Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Christian anti-SSM jeweler threatened after making rings for lesbian couple

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Why should their be one 'correct' set of goods? Isn't every individual inherently going to have their own slightly different set of values? Are the Chinese or Brazilians valuing the experience of positive emotions in the 'correct' amount, and are you going to adjudicate that from some sort of first-principles teleological BS?
    It's better to abjudicate than to not abjudicate at all and just assume one set for the 'empirical' analysis.

    In my observation, teleological reasoning tends to be pretty arbitrary. Your implied claim that teleology can be used to adjudicate competing value-claims (as if they are something that could even be adjudicated) has me suspecting that I would find your teleological claim itself to be utterly arbitrary.
    Funny, that's what I would say too about the 'empirical' analysis'. Just as you yourself claim we can learn from the consensus across certain cultures, so too can teleological reasoning be informed by different cultural perspectives.

    The difference is that for a teleological approach there is reasoning about what are the goods and how the goods lead to flourishing to determine if certain alleged 'goods' are actually goods (or have the valuation attributed to them by certain parties). For a primarily empirical approach that does not go into teleology you can't explore why certain goods lead to flourishing because that requires teleological reasoning, rather you just assume a certain set of goods does lead to flourishing (possibly with assumed valuations that some goods are more important than others) based on (at best) a cherrypicked 'consensus'.
    Last edited by Paprika; 05-23-2015, 03:44 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Thank you Sam for being a voice of reason, and clarifying my words. It's kind of scary how many pages of discussion my short post inspired. I think a lot of people here didn't understand what I was saying, so I will try to be extra-clear. (Warning... long post)

      Marriage is celebrated in cultures around the world. It has deep meaning for people of all religions and all cultures. Each person and group understands it in their own ways and attaches their own meaning to it - it doesn't necessarily have the same exact meaning for everyone. But in general it tends to be a deeply meaningful celebration of love and commitment, a public celebration of one of the most intense and personal choices that any given person makes in their lifetime, and a celebration of the relationship and the person that is most deeply meaningful to them. It is, generally speaking, the most celebrated event in a person's life - the one time they will invite all their friends and family to come see them and celebrate with them. Some people also add to that religious ideas, or spiritual ideas, or political ideas, and find meaning in those too. All in all, marriage is one of the biggest events in people's lives, one of their biggest choices as a human being, and is commonly regarded by people as among the most meaningful and deeply personal things in their lives.

      One thing that's really important to note, that I think a lot of people here just don't get, is that the word 'marriage' in English has been used for centuries to refer to all such unions regardless of the religion or race of the people marrying. When atheists, or Buddhists, or Sikhs marry, be they English, French, Chinese or Indian, every English-speaker still calls it a 'marriage'. When we talk about the customs of an amazonian tribe who's never heard of Christianity, we call their unions a 'marriage'. We call polygamous marriages a 'marriage'. In short, the word marriage, as used by English speakers for centuries is not specifically Christian in what it refers to. I think a lot of posters here flatly refuse to accept this basic fact, and that makes it very hard for them to even understand the views of other people about same-sex marriage. This is very central to the discussion of civil unions vs marriage, because I think if the phrase "civil unions" had historically been used to refer to all marriages, and the word 'marriage' had been specifically used to refer to only certain Christian marriages, then I think this entire debate wouldn't exist: In that case, the vast majority of gay people would have been perfectly happy with getting civil unions and very few of them would be interested in being able to have a 'marriage'. Over time, various religious people have ascribed their own values to their own conceptions of 'marriage'. The Catholic church, for example, in the middle ages, declared marriage to be a sacrament. Nonetheless they still use the word 'marriage' to refer to marriages of atheists and Hindus as well as Christians. 'Marriage' has never been regarded as something that Christians have a monopoly on. When theologians have wanted to talk about specifically Christian-marriage they typically use terms like 'Holy Matrimony' or some-such.

      So now we come to the question of: Can a gay person have all that deep meaning etc that I outlined as a 'civil union' without it being called 'marriage'? They can certainly have some of it. They can have a celebration. They can have love. They can invite their family and friends. It can be a deeply meaningful moment celebrating a deeply meaningful life choice as they pledge their commitment and love to the one person who means more to them than any other. BUT... the elephant in the room is going to be the fact that it is a 'civil union' and not a 'marriage'. EVERYONE else - Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Indians, Chinese, Amazonian tribes, gets a 'marriage' but they can't have that, they only get a 'civil union'. It's simple apartheid, or Jim Crow. It's 'separate but equal' and the subtext that everyone knows is always there in that sort of situation is that 'separate but equal' means 'separate, because inferior'. The US Constitution infamously described black people as counting as 3/5ths of a person, which shows us what sort of thinking was really behind the apartheid-like treatment of blacks in the US and their eventual 'separate, but "equal"' status. Likewise the marriages of black people were not legally recognized initially, and that was part and parcel of a denial of their full humanity.

      So if a gay person is given the chance to have a civil union, but not a marriage, they can choose to go ahead and have a celebration of their love with their family and friends and try to make it as meaningful for themselves as possible. But social overtones will be present that will overshadow the entire event, that everyone present will know are there, implied by the 'separate but equal' nature of the apartheid: This is inferior to a marriage. That is because you are inferior as a person. Your love simply isn't as good as 'real' love. 'Real' love can get married. You always thought as a child you'd get married one day. But you can't. You don't deserve to. Your spouse isn't as good as other people's. If you'd chosen your spouse better you could have a real marriage. They're not as good as other people, and you're not as good as other people. I've been to events discussing gay rights and talked to a lot of gay people and that's the sort of thing they all tell me goes through their heads. That's the tone that public discrimination sets. That's the underlying theme that pervades the psyche of a lot of gay people thinking about getting civil-unioned. That's why most of them choose not to. (Rates of civil unions have dropped to pretty much zero now that same-sex marriage has been introduced here in NZ. Given a choice, 99.99% of gay people choose marriage over a civil union. Prior to that, the rate of civil unions was 1% of total unions, whereas now the rate of same-sex marriages are 2.5% of total unions, showing that the majority of gay couples abstained from getting a civil union and waited until marriages were available) A gay person choosing to have a civil union is embracing a two-edged sword: They are on the one hand having the public celebration and recognition of their love and commitment with their family and friends that they always wanted, and at one and the same time publicly admitting their inferiority, that it is not the same thing as a marriage because they are not equal.

      You can see that thinking in action in this video I came across yesterday about the Irish referendum on same-sex marriage. Skip to 2:00, and the lesbian woman says:
      "My sister had me as a bridesmaid for her wedding. And it was a disgrace that I couldn't offer her the same thing back. That I wouldn't ever be able to say to her come and be my bridesmaid. It was just heartbreaking. ~cries~ I just don't think it's fair. I'm the same as everybody else. And I don't have the same shot at happiness. It's upsetting. ... It's not fair. I'm the same type of person as everyone else. I do the same thing. I go out and work. I do my shopping. Everything I do the exact same as everyone else. The difference is just who I want to go home and snuggle up with at night, that's it."

      That's a typical reaction in my experience. Her comments show that she feels her sense of being an authentic human being is under attack. Her words "I'm the same type of person as everyone else... I go out and work. I do my shopping..." are an attempt to reaffirm to herself and others that she is fully human. Because that's what she feels is under attack here. She feels like 3/5ths of a person. Because that's that overtones that a denial of the basic right to marriage carries, that's what the message of any 'separate but equal' apartheid system implies: You're lesser, you're not as human as everyone else, you're fundamentally inferior.

      This is why I encourage people to think about the example of someone who sets out to deny marriage to anyone who follows the Jewish religion. What would we feel about someone who really wanted to do that? What would we feel would be appropriate public censure of that person? We all agree, I assume, that denying Jews the right to marry one another would constitute a pretty serious persecution of Jews. It would be anti-Jewish in a deep and fundamentally-hurtful way. Striking at their right to marry would be about as serious of a rights denial as it's possible to get. A society that did that to Jews would seems like it was probably only a small step short of physically enslaving them or actually loading them into gas chambers. If someone really seriously and honestly was campaigning to stop Jewish people from marrying, I think the vast majority of us would regard that as totally and completely out-of-bounds. If that person had their business boycotted by the general public, we probably wouldn't be surprised. Neither might we be particularly surprised if that person got nasty things said to them, or potentially got death threats. We might well not endorse returning evil for evil, but we probably wouldn't be surprised on hearing there was a rather strongly disapproving public reaction - given the sheer level of harm that person was advocating should be done to thousands upon thousands of others, the minor harms of public outrage toward that person pretty much pale in comparison.

      In my mind there is zero meaningful difference between those who oppose same-sex marriages and those who would oppose Jewish marriages. I'm not asking you to agree that the analogy is valid, though I personally think it is. My purpose in suggesting it is to encourage you guys to think about how the people being discriminated against feel. How does the Jewish person feel upon finding out that they have been banned from marrying? The gay people feel the same way. I am sure you guys will tell me "ah, but a person who is opposing Jewish marriage wouldn't be doing it for the same reasons that I oppose gay marriage". But your reasons don't matter when it comes to assessing the hurt felt by the recipients. The gay person who cannot marry feels the same as the Jewish person who cannot marry: The hurt felt and the harm done is the same. What was in your head when you banned them from marrying does not translate to what is in their heads when they reflect on the fact that they are unable to marry.

      This plays into the second fundamental mistake that I see you guys making over and over (the first being that you typically refuse to accept that in basic English 'marriage' refers to any wedding and not a specifically Christian one, as I said above): A complete lack of empathy for gay people. I see over and over again in Christian discussions of same-sex marriage, complete and utter disinterest in and ignorance about what gay people might think and feel about the situation. It strikes me as akin to a discussion of the merits of slavery where the subject of how the slaves might feel about slavery simply doesn't come up. It's like writing a 30 page dissertation analyzing 'what various bible verses say about slavery' without once ever even considering the fact that slavery might hurt anyone. It's a bizarre form of selfishness where all that apparently counts is what the Christians feel is right, or feel the bible says. People will say things like "I'm just defending the traditional view of marriage", as if it is an abstract philosophical debate that has no impacts on real people and as if any hurt that gay people might experience has absolutely no relevance to the situation. I see Christians commonly making no effort whatsoever to find out what gay people feel, and am often met with general disinterest when I explain to them what the gay people I know have told me they feel. When people do listen, I am often then told that gay people are 'wrong' to feel a certain way. Apparently a lot of Christians have their own opinions on how gay people ought to feel about the situation, and if the majority of gay people don't happen to feel that way then the Christian will tell me that those people are 'wrong'. The assumption made by the Christian is often that because they, as a Christian, are not intentionally trying to hurt gay people when they take away their ability to marry, that the gay person is wrong to feel hurt by it. This strikes me as a view that completely lacks empathy and borders on autism - it's a "whatever is in my head ought to be the same thing that's in your head, and if it's at all different then you're wrong, and I refuse to accept that anyone else could validly have a different perspective to me or anything to contribute to the discussion" type view.

      I know that the vast majority of Christians don't get up in the morning and think "I hate gay people. How can I hurt them most today? I know, I'll oppose their right to marry!" But when it comes to the consequences of their actions, that might as well have been what they were thinking. What Christians don't seem to realize that their good intentions don't necessarily matter when it comes to the consequences of their actions. If you break someone's leg or kill someone, the outcome still exists regardless of why it happened. So many Christians I talk to will express the view that because they have good intentions, their view can't possibly have bad consequences. In their minds they are just trying to follow the bible, or just trying to defend tradition. The idea that this might have negative consequences is not something they're even interested in hearing about because they take for granted the idea that their good intentions somehow excludes the possibility of negative consequences. This leads them to sometimes make claims that their opposition to same sex marriage is out of 'love'. Yet any gay person anyone cares to ask will say that it feels like hate to them. Why the disconnect? Because of a lack of empathy on the part of the Christians - at no point in that 'love' was there any interest in or effort put into talking to gay people and finding our their feelings and opinions, and considering how they were being actually impacted in practice by those good intentions. This is why Christians so commonly change their position if they find they have a family member who is gay - empathy suddenly kicks in and they start actually thinking about how the gay person must feel because it is someone they know and love and actually care about the feelings of that person.


      TL;DR: 'Marriage' in English doesn't just refer to Christian marriages, and that's why Christians don't get to tell everyone else who can have a marriage and who can't, and why gay people object to having civil unions. And Christians seem very bad at having empathy toward gay people.
      I don't think it is right to say Christians do not try think about how homosexuals feel since as you note most people have knowledge of homosexuals on friendship or family levels. My one cousin's daughter is homosexual and has a child with her partner so I have tried to understand homosexuals. Any yes, Christians can possibly be more feeling at times - everyone can be more feeling. So while I can accept that homosexuals feel bad and ostracized on marriage, I would say that while their feelings still feel bad to them, those feelings are from wrong expectations. So for instance if my neighbour loans me his lawnmower on the understanding only I will use it and you come along and want to use it, then I have to say 'no'. This might make you feel bad and you tell me you are not stupid and know how to use a mower. I tell you that it is my neighbour's mower and that he has asked that only I use it. You then tell me that you will be extra careful and tell me you feel wounded that I can't trust you to look after the mower just as well as I can etc etc. Now what I am I supposed to do? Does your feelings trump my neighbours initial request to me? I think going that way can lead to all sorts of issues. So while I accept homosexuals have bad feelings, I hope homosexuals can also see how Christians can feel they are being emotionally blackmailed into conceding on things which are not really theirs to concede on. Now I am happy for a distinction to be made between state and Church because as I have already stated I think when the two present one face it is the Church which compromises.

      Comment


      • #78
        Really, Starlight, can we move past the bad dichotomy of a primarily 'empirical' approach and a non-empirical teleological approach (for the express purpose of demonstration that your approach is reality-bound and therefore superior) when neither of these actually exist in any significant form?

        Any good virtue ethics approach involves at the very least an implicit account of goods and how they lead to real flourishing, which necessarily must be informed by real events and involve some teleological reasoning to describe the flourishing (cf. how the cherrypicked 'consensus' on goods you claim can be used for an empirical approach arises from many different perspectives on flourishing using teleological reasoning).
        Last edited by Paprika; 05-23-2015, 04:57 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          One thing about the story confuses me, did the lesbian couple return the rings in exhange for a refund or did they get a refund and kept the engagement rings?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            If I recall correctly MacIntyre used 'practice' for activities such as doing science and skills/professions. But marriage does not really have that systematic extension of the relevant conceptions.
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            You're still using "practice" colloquially rather than trying to understand and apply MacIntyre's definition. Pap is closer to the mark, iirc.
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            I'm really not sure why there's a need to bring in Platonic ideas to interpret MacIntyre's definition.

            He defines 'practice' as a type of activity. What type of activity? An activity whose internal goods and standards of excellences have a special relation to itself (as described by the rest of the definition) with the result that certain other things (human powers and conceptions) are improved.
            OK, read a tiny bit more on MacIntyre's definition and I've got to agree with Paprika's last post here: the analogy to Platonic forms, while (I think) useful in describing the inherent goods as properties that become more perfect as an individual's activity reaches the practice in its ideal state, is going to end up causing more trouble than it's worth. Platonic forms are static, whereas MacIntyre was apparently explicit that practices can be dynamic.

            The example I see that MacIntyre used was playing chess so I don't think there's a problem using the colloquial sense of the word "practice" when discussing MacIntyre's definition. And both examples used could be boiled down to "doing philosophy" or "practicing marriage," both of which I think are as systematic as "doing science" or "practicing the profession of being an electrician."

            So ... we're all still on the "socially established" clause in the definition and I assume Spart is going to lean heavily on the social and traditional aspect of a practice whereas I'm going to lean heavily on the dynamic and community aspect of defining the rules of a practice. Not sure where Paprika is looking to lean on.

            Great discussion so far. I'm enjoying this immensely — thanks to you both.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              One thing about the story confuses me, did the lesbian couple return the rings in exhange for a refund or did they get a refund and kept the engagement rings?
              They did not receive the rings but received their deposit back.
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                OK, read a tiny bit more on MacIntyre's definition and I've got to agree with Paprika's last post here: the analogy to Platonic forms, while (I think) useful in describing the inherent goods as properties that become more perfect as an individual's activity reaches the practice in its ideal state, is going to end up causing more trouble than it's worth. Platonic forms are static, whereas MacIntyre was apparently explicit that practices can be dynamic.

                The example I see that MacIntyre used was playing chess so I don't think there's a problem using the colloquial sense of the word "practice" when discussing MacIntyre's definition. And both examples used could be boiled down to "doing philosophy" or "practicing marriage," both of which I think are as systematic as "doing science" or "practicing the profession of being an electrician."

                So ... we're all still on the "socially established" clause in the definition and I assume Spart is going to lean heavily on the social and traditional aspect of a practice whereas I'm going to lean heavily on the dynamic and community aspect of defining the rules of a practice. Not sure where Paprika is looking to lean on.

                Great discussion so far. I'm enjoying this immensely — thanks to you both.
                That bit's not quite right. The fact that practices and standards attached to them are dynamic means that we can analyze competing definitions of marriage. We can understand how they encourage subtly different types of goods and have significantly different results for the individuals involved and for society as a whole.
                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Why won't we stand up for ourselves?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by DLAbaoaqu View Post
                    Why won't we stand up for ourselves?
                    I know that by "we" you means Christians, and some certainly are.


                    You're starting to sound frustrated*. I don't want you to lose your cool again. Maybe it would be good if you avoided Civics until you've cooled off a bit. Perhaps even go talk to your pastor.

                    *I understand why. I just really don't want you to go down that road.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      That bit's not quite right. The fact that practices and standards attached to them are dynamic means that we can analyze competing definitions of marriage. We can understand how they encourage subtly different types of goods and have significantly different results for the individuals involved and for society as a whole.
                      Ah, my apologies. So we're on the page, then, of A) defining marriage as a "practice" with inherent goods, the exercise of which leads to human excellence and flourishing and B) comparing definitions of this practice to determine which, if any, lead to a significantly greater expression of those inherent goods and C) determining which definitions, if any, lead to unacceptably deficient expressions of those inherent goods.

                      About right?
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Ah, my apologies. So we're on the page, then, of A) defining marriage as a "practice" with inherent goods, the exercise of which leads to human excellence and flourishing and B) comparing definitions of this practice to determine which, if any, lead to a significantly greater expression of those inherent goods and C) determining which definitions, if any, lead to unacceptably deficient expressions of those inherent goods.

                        About right?
                        Different definitions may well promote different types of goods. Whether a practice is deficient by merit of promoting a different type of good or virtue, well... that partially depends on what goods and virtues we think society needs. We needn't judge same-sex relationships totally or even somewhat depraved in order to say that it is possible for a man and a woman to engage in a practice together that is out of reach of a same-sex relationship and produces goods that a same-sex relationship cannot.

                        It's also worth noting that a practice can be more or less likely to achieve certain goods or to produce vice in a greater degree than virtue-- high-risk, high reward, low risk, high reward, low risk, low reward, etc. Sometimes those likelihoods will depend on the society or even individuals and not on the rules themselves.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          Different definitions may well promote different types of goods. Whether a practice is deficient by merit of promoting a different type of good or virtue, well... that partially depends on what goods and virtues we think society needs. We needn't judge same-sex relationships totally or even somewhat depraved in order to say that it is possible for a man and a woman to engage in a practice together that is out of reach of a same-sex relationship and produces goods that a same-sex relationship cannot.

                          It's also worth noting that a practice can be more or less likely to achieve certain goods or to produce vice in a greater degree than virtue-- high-risk, high reward, low risk, high reward, low risk, low reward, etc. Sometimes those likelihoods will depend on the society or even individuals and not on the rules themselves.
                          OK; you've got to drive the boat on the discussion, then, as I'm pretty fully in the camp that same-sex marriage, while possibly not ideal in perfecting inherent goods or actualizing human flourishing, sufficiently achieves those things and so is a legitimate form of the practice.
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Ah, my apologies. So we're on the page, then, of A) defining marriage as a "practice" with inherent goods, the exercise of which leads to human excellence and flourishing
                            I'm deeply suspicious of the word "inherent" that keeps appearing in these MacIntyre-based definitions. What about non-inherent goods? Seems to me that it's potentially taking an overly narrow approach to only look at some of the goods and not others, simply because some are judged to be 'inherent' while others are not. It reminds me of externalities in Economics that tend to get swept under the rug because they're not convenient for the purposes of the over-simplistic models being used, but are nonetheless extremely real.

                            And also, what about inherent and non-inherent evils? Looking solely at the goods achieved by any given thing is surely only half the story...
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              I'm deeply suspicious of the word "inherent" that keeps appearing in these MacIntyre-based definitions. What about non-inherent goods? Seems to me that it's potentially taking an overly narrow approach to only look at some of the goods and not others, simply because some are judged to be 'inherent' while others are not. It reminds me of externalities in Economics that tend to get swept under the rug because they're not convenient for the purposes of the over-simplistic models being used, but are nonetheless extremely real.

                              And also, what about inherent and non-inherent evils? Looking solely at the goods achieved by any given thing is surely only half the story...
                              I'm a bit iffy on the practical use of determining inherent goods in a large and diverse social setting, as well, but I think the concept and discussion certainly has merit — as a launching site, if nothing else. It's certainly possible that goods we consider inherent might actually be externally-ascribed and simply so ingrained in the practice or the culture now that they are considered inherent. One could argue that the discipline one attains from learning chess is not inherent in the game of chess itself but a construct that has been imported into the game and one could achieve similar ends through completely different means.

                              But it's worth travelin' down this road, I think.
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                I'm deeply suspicious of the word "inherent" that keeps appearing in these MacIntyre-based definitions. What about non-inherent goods? Seems to me that it's potentially taking an overly narrow approach to only look at some of the goods and not others, simply because some are judged to be 'inherent' while others are not. It reminds me of externalities in Economics that tend to get swept under the rug because they're not convenient for the purposes of the over-simplistic models being used, but are nonetheless extremely real.
                                The line between inherent and incidental goods can be a fuzzy one, but I don't think it's entirely pointless to try to draw it nonetheless.

                                And also, what about inherent and non-inherent evils? Looking solely at the goods achieved by any given thing is surely only half the story...
                                That's what I was trying to get at at the end of my last post. You put it better than I did.
                                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                326 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X