Mormons and Gays


JacoJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh, I just find people who are quick to put themselves above a group of others interesting.  

 

I don't put myself above fools. I am very often a fool.

 

The thing about the pot calling the kettle black is that the kettle actually is black, and who would know it better than the pot? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's not that clear due to the word "individuals", which could be read as not everybody. So it reads, possibly, not every one, but certain individuals, do not choose... It's obvious that some do not choose. I do not think it clear at all that no one chooses...and I know for a fact that some do. Moreover, it doesn't play into the nurture vs. nature thing whatsoever.  So...yeah...not that clear after all.

 

So you do concede there are some individuals who do not choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't put myself above fools. I am very often a fool.

 

The thing about the pot calling the kettle black is that the kettle actually is black, and who would know it better than the pot? :D

 

Haha, think of me however you will.  I find it kind of a compliment you want to lump me in with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you do concede there are some individuals who do not choose?

 

I don't see TFP's posts but I just wanted to say that the statement does not say: "Even though CERTAIN individuals do not choose to have such attractions..". It clearly states ""Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions.."

 

Giving it any other interpretation to the one clearly stated, it is just one's personal interpretation. This is not about what they meant, this is what it was stated.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see TFP's posts but I just wanted to say that the statement does not say: "Even though CERTAIN individuals do not choose to have such attractions..". It clearly states ""Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions.."

 

Giving it any other interpretation to the one clearly stated, it is just one's personal interpretation. This is not about what they meant, this is what it was stated.

 

Except, logically, if even one, single person chose to be gay, it would mean that an interpretation of "all" gays do not choose is mistaken. So, surely we cannot believe that not a single person, ever, in the entire history of all gaydom, chose to be gay. Is that what we believe the church's position is? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I just find people who are quick to put themselves above a group of others interesting.  It makes me want to know more about your thought process.  I, personally, think everyone has something important to say on this topic, because I think living life is study enough to have a valuable viewpoint, so, no, I wouldn't see it as foolish.  Though I personally choose to study.

 

I think you're reading too much into other quotes.  Your view of being able to change EVERYTHING, including things that come without any prompt of our own doesn't savvy with what I've seen personally.  I see no clash with the header and the rest of the quotes you posted.  Which is more likely?  That I've understood all quotes correctly, because they do fit together well, or that you've found, not an obscure quote, but a header put out by the church to be false.  Just something to think about.

 

And there is a danger in people thinking "I've tried and failed so what's wrong with me?", even more than "I can't change".  Here's why:  "I can't change." leads to the more immediate need:  Stopping the action.  Once it is accepted that 'this is the way it is' people are able to find solutions.  The alternative usually leads to feelings of self-loathing, depression, and, in some tragic incidences, suicide.  I'd prefer someone decide to love themselves for who they are in that moment and working on what they can work on, than the alternative.

 

My view of EVERYTHING savvys with the actual quotes though. You're personal, mortal, experience is meaningless, just as is mine, and just as is everyones (please note that I lumped myself in there). Only God's understanding counts.

 

I think it about as likely that you understand the quotes as you probably think it likely that I do. But your interpretation, in my opinion, supports a leftist, pro-gay, worldly view, because it's easy and comfortable. My view, in my opinion, supports a difficult, narrow path that is uncomfortable to trendy, contemporary thinking and philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I had a few minutes before hitting bed, I thought I'd post some quotes in support of my points:

 

At the same time, let us not justify ourselves in a casual effort. Let us not be content to retain some disposition to do evil. Let us worthily partake of the sacrament each week and continue to draw upon the Holy Spirit to root out the last vestiges of impurity within us. I testify that as you continue in the path of spiritual rebirth, the atoning grace of Jesus Christ will take away your sins and the stain of those sins in you, temptations will lose their appeal, and through Christ you will become holy, as He and our Father are holy.
 

We are instructed to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny [ourselves] of all ungodliness” (Moroni 10:32), to become “new creature in Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:17), to put off “the natural man” (Mosiah 3:19), and to experience “a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” (Mosiah 5:2). Please note that the conversion described in these verses is mighty, not minor—a spiritual rebirth and fundamental change of what we feel and desire, what we think and do, and what we are. Indeed, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a fundamental and permanent change in our very nature made possible through our reliance upon “the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah” (2 Nephi 2:8). As we choose to follow the Master, we choose to be changed—to be spiritually reborn.
 
The gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses much more than avoiding, overcoming, and being cleansed from sin and the bad influences in our lives; it also essentially entails doing good, being good, and becoming better. Repenting of our sins and seeking forgiveness are spiritually necessary, and we must always do so. But remission of sin is not the only or even the ultimate purpose of the gospel. To have our hearts changed by the Holy Spirit such that “we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” (Mosiah 5:2), as did King Benjamin’s people, is the covenant responsibility we have accepted. This mighty change is not simply the result of working harder or developing greater individual discipline. Rather, it is the consequence of a fundamental change in our desires, our motives, and our natures made possible through the Atonement of Christ the Lord. Our spiritual purpose is to overcome both sin and the desire to sin, both the taint and the tyranny of sin.
 
The essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ entails a fundamental and permanent change in our very nature made possible through the Savior’s Atonement.

 

The doctrine of repentance is much broader than a dictionary’s definition. When Jesus said “repent,” His disciples recorded that command in the Greek language with the verb metanoeo.  This powerful word has great significance. In this word, the prefix meta means “change.”  The suffix relates to four important Greek terms: nous, meaning “the mind”;  gnosis, meaning “knowledge”;  pneuma, meaning “spirit”;  and pnoe, meaning “breath.” 
 
Thus, when Jesus said “repent,” He asked us to change—to change our mind, knowledge, and spirit—even our breath. A prophet explained that such a change in one’s breath is to breathe with grateful acknowledgment of Him who grants each breath. King Benjamin said, “If ye should serve him who has created you … and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath … from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.” 
 
Yes, the Lord has commanded us to repent, to change our ways, to come unto Him, and be more like Him.  This requires a total change. Alma so taught his son: “Learn wisdom in thy youth,” he said. “Learn in thy youth to keep the commandments of God. … Let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever.” 

 

The third important principle for us to understand if we would be true members of the Church is that repentance involves not just a change of actions, but a change of heart.
 
When King Benjamin finished his remarkable address in the land of Zarahemla, the people all cried with one voice that they believed his words. They knew of a surety that his promises of redemption were true, because, said they, “the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent … has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, [and note this] that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.” (Mosiah 5:2.)
 
When we have undergone this mighty change, which is brought about only through faith in Jesus Christ and through the operation of the Spirit upon us, it is as though we have become a new person. Thus, the change is likened to a new birth. Thousands of you have experienced this change. You have forsaken lives of sin, sometimes deep and offensive sin, and through applying the blood of Christ in your lives, have become clean. You have no more disposition to return to your old ways. You are in reality a new person. This is what is meant by a change of heart.
 
And from the topic, CONVERSION:
Conversion includes a change in behavior, but it goes beyond behavior; it is a change in our very nature. It is such a significant change that the Lord and His prophets refer to it as a rebirth, a change of heart, and a baptism of fire.

 

___________

 

These were only a very minor few of the talks, quotes, concepts, and scriptures that teach us that change of our very souls, natures, feelings, hearts, minds, and actions is absolutely possible through obedience and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

These are refering to a change in our spiritual nature.   I realize you can't separate the two but there is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because anyone who isn't familiar with that quote already and is attempting to discuss "Mormons and Gays" is an uninformed fool. So it doesn't need to be quoted. 

 

I think I've said this earlier...but I'll restate if so. The "choose how to respond to them" is the component in question. My entire contention is that doing one's darndest to rid oneself of any imperfect feelings (albeit over time and through constant, lifelong vigilance) is the only proper choice to make. Any other choice but to fight the good fight and never give up in that regard is to give in to it, and constitutes a sinful choice and action.

Your contention is misplaced.  Nobody here, including me, is saying not to fight the good fight and to never give up.  We all agree with that.  You don't have to keep saying that that is your argument.  I have never disagreed with that in fact have written several times that we must endure till the end.

 

It is your continued use of words like getting "rid" of any imperfect feelings that shows a lack of understanding of our current condition as mortal beings.  The purpose of this life was to live with imperfectness, to live in the world but to not be of the world. Our goal is not to get rid of the challenges of life even if they come from our own body or own imperfect brain but to control them, to not give into them, to manage them and to choose spiritual influences over those carnal influences when they are in contention.

 

We don't want bad inclinations to become bad habits or it might become part of our spiritual nature.

 

My current body is only part of the temporary me, it is part of my stewardship that we sometimes call self but not the real me.  My spiritual self is the real me.  When people take in the characteristics of the body as self then it becomes part of their spiritual nature.  That doesn't have to happen.  It can be avoided without necessarily getting "rid" of the carnal nature while here. A same-sex attraction that is kept at bay because of "fighting the good fight" and having spiritual control over the carnal will not continue into the next life.  But if one gives into any carnal passion it may continue as part of our spiritual nature, the more we love earthly treasures (the corrupted body being an earthly thing) the more our spiritual nature changes into a carnal nature.  All along, though, the nature of the body may remain that way throughout one's life without it becoming part of the spiritual nature.

 

I don't think you would say that someone who dies with Alzheimers disease has a spirit nature that reflects that nature of the body or one who dies with trisomy 21 carries those traits and nature with them in the spirit.  The spiritual lessons learned from enduring those challenges carry through but the actual challenge (the carnal trait) does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are refering to a change in our spiritual nature.   I realize you can't separate the two but there is a difference.

 

What does that have do do with anything? Spiritual nature. Carnal nature. No more disposition to do evil is no more disposition to do evil. Becoming a new person is becoming a new person. Overcoming the desire to sin is overcoming the desire to sin.

 

Who cares if it's technically our spirits or our bodies where the desire stems from? You're overly obsessed with a meaningless point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is your continued use of words like getting "rid" of any imperfect feelings that shows a lack of understanding of our current condition as mortal beings. 

 

Ah yes, the "you have a lack of understanding" argument. Fit's nicely with the "I'm smarter than you" and the "you clearly aren't as educated as me" arguments. Well, that settles it then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that have do do with anything? Spiritual nature. Carnal nature. No more disposition to do evil is no more disposition to do evil. Becoming a new person is becoming a new person. Overcoming the desire to sin is overcoming the desire to sin.

 

Who cares if it's technically our spirits or our bodies where the desire stems from? You're overly obsessed with a meaningless point.

It has to do with what we are talking about because you suggest that we can somehow change the nature of our body.  Yes in some things we can.  The whole nature vs nuture thing comes to mind.  The nurture stuff, yes we can change, but the genetics, "nature" is something harder to change that simply might be the "thorn in the flesh" that remains throughout ones life. 

 

You are right, what we care about is the spiritual self.  I think that was my point too.  In not focusing on changing the physical nature so much then the focus is on changing the spiritual self.

 

It is not a meaningless point to someone who feels guilty that there body has a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, to same sex attraction, to eating a lot of food when stressed, to sleeping longer hours than most - we can go on and on.   They can be everything right and winning the battle, there disposition is to not give into those passions and yet they continue throughout one's life.  The goal isn't necessarily to make the inclination, the passion that comes from the hormones, the brain's wiring etc disapear but to maintain control over it and endure till the end through the battle so that one day we can be numbered with those that have no disposition to do evil.

 

King Benjamin spoke about this; "29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

 30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not."

 

The battle pertaining to these things is a life long battle for most.  We have to remember to keep the battle going even when we think 'all is well'.  We can never really put it behind us in this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the "you have a lack of understanding" argument. Fit's nicely with the "I'm smarter than you" and the "you clearly aren't as educated as me" arguments. Well, that settles it then.

If that is how you take that comment, then I am sorry.  That was not my intention. 

 

You are repeatedly saying to me that I am discussing something that has no relevence or purpose.  You keep saying that it doesn't matter.  That is where that comment came from, that you lack the understanding of why it is important to some.  It has nothing to do with intelligence more with perspective. 

 

Maybe you have been blessed with very little if any life long battles.  For the rest of us, we have to keep the battle going because if we drop our gaurd, the natural man slips back into control, waiting in the background to take center stage because she has never left.  So long as she is in the wings, we are okay, even if she (natural man) never leaves (never gotten rid of) during this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Your opinion. I respect it. As a professional myself, I am clearly stating that if there was irrefutable evidence that people are not born gay, we wouldn't continue researching about the issue and certainly, we wouldn't have this discussion.

 

In discussing what is refutable and irrefutable evidence on this subject based on rhetorical logic - I contend that there is irrefutable evidence that individuals (regardless of birth) have changed from heterosexual to homosexual and vice versa.   I believe you have agreed that a person can be brainwashed to be either homosexual or heterosexual.  From Joseph Goebbels the "father of brainwashing"

 

 

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.

 

 

Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.

 

Intellectually pleasing is the same as referencing evidence with rhetorical logic.  I point this out to you to be aware that for a person involved in Propaganda - they will of necessity refute evidence and rhetorical logic that does not support their argument - this makes any discussion of possible irrefutable evidence in favor of the propagandist that intends to convince the masses that a circle is really a square.  Or in this case can never be square - pun intended  :D

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view of EVERYTHING savvys with the actual quotes though. You're personal, mortal, experience is meaningless, just as is mine, and just as is everyones (please note that I lumped myself in there). Only God's understanding counts.

 

I think it about as likely that you understand the quotes as you probably think it likely that I do. But your interpretation, in my opinion, supports a leftist, pro-gay, worldly view, because it's easy and comfortable. My view, in my opinion, supports a difficult, narrow path that is uncomfortable to trendy, contemporary thinking and philosophy.

 

Ummm... wow.  Just wow.  "Our mortal experiences don't matter."  I can't tell you how much I disagree.

 

So, my view supports a view where I look outside myself at others' experiences and notice they might be dealing with stuff that is harder than it looks, so I empathize with their plight and do my best to understand their situation so that I can be caring (you know, Christlike) while still holding to my beliefs.  Yours is to condemn even their struggle.  I'll stick with mine; you can stick with yours if it really makes you happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are dual beings, the one has a certain nature and the other has another nature.

Doctrinally, this is correct with certain contexts: spiritual vs. carnal. However, human nature is rather more complex. Mikhail Bakhtin, and Charles Taylor remind us that we are actually polyphonic beings. Meaning, we are multi-voiced beings inescapably engaged in series of ongoing conversations with ourselves, others, the world, and a "super-addressee" (Bakhtin's term for God). We are not governed by an overarching ego, but rather by multiple voices from ourselves and others.

For example, if a person has Torrettes and yells out an explitive during Sacrament meeting, is that evil?

No.

I said we should try. Always. We should never give up, and never accept that we are incapable of change. We are.

I have no disagreement here. I am actually with you on this one, TFP. But, where I get off the boat is the question, "To what extent?" Psychologically speaking, we are always subject to possibility and constraint. Meaning, how possible it is for us to change will always be constrained by both internal and external factors. Ex: it is certainly possible for a person with a chemical imbalance to change, but that possibility will always be constrained by the chemical imbalance itself, (what we call in therapy) supportive factors, effectiveness of medication, effectiveness of priesthood blessings, the individual's faith, and quite frankly, God's willingness (cf. Paul's thorn in his side).

In other words, I am meeting you way beyond half way here because I agree with you for a very long way down the river. But, I do get off the boat before you because the questions becomes one of possibility vs. constraint: how much change can realistically occur?

A good book on this is The Psychology of Human Possibility and Constraint by Jack Martin and Jeff Sugarman.

How do you know what others have or have not endured?

With all due respect, I have wondered, compassionately, if you've struggled with same-sex attraction given your emphatic stand points (nothing wrong with that at all) and need to respond. Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where a person with an inappropriate, unhealthy, and/or socially unacceptable desire takes on the direct opposite attitude, sometimes to a neurotic level, in effort to defend against the initial desire.

But, that is in no way evidence that that is what you are doing. And, this isn't intended to be an attack. I could way off base here. I completely recognize that I don't know either way.

But, IED is, of course, quite different than sexual attraction.

The clinical literature from the APA and ACA has not determined this conclusively. The truth is, no one on this planet knows if this statement is accurate or not. Many psychologist don't even consider IED a disorder. That's why it is categorized in the DSM in a separate category. And that category is called by many practicing therapists the "throw away category" because they don't really know what to make of it, it's so-called symptoms, and how it manifests. We actually know very little about both. Again, I am not saying your statement is wrong, I am saying that the most up-to-date clinical literature hasn't been able to determine the accuracy of sich a statement.

In other words, there may be some who are just wired that way. But that doesn't mean that everyone who is gay is just wired that way. Anecdotaly, I personally know someone who intentionally opted to be gay because they couldn't get dates with women.

That's why the LGBTQ community, according to the HRC training I attended back in July, put on by the LGBTQ community, distinguish between behaviors and identity. Engaging in same-sex behaviors is very different than same-sex orientation being a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of a person's self-concept. We must distinguish in these dialogues between those choosing to be gay, and those who are gay. Granted their behaviors make up their orientation and identity. You'll get no argument from me there. The difference I am pointing out is an issue of self-concept.

I am not really taking a position with this statement, merely pointing out some psych-education.

It's all fine and dandy to accept the idea that perhaps some are faced with an inborn challenge that they may never overcome. It's quite something else to teach the entire world that you either are or you aren't, you have not choice, and if you are in that state then there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Even if that is true for some, it is certainly not true for all.

100% agreed. Edited by Urstadt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

((Continued from previous post))

It's something else again entirely to mandate by government stipulation that professionally helping someone overcome homosexuality is illegal.

On a personal level, this may make us frustrated. However, at a policy level, it's completely inconsequential. APA and ACA codes of ethics already deem it unethical for behavioral health professionals to try to change sexual orientation either way. The consequences of being caught doing so range from sanctions up the ying-yang, to loss of license to practice, to malpractice lawsuits.

But that's quite a mindless conclusion. Everyone who ever faces any level of sexual attraction for someone of the same sex has no say in the matter concerning their feelings? A bit of a stretch, methinks. I'd go so far as to argue that if there are those who have no choice, it is far and in-between, and quite rare.

I'm with you that there are most definitely those who have a choice. As you alluded to with your friend above. However, where I get off the boat is when you allude to how rare it is for people to not have a choice. I don't get off the boat because I disagree, I get off the boat because the literature coming out of psychology, social psychology, sociology, and anthropology admit to inconclusive results. In other words, no one knows to what degree it is a choice, and to what degree humans are born with the hardwiring to be that way. The only consensus is that some may be choosing to be gay while others may be hardwired that way. But what percentage either way is indeterminable at this time. So, it's illogical to make a claim one way or another.

Frankly, sex drive in and of itself is fully controllable (with time, practice, patience, effort, crossing oneself, etc., etc.).

Well, are we talking about sex drive, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation? Sex drive, yes. Sexual orientation, that's not always controllable. If someone disagrees, then I pose the challenge to them to try to get an erection to an attractive man in a movie or at work.

And the potential, jury's-still-out, fact that some may have no control over their sexual orientation does not justify a broad teaching that we all have no control over our own sexual feelings.

I completely agree with you to a large extent. We should not be teaching that we can't control our sexual feelings. We should also not be teaching that sexual arousal doesn't evolve over time. However, sexual orientation is indeed very much innate and typically does not change. I agree with you that we should not blanket statement all of humanity with the notion that orientation doesn't change. But, there is consensus in the medical literature that orientation, for the most part, does not change.

Again, we must differentiate between sexual desire/feelings/behaviors/attractions/orientations. While they are all inter-related, they are not intrinsically the same within human nature.

Persons may not be able to help how they feel...

The affective neurosciences are demonstrating through deep brain scan imaging that emotions are our first responses to the environment. They are proto-responses (proto- meaning first, primitive, raw) that serve a specific purpose: to inform us. These emotions from the limbic system are what psychology refers to as primary emotions because they come first in response to that environment. They are 100% uncontrollable. Anyone who argues this is beyond uneducated on the matter and/or has allowed wishful thinking and confirmation bias to cloud their understanding.

Now, someone may say, "I used to get mad at my child talking back at me, but now I don't. So that means I am controlling my anger." This is actually fundamental attribution error. Developing a habit to respond a certain way in the exact same situation means neural pathways (habits) have been created for that particular situation. That alone does not mean that you have learned to control your anger by and large. A person would need to demonstrate this through numerous expected/unexpected situations to prove that they are controlling their anger--which no research study to date has successfully demonstrated to be possible. This is why a father has learned not to get angry at his child but still erupts into anger when his subordinate at work becomes argumentative and insubordinate. A person may certainly develop appropriate responses to their primary emotions, and even manage the salience with which they experience them. However, they cannot control them.

Secondary and tertiary emotions are within our capacity to manage, and even control; primary emotions, however, are not.

Edited by Urstadt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I have wondered, compassionately, if you've struggled with same-sex attraction given your emphatic stand points (nothing wrong with that at all) and need to respond. Reaction formation is a defense mechanism where a person with an inappropriate, unhealthy, and/or socially unacceptable desire takes on the direct opposite attitude, sometimes to a neurotic level, in effort to defend against the initial desire.

 

From a debate point of view, it almost seems like if I had then I'd be able to back up some of my ideas from personal experience better.

 

But no. I'm about as hetero as they come.

 

My adamant goal, (and you should be well aware of this based on our past history) is to defend the church, the gospel, etc. And, as you also may have noticed, my emphatic stand points stretch to all topics. I am simply emphatic about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in terms of what we should believe though. Our experiences very much matter. To disregard them is to live on someone else's testimony.

 

To an extent I agree. But your mortal perception doesn't back up an argument against what I perceive as God's words. Mortal perception is incomplete across the board. My comment had nothing to do with living off someone's testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My adamant goal, (and you should be well aware of this based on our past history) is to defend the church, the gospel, etc. And, as you also may have noticed, my emphatic stand points stretch to all topics. I am simply emphatic about things.

 

I believe you. :) That was why I tried to tread very lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, are we talking about sex drive, sexual attraction, or sexual orientation? Sex drive, yes. Sexual orientation, that's not always controllable. If someone disagrees, then I pose the challenge to them to try to get an erection to an attractive man in a movie or at work.

 

That sounds like a decidedly dangerous challenge. I hope no one takes you up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To an extent I agree. But your mortal perception doesn't back up an argument against what I perceive as God's words. Mortal perception is incomplete across the board. My comment had nothing to do with living off someone's testimony.

I was just telling you that your interpretation of God's word didn't savvy with my experiences, so I disagree with your interpretation, and it seems like at least a few on here agree with me.

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