.

One thing that was left out of a lot of the adds during prop 8 was there was legislation in the works to protect religious institutions from being "forced" into carrying out these ceremonies and it was supported in large part by the homosexual community. I believe the support died after the vote and not sure it would be as supported if prop 8 gets over turned after the way the campaign was handled. The protection was offered and the people offering it got slapped pretty hard, good will doesn't seem to be something worth giving the other side any more. It's been a while since i read this so one might have to search to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen so many things online about the whole Prop. 8 thing and it's annoying if anything. People voted for Prop. 8. And? People can talk bad about that all they want but voting is a constitutional right. As the Bible teaches, homosexuality is wrong. You'll find this in Leviticus and Jude. Does everyone deserve equal rights? Yes. However, there's no such thing as "gay rights". Nobody has a right to be gay. What was said by Elder Packer needed to be said. Making something legal doesn't make it moral. God created everyone equally yes; He also created us to marry someone of the opposite sex, not the same sex. Homosexuality was the very reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. He is an apostle of the Lord and he spoke the truth.

One might ask if you are as willing to live by the Qur'an? You say the bible says homosexuality is an abomination, Qur'an says pretty much the same thing, but there are differences between the two books. If you want everyone to live by the dictates of the bible, are you just as willing to live by the dictates of someone else's holy book? Are you willing to live by the dictates of pagan faiths, the satanic bible, any number of other faith's holy traditions? If you are as willing to submit yourself whole to the dictates of a faith you do not believe then i understand your argument. If you are not willing to submit to that you do not hold as true, then how can you deny others the same freedom? You say there is no such thing as gay rights, and i would agree, except people get upset when we call them civil rights. I can get fired for being gay in some places, i can get evicted from my home for no other reason than being gay in some places. I can have my final wishes thrown out because me and my partner are gay. I can have people threaten me, and harm me for no other reason than being gay. Now to me the right to be protected from these things seem like a normal human right, but many disagree, so we tried calling for equal civil rights, and people screamed we were making a mockery of the battle that black people fought and that women fought. So we can't call them human rights, and we can't call them civil rights, so they became gay rights, because we had to call them something. The name alone means it's not something people really take serious, just another part of the big bad gay agenda. I keep hearing the " WHY?" why marriage, why force the churches to do this, we destroy society, why destroy families? The funny thing is as much as people want to paint an evil side to us, it's something so simple. Part of it is protection, that our commitment to one person has to be accepted in a civil way so that in certain times no one can question our wishes and intentions. If civil unions were recognized in a federal way and didn't vary state to state and were just honored not a problem, but they aren't. The second part is believe it or not it's a way of showing love and commitment. I've been around countless couples when they get engaged and not once have i heard " hey i want a baby now, marry me" almost every time i have heard " i love you and i want to spend the rest of my life with only you, will you marry me?" Procreation might be great after the fact, but they get together because of the feelings. Someone said nothing ever came of passion and desire. I'd counter by saying nothing worth while ever came with out passion and desire. You can tell me i'm wrong, tell me I'm lost, tell me I'm an abomination, at the end of the day it doesn't change me and doesn't change who i am, took me a long time to come to terms with it but i have. If you want me to submit to what you think is right, just ask yourself if you are just as willing to submit to someone else's version of right when it screams against all you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One might ask if you are as willing to live by the Qur'an? You say the bible says homosexuality is an abomination, Qur'an says pretty much the same thing, but there are differences between the two books. If you want everyone to live by the dictates of the bible, are you just as willing to live by the dictates of someone else's holy book? Are you willing to live by the dictates of pagan faiths, the satanic bible, any number of other faith's holy traditions? If you are as willing to submit yourself whole to the dictates of a faith you do not believe then i understand your argument. If you are not willing to submit to that you do not hold as true, then how can you deny others the same freedom? You say there is no such thing as gay rights, and i would agree, except people get upset when we call them civil rights. I can get fired for being gay in some places, i can get evicted from my home for no other reason than being gay in some places. I can have my final wishes thrown out because me and my partner are gay. I can have people threaten me, and harm me for no other reason than being gay. Now to me the right to be protected from these things seem like a normal human right, but many disagree, so we tried calling for equal civil rights, and people screamed we were making a mockery of the battle that black people fought and that women fought. So we can't call them human rights, and we can't call them civil rights, so they became gay rights, because we had to call them something. The name alone means it's not something people really take serious, just another part of the big bad gay agenda. I keep hearing the " WHY?" why marriage, why force the churches to do this, we destroy society, why destroy families? The funny thing is as much as people want to paint an evil side to us, it's something so simple. Part of it is protection, that our commitment to one person has to be accepted in a civil way so that in certain times no one can question our wishes and intentions. If civil unions were recognized in a federal way and didn't vary state to state and were just honored not a problem, but they aren't. The second part is believe it or not it's a way of showing love and commitment. I've been around countless couples when they get engaged and not once have i heard " hey i want a baby now, marry me" almost every time i have heard " i love you and i want to spend the rest of my life with only you, will you marry me?" Procreation might be great after the fact, but they get together because of the feelings. Someone said nothing ever came of passion and desire. I'd counter by saying nothing worth while ever came with out passion and desire. You can tell me i'm wrong, tell me I'm lost, tell me I'm an abomination, at the end of the day it doesn't change me and doesn't change who i am, took me a long time to come to terms with it but i have. If you want me to submit to what you think is right, just ask yourself if you are just as willing to submit to someone else's version of right when it screams against all you know.

If you mean do I believe in following what the Bible and Book of Mormon, the Word of God, teaches then yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean do I believe in following what the Bible and Book of Mormon, the Word of God, teaches then yes.

You completely failed to comprehend what he was saying.

Point blank, there are people in the world who feel it is their divinely appointed responsibility to support legalizing same sex marriage. If they feel divinely guided now to do so, do you begrudge them of their beliefs?

You claim the right to vote according to your own religious and spiritual preferences. Are you willing to accept that others may do so as well, even if they disagree with you, or are you only willing to allow your religious preferences to be codified into law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that was left out of a lot of the adds during prop 8 was there was legislation in the works to protect religious institutions from being "forced" into carrying out these ceremonies and it was supported in large part by the homosexual community. I believe the support died after the vote and not sure it would be as supported if prop 8 gets over turned after the way the campaign was handled. The protection was offered and the people offering it got slapped pretty hard, good will doesn't seem to be something worth giving the other side any more. It's been a while since i read this so one might have to search to find it.

I would think it would be "built in" automatically. A Catholic church can't be forced to marry a non catholic to Jew (although religion is a protected class) likewise members of the church who don't follow the standards, drink tea, coffee ,not pay tithe, etc. Has no legal right to force the church into performing a wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think it would be "built in" automatically. A Catholic church can't be forced to marry a non catholic to Jew (although religion is a protected class) likewise members of the church who don't follow the standards, drink tea, coffee ,not pay tithe, etc. Has no legal right to force the church into performing a wedding.

If you watch some of the Ad's from the church sponsored groups during prop 8, one of the main scare tactics they used was " and churches will be forced to marry these people." This hit hard with many mormons who took it as gays getting married in the temple and that was enough to block out any other thought from some of the ones i've talked to, some who would have voted no if not for that fear. From my understanding being prop 8 didn't do anything but define the definition of marriage the separate legislation was introduced to protect religious institutions in the event prop 8 failed to change the law. Listening to many christians talk about this topic they are very concerned that it will have to "defile" their churches and temple and yet in california they were offered that protection and seemed to ignore it because it was never brought up in any of the ad's that i've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you watch some of the Ad's from the church sponsored groups during prop 8, one of the main scare tactics they used was " and churches will be forced to marry these people." This hit hard with many mormons who took it as gays getting married in the temple and that was enough to block out any other thought from some of the ones i've talked to, some who would have voted no if not for that fear. From my understanding being prop 8 didn't do anything but define the definition of marriage the separate legislation was introduced to protect religious institutions in the event prop 8 failed to change the law. Listening to many christians talk about this topic they are very concerned that it will have to "defile" their churches and temple and yet in california they were offered that protection and seemed to ignore it because it was never brought up in any of the ad's that i've seen.

That is ridicules. I can't believe members of the church, who can refuse to marry a couple because one drinks tea, would fear being forced to wed gays in the temple.

Naturally the opposition wouldn't bring up the protection in their ads, I'm just suprized so many would actually think churches would be forced to to wed gays, given that religious groups are all ready exempt from changing their doctrine and practices to meet secular law.

When native Americans are taking peyote, when LDS an Catholics aren't including women in the priesthood, and when westboro baptist are picketing funerals of service members. I don't think we need to fear being forced into performing SSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is ridicules. I can't believe members of the church, who can refuse to marry a couple because one drinks tea, would fear being forced to wed gays in the temple.

Naturally the opposition wouldn't bring up the protection in their ads, I'm just suprized so many would actually think churches would be forced to to wed gays, given that religious groups are all ready exempt from changing their doctrine and practices to meet secular law.

When native Americans are taking peyote, when LDS an Catholics aren't including women in the priesthood, and when westboro baptist are picketing funerals of service members. I don't think we need to fear being forced into performing SSM.

Fear is a great motivator, that's no secret. If you want people on your side you play on their biggest possibly irrational fears. As I said a number of people who would have voted no on 8, even LDS changed their minds after being told that the next step for gays was to take over the churches and temples. The two biggest fear targets used were their kids and their churches. Things said were pretty silly but in the end fear won out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that was left out of a lot of the adds during prop 8 was there was legislation in the works to protect religious institutions from being "forced" into carrying out these ceremonies and it was supported in large part by the homosexual community. I believe the support died after the vote and not sure it would be as supported if prop 8 gets over turned after the way the campaign was handled. The protection was offered and the people offering it got slapped pretty hard, good will doesn't seem to be something worth giving the other side any more. It's been a while since i read this so one might have to search to find it.

This is not a good argument. Title IX specifically stated, when the law was drawn up, that any university would be exempt from Title IX if it caused any current athletic scholarships to be lost in men’s sports.

The problem is that once a law has been instituted it changes the landscape of what defines the extent of the law. In the case of Title IX it was argued the other stipulations took greater president. Thus male sport scholarships were lost and nothing ever become of it (men’s wrestling and gymnastics are examples). The only way to guarantee such action would be the entire repeal of the complete law written into the law and even that creates points of possible exception. In the case of prop 8 a simple repeal of tax exempt status would be enough to bankrupt most religions and force homosexual marriage while proponents of homosexual marriage argued that churches still had a choice and therefore were not forced.

The word force is in essence an ambiguous term as we have learned from Title IX. And that is not all - since prop 8 there have been efforts by homosexuals to force the LDS to change their point of view by threatening the LDS right of “peaceful enjoyment” of private property; one of the 5 prime rights of private property granted in the USA; thus not just threatening religion but the right of every citizen in the USA that owns property.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there no such thing as "gay rights"? Because being gay is unnatural? Supposing it is unnatural, shouldn't everything that is unnatural not exist? Everything that is unnatural already does not exist; the fact that it exists means that it is in-fact natural. Hence, being gay is natural.

Is there no such thing as "gay rights" because the perceived consequences affecting society is unacceptably harmful to the whole of society and/or to those who can directly be associated with gay marriage, eg: adopted children of gay wed couples? Setting aside the fallacy that clergy are forced to perform marriages, what excessively harmful outcomes may arise which has been demonstrated in societies among various states in the US and nations throughout the world that have already legalized gay marriage? These societies do in fact exist, Denmark has been an example for the last twenty years. Before we determine whether we should make gay marriage legal, we must study the results of gay marriage in these societies. If the "weight of harm" of "gay marriage consequences" was measured in those societies to be more than the weight of harm suffered by those gay couples who otherwise would not be permitted to be married, then we should choose to keep gay marriage as illegal. Albeit we are not Denmark, who has a different culture than we do, but we do have states within the US that have allowed gay marriage. Let us see what kind of affect gay marriage has in those states. If it proves to be not harmful overall, or even beneficial to their society, then we should adopt the legalization of gay marriage within our own state.

Edited by riverogue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there no such thing as "gay rights"? Because being gay is unnatural? Supposing it is unnatural, shouldn't everything that is unnatural not exist? Everything that is unnatural already does not exist; the fact that it exists means that it is in-fact natural. Hence, being gay is natural.

Is there no such thing as "gay rights" because the perceived consequences affecting society is unacceptably harmful to the whole of society and/or to those who can directly be associated with gay marriage, eg: adopted children of gay wed couples? Setting aside the fallacy that clergy are forced to perform marriages, what excessively harmful outcomes may arise which has been demonstrated in societies among various states in the US and nations throughout the world that have already legalized gay marriage? These societies do in fact exist, Denmark has been an example for the last twenty years. Before we determine whether we should make gay marriage legal, we must study the results of gay marriage in these societies. If the "weight of harm" of "gay marriage consequences" was measured in those societies to be more than the weight of harm suffered by those gay couples who otherwise would not be permitted to be married, then we should choose to keep gay marriage as illegal. Albeit we are not Denmark, who has a different culture than we do, but we do have states within the US that have allowed gay marriage. Let us see what kind of affect gay marriage has in those states. If it proves to be not harmful overall, or even beneficial to their society, then we should adopt the legalization of gay marriage within our own state.

The issue that comes up is perceived harm. What one group of people might consider harmful may not be what another group thinks is harmful. Many religious based groups see the harm in terms of their morality as dictated by the doctrine of their faith, therefore no secular or political facts will actually sway the view because it's based squarely in doctrine. Second when looking at perceived harm is when bias plays into it. "we don't like this group of people so anything helpful to them is something i am going to see as harmful" This attitude we've seen in the past when trying to make social changes. People will always be able to find harm in something they disagree with, rational or not, the question then becomes can they actually remove their bias and evaluate true harm vs perceived harm based on their bias. As asked earlier one of the ways i tend to test this is, people want others to live under their moral code with no option of disagreeing with it. Are these same people as willing to live forcefully under someone else's moral code by force just as willingly. If they have and argument against living by someone else's moral code then they can't be overly surprised or against others not wishing to live by their moral code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there no such thing as "gay rights"? Because being gay is unnatural? Supposing it is unnatural, shouldn't everything that is unnatural not exist? Everything that is unnatural already does not exist; the fact that it exists means that it is in-fact natural. Hence, being gay is natural.

Is there no such thing as "gay rights" because the perceived consequences affecting society is unacceptably harmful to the whole of society and/or to those who can directly be associated with gay marriage, eg: adopted children of gay wed couples? Setting aside the fallacy that clergy are forced to perform marriages, what excessively harmful outcomes may arise which has been demonstrated in societies among various states in the US and nations throughout the world that have already legalized gay marriage? These societies do in fact exist, Denmark has been an example for the last twenty years. Before we determine whether we should make gay marriage legal, we must study the results of gay marriage in these societies. If the "weight of harm" of "gay marriage consequences" was measured in those societies to be more than the weight of harm suffered by those gay couples who otherwise would not be permitted to be married, then we should choose to keep gay marriage as illegal. Albeit we are not Denmark, who has a different culture than we do, but we do have states within the US that have allowed gay marriage. Let us see what kind of affect gay marriage has in those states. If it proves to be not harmful overall, or even beneficial to their society, then we should adopt the legalization of gay marriage within our own state.

Some things are not rights but are allowable for example having brown eyes is not a right nor is being 7 feet tall a right. Being able to play center in the NBA is not a right - there are many people that desire things just as much as anyone else but that does not mean that they can use the force of law as a right to do what they want. Someone that is 5 feet 2 inches does not have a right to be a center in the NBA. Therefore they cannot claim discrimination for not being considered for any other reason than their height.

Many people think that if they desire something - then it is their right. Homosexuals do not want to benefit society through providing biological parents for children through marriage; but they demand the right without showing any possible additional benefit beyond fulfilling their own desire.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things are not rights but are allowable for example having brown eyes is not a right nor is being 7 feet tall a right. Being able to play center in the NBA is not a right - there are many people that desire things just as much as anyone else but that does not mean that they can use the force of law as a right to do what they want. Someone that is 5 feet 2 inches does not have a right to be a center in the NBA. Therefore they cannot claim discrimination for not being considered for any other reason than their height.

Many people think that if they desire something - then it is their right. Homosexuals do not want to benefit society through providing biological parents for children through marriage; but they demand the right without showing any possible additional benefit beyond fulfilling their own desire.

The Traveler

And yet through every conversation you bring this up in, you haven't provided the legal wording that requires procreation for marriage to be legal. Many couples unable to produce children are legally married with out having to explain. Fertility exams are not required for a marriage license, so outside of people trying to find silly reasons to block it and claiming that no one marries for love (passion and desire), just a intent to produce children and only this intent, this really holds as much water as the judge in California said it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things are not rights but are allowable for example having brown eyes is not a right nor is being 7 feet tall a right. Being able to play center in the NBA is not a right - there are many people that desire things just as much as anyone else but that does not mean that they can use the force of law as a right to do what they want. Someone that is 5 feet 2 inches does not have a right to be a center in the NBA. Therefore they cannot claim discrimination for not being considered for any other reason than their height.

Many people think that if they desire something - then it is their right. Homosexuals do not want to benefit society through providing biological parents for children through marriage; but they demand the right without showing any possible additional benefit beyond fulfilling their own desire.

The Traveler

Awesome point. Another problem removing Prop. 8 could have is having a

reverse-separation of church and state. People want to yell "separation with church and state" when it comes to voting yet they'll try to use the law to force a church to marry a gay couple. They also cannot reproduce. And nobody go on about how they can adopt. That would hurt the child tremendously. A child is to have a mother & father, not 2 of one or the other. A want isn't a right. Homosexuals want gay marriage, that doesn't make it a right.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share