Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A bad day for gay rights.

Rate this topic


TheEgoist

Recommended Posts

... The thin wedge you are driving here is to the obliteration of the concept of marriage. A concept that has (dare I say it?) biological implications and origins.

... Prop 8 was simply a defense of the concept/term "marriage."

I believe this point was raised above, in this post, and has subsequently been answered.

By analogy to your argument, the government should coin a special term "adopted children" and any law and contract that talks of "children" should exclude "adopted children". After all child bearing is -- dare I say -- a biological function that is not open to human whim. By the logic of the rest of your argument, should we would otherwise be allowing anyone to claim someone else is their child, for a payment of $1,000 in hard, cold cash, and get them citizenship that way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Must one have gay sex with a person in order to gain these rights? Oh, sorry if I offend anyone, but taking this discussion further into left field, so to speak, why should a person be required to declare their love/honor/respect/sexual-desire to another in order to gain the benefits listed above?

As far as state-sanctioned marriage goes, I don't think anyone here is arguing that should exist at all. The government should not be in the business of encouraging or discouraging particular types of private relationships. The only thing under examination is IF straights can do it, why can't gays do it as well? Ideally, the taxpayers should not be supporting ANY kind of private relationship, and individuals should be able to voluntarily contract between themselves almost any types of terms they want.

To change the definition of marriage from a socially sanctioned bastion of virtue and social stability

With all due seriousness, I'm having trouble discerning if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not. I think plenty of heterosexual couples, my parents included, did well enough to destroy the idea that marriage is a 'bastion of virtue and social stability'.

The purpose is to tear down a basic structure of individual rights - marriage, the voluntary social contract - so they can replace it with a more fair, more just, more equal, and more comprehensive social contract of their own devising.

No, the purpose is supportive of individual rights, not destructive to them. The purpose is to tell the government that they have no business determining which private relationship are 'appropriate' and which are not. The concept of 'marriage' does not need government intervention. What is needed is for the government to stay out of giving benefits to people just because it approves of a particular type of relationship. The sky won't fall and the world won't end if two guys or two girls can call themselves married. And the relationship between a man and a woman should not suffer one iota because of that either. If the sanctity of their relationship relies on what other people are doing, I would offer that the relationship already has problems.

Fair too many heterosexual people are worried about what other consenting adults are doing to pursue their lives, their liberty and their happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, this isn't relevant, but I just can't stop myself from saying "He's a douche!!!" every time I see that name. It's not even just his views, I actually hate seeing his face for some reason.

It's called the "Stupid-Face-For-Jerks" syndrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the (hypothetical) creator of the universe--in all of its septillions of cubic light years, billions of galaxies, 100 billion or so stars apiece--would care what the hell the adult hairless apes of planet earth do with their clothes off, usually in pairs in a darkened room, staggers the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this point was raised above, in this post, and has subsequently been answered.

By analogy to your argument, the government should coin a special term "adopted children" and any law and contract that talks of "children" should exclude "adopted children". After all child bearing is -- dare I say -- a biological function that is not open to human whim. By the logic of the rest of your argument, should we would otherwise be allowing anyone to claim someone else is their child, for a payment of $1,000 in hard, cold cash, and get them citizenship that way!

Come on. You really expect anyone on this site to allow you to argue that arbitrarily opening a term up to a wider scope of concepts is analogous to creating a subset of a concept with a differentiating adjective? I'm arguing that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, by virtue of the current definition of "marriage." You argue that "marriage," since it describes a social contract between two individuals, must also describe a social contract between any two individuals. Epistemologically, you have started down a path to anarchy.

The charge of gender discrimination is false, as long as there are equivalent contracts available - and respected - by the government to cover civil unions. The "separate but equal" charge is as false when applied to the gender makeup of marriages as it is to restrooms and sports organizations. I just don't see a compelling argument to force the change in the definition, and I see this issue mainly in terms of the attack on culture from the left.

On edit:

You don't really mean that child bearing is not open to human whim, do you? And I specifically said that I was against granting citizenship arbitrarily. I'm unclear on your adoption argument, are you saying we would change the legal definition of adoption to include adoption of adults? Hell, why not? After all, we're egalitarians, aren't we? Why discriminate based on age? :D

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due seriousness, I'm having trouble discerning if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not. I think plenty of heterosexual couples, my parents included, did well enough to destroy the idea that marriage is a 'bastion of virtue and social stability'.

I wasn't being sarcastic, but I recognized the irony of the statement, given what marriage has become since the commencement of the attack on and widespread failure of the nuclear family. You are arguing here that if a principle is untrue in any case, that it is untrue generally. Or that if it is untrue under certain conditions or limitations, then it is fundamentally untrue.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but that argument is exactly analogous to the arguments against capitalism, also promulgated (by sheer coincidence?) by the radical Marxists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the (hypothetical) creator of the universe--in all of its septillions of cubic light years, billions of galaxies, 100 billion or so stars apiece--would care what the hell the adult hairless apes of planet earth do with their clothes off, usually in pairs in a darkened room, staggers the imagination.

What does the morality or immorality of sexuality, normal or gay, have anything to do with religion? Don't throw religion into a non-religious debate because most of the supporters of this issue do so for the wrong and irrational reason.

And to everyone posturing in this thread about the supposed existence of "new scientific data" supporting that homosexuality is a result of "biology", SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE, or else expect this alleged "evidence" to be treated as one should properly treat "new scientific data" supporting such nonsense as the existence of Bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that I posted a question about something someone else had written in this thread, but I can find neither my post nor the post to which I was replying. Where did they go?

Nevermind! I found the post to which I thought I had responded and I have now actually responded.

Edited by John Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand was speaking on bad scientific premises from the psychology community at the time. Perhaps she got this from Nathaniel Branden, who to this day is rather vicious to homosexuality.

Could you provide any citations supporting your claim that Branden is vicious to homosexuality?

Edited by John Link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick google of Branden Homosexuality did lead to this

By 1983, a year after Rand died, Branden was willing to say that she was “absolutely and totally ignorant” about homosexuality, describing her view “as calamitous, as wrong, as reckless, as irresponsible, and as cruel, and as one which I know has hurt too many people who ... looked up to her and assumed that if she would make that strong a statement she must have awfully good reasons.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that there shouldn't be any laws involving "marriage" and only the concept of "civil unions" should exist for everyone, gay or straight. However, I am forced to wrestle with the issue that that seems damn near impossible right now (gosh I hate being pragmatic) but I have REAL rights right NOW that are being violated in a daily basis, and one option at least is feasible, while the other may never happen in my lifetime. So what should I do? Shut up and sit at the back of the bus until "someday" when "maybe" and "somehow" I will be finally recognized of these rights?

BTW, as I understand it, current California law provides civil unions with all of the benefits normally ascribed to marriage, including visitation, insurance, next of kin, survivorship, etc. Prop 8 was simply a defense of the concept/term "marriage."

Sorry, that's not true. "Civil unions" aren't good enough for immigration. There are a LOT of couples who are prevented from living with their loved ones because they can't get into the country.

IF proper laws were to grant equality for everything, I couldn't care less WHAT it was called. You can call it "marriage" or "civil unions" or "bob" all I care about is getting to excercise those rights.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for pointing this out, but that argument is exactly analogous to the arguments against capitalism, also promulgated (by sheer coincidence?) by the radical Marxists.

Aside from the fact that I am not arguing that, please avoid using an intimidation argument like "promulgated by radical Marxists". If an argument is fallacious, explain that instead.

However, "marriage" as a term can change it's definition over time and remain epistemologically sound as long as new facts of reality give rise to that change. "Marriage" does not have defined the same way solely because that's they way it's always been. Traditions do not trump reality. Also, the definition of 'marriage' should definitely not be left in the hands of the government.

You are arguing here that if a principle is untrue in any case, that it is untrue generally.

Not at all. I'm arguing that if you are worried that the sanctity of the concept of 'marriage' is in trouble because gay people want to be married, facts bear out that it was long since in trouble by the conduct of heterosexual couples. The concept 'marriage' can remain equally virtuous and socially stabilizing whether or not we are talking gay or straight marriage.

The primary thrust of my input is this; the government has NO business defining marriage for the purposes of who gets a payoff for having an approved relationship. On the other hand, it may have some business in interpreting what marriage is under the terms of a contract agreed to by individuals when a dispute arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on. You really expect anyone on this site to allow you to argue that ...
Actually, yes, of course I do. In fact, if anyone posts a serious response to what I wrote, I would be happy to answer them. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any two people make a similar "shared life" commitment as in a marriage, with all the similar implied legal obligations, assumed agency, etc., then the government ought to recognize that as valid. Calling it marriage or not calling it marriage is of no importance as far as the law is concerned.

Why should such a contract be limited to two people? Who decides what the definition of marriage is? If it is not one man and one woman, what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that there shouldn't be any laws involving "marriage" and only the concept of "civil unions" should exist for everyone, gay or straight. However, I am forced to wrestle with the issue that that seems damn near impossible right now (gosh I hate being pragmatic) but I have REAL rights right NOW that are being violated in a daily basis, and one option at least is feasible, while the other may never happen in my lifetime. So what should I do? Shut up and sit at the back of the bus until "someday" when "maybe" and "somehow" I will be finally recognized of these rights?

Sorry, that's not true. "Civil unions" aren't good enough for immigration. There are a LOT of couples who are prevented from living with their loved ones because they can't get into the country.

IF proper laws were to grant equality for everything, I couldn't care less WHAT it was called. You can call it "marriage" or "civil unions" or "bob" all I care about is getting to excercise those rights.

I don't have a problem with immigrants who have a contractually dedicated sponsor, receiving preferential treatment.

I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to establish a contractual relationship with someone else to link their lives together for the purposes listed previously.

What I have a problem with is the idea that we should change the definition of a cultural institution in the name of egalitarianism and to appease the feelings of a vocal minority, when we know (or should) that the change also serves the purposes (and is indeed significantly backed by) those who do not support individual rights, but rather seek to enslave us with collectivism.

You can denigrate marriage all you want, but you do so only by ignoring the constant attacks it has faced in the past 60 years. The feminist movement effectively broke apart the nuclear family, leaving children more influenced by the radical agenda of public schools than by their own mothers and fathers. Many of us had screwed up parents, so it's easy to argue that marriage is not all it's cracked up to be, but parents typically have one major virtue over radical teachers: they seek to liberate you so you can be a productive, responsible member of society. Radicals seek to weaken rational thought so that students will be more pliable and more accepting of what once were outrageous propositions. In my opinion, the current drive to redefine marriage is a continuation of the radical agenda, and it seeks to further weaken the influence of parents and make children and adults more and more wards of the state.

If we redefine marriage, we dilute its underlying concept, and strip it of the tradition and virtue it once had. If you turn it into a contractual convenience, you weaken its power to all but the those driven by special interest favoritism. My point of view is traditionalist, I admit that. And I understand that tradition in and of itself is no basis for a rational argument, but I don't believe that change for change's sake is any better an argument, and I don't see a valid argument for the beneficial effects of the redefinition, other than making people feel better about themselves (that's assuming that the rights which should not be tied to marriage in the first place are corrected and made equal for all).

Finally, if it's any consolation, you can look at Nov. 4 as a bad day for gay rights, in that the proposition passed, or you can look at it as a good day for gay rights, in that it came within 2% of failing - which is significantly closer than the previous initiative (which passed with solid public support and which the California Supreme Court subsequently overturned). If past is any indication of future, and if the radicals continue to increase their sway on young minds, you will likely see a similar proposition fail, at least in California.

on edit: I don't mean the "radical" drumbeat to be intimidating, and I don't accuse those who support gay marriage of being radical per se. I'm just pointing out that the agenda is carried out to a large extent by, and serves the purposes of, the radical leftist movement surging through America.

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the morality or immorality of sexuality, normal or gay, have anything to do with religion? Don't throw religion into a non-religious debate because most of the supporters of this issue do so for the wrong and irrational reason.

Non-religious? The subject was all the anti-gay-marriage proposals pushed by religious groups, last I saw. [Furthermore: My comment was certainly not meant as an attack on any Objectivist regardless of which side of the issue they are on--and I see no way it could be construed as such.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

… Both I, MichaelH and DavidOdden listed a myriad of individual rights denied to gay couples.

An individual right to immigrate is not recognized by the U.S. There are many and varied classes of people denied immigration. It appears the argument for “gay rights” of immigration is not being made based on individual rights at all, but on seeking recognition of a privilege for a specific class. Fair enough in context, but call a spade a spade.

How is “not automatically inheriting” property a violation of an individual right? If I want to bequeath a gift to a friend in Canada upon my death but I have to write a will to do it, how is that a violation of anyone’s individual rights?

How is having to “to go through all sorts of legal hoops” a violation of an individual right?

Yes, the issues mentioned on this thread are “a big deal,” but “a bid deal” does not an individual right make.

Please identify the individual right you are fighting for and fight for it -- or concede that you are fighting for government recognition of gay relationships and leave “rights” out of it. If we want to preserve and advocate true individual rights, we should not confuse the concept of “rights.”

Thank you.

However, "marriage" as a term can change it's definition over time and remain epistemologically sound as long as new facts of reality give rise to that change. "Marriage" does not have defined the same way solely because that's they way it's always been. Traditions do not trump reality. Also, the definition of 'marriage' should definitely not be left in the hands of the government.

I agree with the first part, but I respectfully disagree with the last sentence. It is a proper function of the government to establish standards and norms for various types of relationship structures, including “marriage” or “corporation.”

One reason is to formalize the “standard” nature of the relationship between the parties in the relationship structure and provide objective standards for the courts to use in resolving disputes in the innumerable cases where the parties themselves have not expressly established all the terms of their relationship or not anticipated all the issues that might arise.

Further, the government can properly establish “traffic rules of the civil road” (my term) by recognizing (or not recognizing) the formalized structure of various types of relationships. This provides for the general nature of the relationship of the formalized structure (the “entity”) with persons who are not parties to that entity, i.e., who are "outside" the entity but have contact it.

For example, if I have a car accident with one of the marital partners of a "marriage," the law can establish rules regarding under what circumstances both partners may be financially responsible, even if I have never met the marital partners in advance and we have not specifically agreed in advance regarding liability in case of such an accident. The law can establish that the marital relationship alone may be a sufficient basis for both being financially responsible for the accident of either or that that more is required, such as the partners having bought the car together or with partnership monies. There may be many options in this regard, but specifying one of them is hugely advantageous, like specifying which side of the road to drive on in traffic laws.

A similar advantage of formalizing relationships is present in case one has an accident with the delivery truck of a local corporate business. If the corporation complies with the minimum government formalities (including assets or liability insurance), the government recognizes a corporate entity and one cannot sue the individual stockholders of the corporation regarding the accident. But if the government decides not to recognize a corporate structure, no individual rights are violated.

In cases of the government formalizing and recognizing such entities, the parties (inside the entity or those dealing with it) are generally free to agree to different terms, if they wish and take the trouble to do so.

Edited by Old Toad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please identify the individual right you are fighting for and fight for it -- or concede that you are fighting for government recognition of gay relationships and leave “rights” out of it. If we want to preserve and advocate true individual rights, we should not confuse the concept of “rights.”

Homosexuals (in the state of Utah) are denied the right to adopt children. (or does that not qualify as an "individual right" to you)

How about the fact that in many states, Sodomy is still on the books? Is sex between consenting adults not an individual right? How about that in the state of Utah, it is illegal (yes an arrestable offense) to sell gay pornography? Is it not a violation of an individual right to conduct lassaiz-faire business between consenting parties? Do I need to go on or can we drop the smug, arrogant, attitude?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuals (in the state of Utah) are denied the right to adopt children. (or does that not qualify as an "individual right" to you)

How about the fact that in many states, Sodomy is still on the books? Is sex between consenting adults not an individual right? How about that in the state of Utah, it is illegal (yes an arrestable offense) to sell gay pornography? Is it not a violation of an individual right to conduct lassaiz-faire business between consenting parties? Do I need to go on or can we drop the smug, arrogant, attitude?

How is recognizing gay relationships as "marriage" or "civil union" necessary to resolve any of these issues (which are indeed matters of individual rights)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An individual right to immigrate is not recognized by the U.S.
Such a right for a foreign opposite-sex spouse is recognized, by allowing a citizen to file a Petition for Alien Relative. The right is not recognized by the US for unmarried couples (which would include contractual artifices seeking to approximate a marriage). There is a real right to immigrate, which is denied to unmarried couples. The recognition of an actual right which is not universally respected (e.g. to single individuals with no family connection, who just want to come to the US to live the American dream) is not a privilege for a special class. There is no objective basis for granting that right to heterosexual couples and denying it to monosexual ones.
How is “not automatically inheriting” property a violation of an individual right? If I want to bequeath a gift to a friend in Canada upon my death but I have to write a will to do it, how is that a violation of anyone’s individual rights?
The question is whether a person has a right to justice. If you don't think that justice is a right, if you're only asking whether the government is initiating force by it's legal treatment of gay couples, then as far as I can see, it is not initiating force specifically and exclusively against gay couples.
It is a proper function of the government to establish standards and norms for various types of relationship structures, including “marriage” or “corporation.”
Yes, but not arbitrarily. That regulation should be just and justified with respect to the nature of the relationship, as with the "gap-filling" function of the UCC and judges decisions. Thus it would not be the proper function of the government to hold that "Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or circumstances. an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances except when the offeror is a Baptist". No force was initiated there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should such a contract be limited to two people? Who decides what the definition of marriage is? If it is not one man and one woman, what is it?
Good questio; unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I really haven't given any thought to whether the Mormon practice of having multiple wives should get some recognition in law. On the face of it, I would assume that it should get some recognition, but have a far weaker case than do a gay couple. [The nature of the implied agency and closeness is obviously diluted by number; the problems are compounded is two such agents disagree; and, finally, in our mixed-economy, re-distributive benefits would unfairly favor such relationships if polygamy were to be treated on par. Nevertheless, I would say that the law could take some cognizance of the relationship: just don't ask me to what extent.]

As for the definition of marriage: firstly, we're speaking of legal definition. So, we're not speaking about the biological or sexual concept, but purely the concept that refers to the nature of the relationship as recognized by law. An adopted child is not a child in any biological way. It is a child by nature of the relationship with the adoptive parent, and by legal definition (which is recognizing the legal implications of that relationship). If one is going to use a different term and still recognize the legal implications that flow from a committed-for-life gay relationship, then most of the legal aspect is addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello David,

I do not think there is objective justice in arguing for the “rights” of a particular class of persons while being silent on the issue of individual rights. If one does so, he should recognize that what he is fighting for is not individual rights, but class privileges.

I am not sure I understand your point regarding “justice” and inheritance, but I think the question is justice to whom? There is no “individual right” to an inheritance of another person’s property. The issue is the right is of the person who owns the property to dispose of it as he wishes, including upon his death. The person should write a will to express his intentions.

In the absence of a will, the law of inheritance can only be an approximation of how a typical person would be expected to want to dispose of his property under various circumstances. It is not proper for a court to determine this from the biased testimony of his relatives and friends competing for a share of his property after his death. It is the role of the legislature to determine objective standards for these situations, trying to get the law to reflect some norm of the optional values of the individuals it represents. The approximations are often very "wrong" in a particular case, i.e., different than the particular person would actually have wished, but it is only a default and the result is not unjust to the person who failed to express his different wishes. If a person fails to provide differently in a will, he has failed to act on his values, to which his relatives and friends would have no “right” except based on his rights and wishes.

A person can lobby or advocate changes in the default inheritance provisions provided by the legislature, if he wishes. But it is not a matter of the individual rights of relatives or friends of a deceased person. It is the rights of the deceased person that matter in disposing of his property. This is to whom the justice is owed.

Edited by Old Toad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the first part, but I respectfully disagree with the last sentence. It is a proper function of the government to establish standards and norms for various types of relationship structures, including “marriage” or “corporation.”

To the extent that your position agrees with the following thing I said, I agree. I'm not sure you saw this part of my post;

On the other hand, it may have some business in interpreting what marriage is under the terms of a contract agreed to by individuals when a dispute arises.

I recognize that courts often have to take certain liberties with interpreting contracts, to include common practices when contracts are incapable of detailing every possible issue of an agreement. But in that case, it is not the court that is defining marriage, but rather interpreting how it is being practiced by individuals. This is understandable up to the point where the government starts to define who cannot engage in a contract based on tradition or 'class' or majority opinion. So what I'm referring to is the court deciding that two (or potentially more) otherwise rational individuals cannot engage in certain types of contracts simply because the majority finds it distasteful or immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have a problem with is the idea that we should change the definition of a cultural institution in the name of egalitarianism and to appease the feelings of a vocal minority, when we know (or should) that the change also serves the purposes (and is indeed significantly backed by) those who do not support individual rights, but rather seek to enslave us with collectivism.

I think you might re-examine what you saying here and recognize which part of it resembles collectivism. If there is any collectivist behavior here, it is letting the government decide what an acceptable marital relationship is according to tradition and/or the will of the majority, or in determining what types of marital relationships serve the "greater good" or the best interests of society. What is right is right without respect to whether it's support is drawn from the majority or the minority.

The feminist movement...

Many of the movements we have seen over the last few decades are, in my opinion, a direct result of past government and/or societal behaviors towards certain types of people or behavior. I will grant that I do not support overreacting to problems. However, some of the reactions we are seeing are as a result of the institutional oppressions of the past, the proverbial chickens coming home to roost if you will. Women fought harder in society to make up for being treated as second class citizens in the work place and in politics. Clearly, some went too far. The same can be said for homosexuals trying to obtain the same marital legal rights granted to heterosexual couples. There may be a 'far left agenda', but that does not mean that there are not legitimate issues that should be addressed that happen to coincide with this agenda. Because a person may be wrong about one issue, or a set of issues, or because they may choose tactics that are unethical, that does not mean that they are wrong on all of their issues. Sometimes the 'far left' has to fight for certain issues because the 'far right' has their head so far up their religious keester that they certainly are not standing up for proper principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize that courts often have to take certain liberties with interpreting contracts, to include common practices when contracts are incapable of detailing every possible issue of an agreement. But in that case, it is not the court that is defining marriage, but rather interpreting how it is being practiced by individuals. This is understandable up to the point where the government starts to define who cannot engage in a contract based on tradition or 'class' or majority opinion. So what I'm referring to is the court deciding that two (or potentially more) otherwise rational individuals cannot engage in certain types of contracts simply because the majority finds it distasteful or immoral.

I agree that the individual right at stake is the freedom of association. But the corollary of the freedom of association is the freedom to not associate.

The issue of recognizing and formalizing gay relationships as "marriage" or "civil union" necessarily implicates the corollary under many current laws that abrogate the freedom of association.

For example, if there are laws regarding employment that require no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and then it is added that everyone must "recognize" and deal with an employee in a gay "marriage" or "civil union," this forces an employer to not only hire a gay person against his bigoted judgment, but also to recognize and extend benefits against his judgment. This adds insult and injury to the employer's freedom of association.

The issue of recognizing gay marriage is not solely as between the gay partners. In our mixed law and economy context, the government recognition of gay "marriage" or "civil union" -- even if only court recognition -- implicates the corollary freedom of others not to associate.

Edited by Old Toad
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.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...