Attitude towards LGBTQ____....???
#11
http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#12
(12-09-2017, 12:28 PM)austenbosten Wrote: LGBTQIAP

:exclamation:  They just keep adding more and more letters to that abbreviation. Eventually, they won’t all fit on one line, and they’ll have to come up with an abbreviation for the abbreviation.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#13
(12-09-2017, 02:42 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
I liked your article.

I am not as confident that homosexuality is analogous to “same sex attractions” as you claim it to be.

I think it is a mistake to call people homosexuals or heterosexuals.  Being male and female is biology and there are MANY traits linked strongly and weakly to this biology.  (The possession of sex organs of a certain type STRONGLY.  The possession of secondary sexual characteristics like a deep voice somewhat strongly.  Various predilections that are likely more than just cultural dolls vs. toy guns weakly).  But having same sex attraction is not SOLELY biological by any study I have ever seen (it does have biological precursors, but there is a lot of environmental conditioning, just like being prone to anger or easy laughter has both biological precursors AND environmental conditioning).

It is probably too late to not ceed the ground associated with classifying people this way, but I will continue to caution against it.  Those for the normalizations of same sex relationships and those eager (often too eager) to condemn same sex relationships have both contributed to this.  That being said, I think it is a product of our cultures deification of sex.  

I am a child of God.  I am a male.  I am about 50% Irish.
I love chocolate, but I am not a chocophile.  I am overweight, but I am not a fatty.
I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I do not think it best to claim, “I am a heterosexual.”

Sex is a much larger part of our lives, identities, goals, quests, … than God ever intended.

C.S. Lewis responds to this with his image of a group attending a show in a darken theater.  They are whooping it up as a large shiny half sphere is slowly lifted up and gradually it is revealed that below this lid is a … platter with a large rack of lamb.  No sooner than the glimpse of the lamb is barely realized, the lid slams shut and the audience is invited to voyeurously anticipate the next platter of food.  You might think these folks are starving, but it is much more likely that the God-given desire for sustenance has been radically perverted by the society where these folks live.  We live in a society where the God given desire for connection and reproduction through sexual relationship has been RADICALLY PERVERTED.

There is no winning this battle in this culture (until Christ returns or somehow the culture changes).  We can fight to a draw sometimes and those who follow God may preserve themselves from destruction,  But until the culture no longer sells products (like shampoo or alcohol AND male enhancement products) with sex, no longer uses sex for entertainment (during the halftime of our high school football games or during primetime TV AND in the pornography shop or the brothel), and no longer …, I do not believe right thinking folks will win this debate.  Sex is procreative and unitive, but our culture seldom acknowledge this and certainly does not recognize this limit.

It was through Pope Francis’s council on the family that I learned (mostly from a Jewish Rabbi) the above lessons.  I try to share them because I think they are important (and EVERYONE SHOULD AGREE WITH ME )
Charity, TOm
[-] The following 1 user Likes tomnossor's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#14
(12-09-2017, 05:18 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 02:42 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
I liked your article.

I am not as confident that homosexuality is analogous to “same sex attractions” as you claim it to be.

I think it is a mistake to call people homosexuals or heterosexuals.  Being male and female is biology and there are MANY traits linked strongly and weakly to this biology.  (The possession of sex organs of a certain type STRONGLY.  The possession of secondary sexual characteristics like a deep voice somewhat strongly.  Various predilections that are likely more than just cultural dolls vs. toy guns weakly).  But having same sex attraction is not SOLELY biological by any study I have ever seen (it does have biological precursors, but there is a lot of environmental conditioning, just like being prone to anger or easy laughter has both biological precursors AND environmental conditioning).

It is probably too late to not ceed the ground associated with classifying people this way, but I will continue to caution against it.  Those for the normalizations of same sex relationships and those eager (often too eager) to condemn same sex relationships have both contributed to this.  That being said, I think it is a product of our cultures deification of sex.  

I am a child of God.  I am a male.  I am about 50% Irish.
I love chocolate, but I am not a chocophile.  I am overweight, but I am not a fatty.
I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I do not think it best to claim, “I am a heterosexual.”

Sex is a much larger part of our lives, identities, goals, quests, … than God ever intended.

C.S. Lewis responds to this with his image of a group attending a show in a darken theater.  They are whooping it up as a large shiny half sphere is slowly lifted up and gradually it is revealed that below this lid is a … platter with a large rack of lamb.  No sooner than the glimpse of the lamb is barely realized, the lid slams shut and the audience is invited to voyeurously anticipate the next platter of food.  You might think these folks are starving, but it is much more likely that the God-given desire for sustenance has been radically perverted by the society where these folks live.  We live in a society where the God given desire for connection and reproduction through sexual relationship has been RADICALLY PERVERTED.

There is no winning this battle in this culture (until Christ returns or somehow the culture changes).  We can fight to a draw sometimes and those who follow God may preserve themselves from destruction,  But until the culture no longer sells products (like shampoo or alcohol AND male enhancement products) with sex, no longer uses sex for entertainment (during the halftime of our high school football games or during primetime TV AND in the pornography shop or the brothel), and no longer …, I do not believe right thinking folks will win this debate.  Sex is procreative and unitive, but our culture seldom acknowledge this and certainly does not recognize this limit.

It was through Pope Francis’s council on the family that I learned (mostly from a Jewish Rabbi) the above lessons.  I try to share them because I think they are important (and EVERYONE SHOULD AGREE WITH ME )
Charity, TOm


I agree that the "Gay" label is not helpful. It's not what one should identify with. We know sexual attractions are on a spectrum (as we are soooo often reminded) and people can change from one end to the other and back again. We are all male or female humans struggling with sexual attractions. Saying you have SSA (same-sex attraction) is something you have outside of your "person" and is a healthier way of looking at it.

As the following article denotes, there are some good Catholic's with SSA who agree:

From http://josephsciambra.com/neo-gay-cathol...-question/




Quote:Neo-Gay Catholics and the Identity Question

In a recent interview Joseph Prever had this to say about a friend who found lack of acceptance as a practicing Christian, and a gay man, at his church:

“I’m thinking of a particular Evangelical friend of mine who constantly has to deal with – he’s gay, but believes basically what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality – he has to deal constantly with people telling him that for him to call himself gay is for him to be embracing a sin. These are people who don’t, in fact, distinguish between the inclination and the action. These are people who say, ‘well, I might go around experiencing temptations to adultery, but I don’t go around identifying myself as an “adulterous Christian,” so why are you going around identifying yourself as a “gay Christian?”’

In my estimation, these Evangelicals were completely correct in their concern – for, when you hold onto and continue to accept and place upon yourself the “gay” label you are publicaly embracing all that goes along with that word; and, this is the case whether you are consciously doing that or not; or, whether that label any longer identifies or describes what you do in your personal life. Case in point, when I attend one of the many gay spectacles in San Francisco as a Christian Missionary – I immediately get asked the crucial pass-word question: “Are you still gay?” Without equivocation I say: “No!” Right away, this signals that I am not or no longer one of the believers. Therefore, when removed from the lifestyle – if you continue to self-identify as “gay” you have clearly not broken all of those soul ties which bind you to sin.

Immediately after that story about his friend, Prever continues when asked:

And what is your response to that?

“My response to that is that while it’s true that homosexuality means that a particular kind of temptation is prevalent in someone’s life, it also means a lot more than that. Since sexuality itself is so deeply tied to so many aspects of our personality, and our experience as human beings, then homosexuality has very wide-reaching effects into almost every aspect of our lives, or at least as many aspects of our lives as sexuality effects.”

In my experience, I have actually found the exact opposite to be true: since homosexuality is not an authentic form of being – it cannot be considered a sexuality at all, but a wound; a “disorder” to use Catholic terminology. In addition, using expressions such as “deeply tied” and “very wide-reaching” approaches too closely the theology of “born this way.” Remembering my own fractured childhood, I quite distinctly recall a gradual process by which my innate heterosexuality was warped into a homosexual inclination by way of: undealt with insecurity, peer bullying, isolation, pornography, and a culture (i.e. The Village People as national heroes) that increasingly presented gay men as happy and healthy. With that in mind, rediscovering who I was as a man made it rather easy to distinguish between that sick and hopeless part of myself that turned to homosexuality and the genuine sexuality that distinguished me as masculine and heterosexual. Therefore, my homosexuality was not a part of me – nor a part of my sexuality – but, a disorder that caused me to act out sexually in a vain attempt to deal with it. I think Catholic author and counselor David Prosen expressed this accurately: “For example, in many men the root of same sex attraction is not sexual. Many have said that they experienced this attraction as children before knowing anything about sex. For many, the attraction was really about admiring the qualities in those of the same-sex. As a child, he may have thought… “If only I was athletic like him, look like him, or strong like him, then I would be liked by others.” If a child has these thoughts of coveting others and self-pity, when he reaches puberty this can become sexualized and he may become confused.”
Reply
#15
(12-09-2017, 11:35 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 11:22 AM)Trad Catholic27 Wrote: But God in His Justice destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they committed homosexual acts without repentance.
How can we reach out to homosexuals without sounding like Fr James Martin who is heretical by claiming that they don't need to change

True. But not every homosexual is committing acts without repentance.

We can reach out in love by not condoning individual homosexual acts, but by loving the person. If you're interacting with an actively gay person, you have to teach them that their actions are hurting them further and that they do need to change. But you can't just walk up to most gay people and tell them to repent and expect a change. If you make friends with them, show them that you care, and then explain why they need to change, then they're more receptive to your message. You can't fill a closed mind with information any more than you can fill a closed container with water. You have to get them to open up to you first.
I came across Fr Martin a few weeks ago in an article I found while reading about Father Thomas Weinandy (who I have been a fan of for almost a decade).  As best I can tell his position compromises truth in favor of compassion and such should never be done.

That being said, I very much endorse what In His Love said.

For me it is helpful to remember just how sinful I am.  I think homosexual acts are sinful, but I think pre-marital sex heterosexual sex is worse!  The reason for this is that before gay marriage AND for any faithful Christian with a correct understanding of God's teachings, same sex marriage is not possible.  So, those with same sex attractions can face the prospect of never having this desire realized or they can sin.  Those with opposite sex attractions are faced with the prospect of WAITING until marriage or they can sin.  I think either is sin is sinful (and is GRAVE matter and likely is chosen with full knowledge and deliberate consent), I just think the person with SSA has more difficulty making the correct choice.  Combine this with the fact that they are criticized harshly by those with a proper understanding of marriage, and it is even harder to choose the proper understanding of marriage.  So, I am sinful, all the folks I know are.  I sin differently than do others and there are things that are more and or less damning.  But pre-marital sex and homosexual sex are EQUALLY grave IMO.

It is a product of the “deification of sex” that those with same sex attraction are celebrated and encouraged to embrace this as their lifestyle and their identity.  Those with asperges’s syndrome are not told to embrace their isolation, stay away from neuro-typical folks.  Do not go outside ones comfort zone to form healthy connections.  Aspergers as an Autism Spectrum Disorder is not going to be removed from the DSM-5 (or 6 …) because folks with Aspergers have difficulties living in society and through counseling and coping mechanisms they can be widely successful.  If our society deified nuero-aspects associated with normal and Aspergers, they would expect the celebration of the normalcy of those who have Aspergers.  But we don’t change society for the neuro-atypical.  We respect, we council, we love, but we do not encourage the avoidance of “normal” relationships, the isolation, (the posting on the Internet rather than interacting in person), … that might be more comfortable for the neuro-atypical folks.  They are and will be happier if they step outside of their comfort zone and interact with nuero-typical folks on the level that nuero-typical people interact.  There is more happiness and less suicide in this path (or so it seems).  

I cannot advocate in this society that homosexuals be counseled and interact with sexually-typical folks in typical ways, but this is because the culture has so radically perverted sex.  In the most accepting of settings those who live a same sex lifestyle have more problems (on average) than those who do not so I do not think the problems are solely due to mistreatment of those with SSA.  But, the success rate of those who try to live a sexual-typical life is VERY low. 

Charity, TOm
Reply
#16
(12-09-2017, 05:37 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 11:35 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 11:22 AM)Trad Catholic27 Wrote: But God in His Justice destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they committed homosexual acts without repentance.
How can we reach out to homosexuals without sounding like Fr James Martin who is heretical by claiming that they don't need to change

True. But not every homosexual is committing acts without repentance.

We can reach out in love by not condoning individual homosexual acts, but by loving the person. If you're interacting with an actively gay person, you have to teach them that their actions are hurting them further and that they do need to change. But you can't just walk up to most gay people and tell them to repent and expect a change. If you make friends with them, show them that you care, and then explain why they need to change, then they're more receptive to your message. You can't fill a closed mind with information any more than you can fill a closed container with water. You have to get them to open up to you first.
I came across Fr Martin a few weeks ago in an article I found while reading about Father Thomas Weinandy (who I have been a fan of for almost a decade).  As best I can tell his position compromises truth in favor of compassion and such should never be done.

That being said, I very much endorse what In His Love said.

For me it is helpful to remember just how sinful I am.  I think homosexual acts are sinful, but I think pre-marital sex heterosexual sex is worse!  The reason for this is that before gay marriage AND for any faithful Christian with a correct understanding of God's teachings, same sex marriage is not possible.  So, those with same sex attractions can face the prospect of never having this desire realized or they can sin.  Those with opposite sex attractions are faced with the prospect of WAITING until marriage or they can sin.  I think either is sin is sinful (and is GRAVE matter and likely is chosen with full knowledge and deliberate consent), I just think the person with SSA has more difficulty making the correct choice.  Combine this with the fact that they are criticized harshly by those with a proper understanding of marriage, and it is even harder to choose the proper understanding of marriage.  So, I am sinful, all the folks I know are.  I sin differently than do others and there are things that are more and or less damning.  But pre-marital sex and homosexual sex are EQUALLY grave IMO.

It is a product of the “deification of sex” that those with same sex attraction are celebrated and encouraged to embrace this as their lifestyle and their identity.  Those with asperges’s syndrome are not told to embrace their isolation, stay away from neuro-typical folks.  Do not go outside ones comfort zone to form healthy connections.  Aspergers as an Autism Spectrum Disorder is not going to be removed from the DSM-5 (or 6 …) because folks with Aspergers have difficulties living in society and through counseling and coping mechanisms they can be widely successful.  If our society deified nuero-aspects associated with normal and Aspergers, they would expect the celebration of the normalcy of those who have Aspergers.  But we don’t change society for the neuro-atypical.  We respect, we council, we love, but we do not encourage the avoidance of “normal” relationships, the isolation, (the posting on the Internet rather than interacting in person), … that might be more comfortable for the neuro-atypical folks.  They are and will be happier if they step outside of their comfort zone and interact with nuero-typical folks on the level that nuero-typical people interact.  There is more happiness and less suicide in this path (or so it seems).  

I cannot advocate in this society that homosexuals be counseled and interact with sexually-typical folks in typical ways, but this is because the culture has so radically perverted sex.  In the most accepting of settings those who live a same sex lifestyle have more problems (on average) than those who do not so I do not think the problems are solely due to mistreatment of those with SSA.  But, the success rate of those who try to live a sexual-typical life is VERY low. 

Charity, TOm

Well, I have the greatest compassion for any and everyone trying to be pure in this day and age.

However, tradition says that sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven.
Reply
#17
I don't have anything against people with same sex attraction who are celibate but it is gravely disordered. 

Many gays engage in bugchasing.
*WARNING* VERY DISTURBING


Reply
#18
(12-09-2017, 05:18 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 02:42 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
I liked your article.

I am not as confident that homosexuality is analogous to “same sex attractions” as you claim it to be.

I think it is a mistake to call people homosexuals or heterosexuals.  Being male and female is biology and there are MANY traits linked strongly and weakly to this biology.  (The possession of sex organs of a certain type STRONGLY.  The possession of secondary sexual characteristics like a deep voice somewhat strongly.  Various predilections that are likely more than just cultural dolls vs. toy guns weakly).  But having same sex attraction is not SOLELY biological by any study I have ever seen (it does have biological precursors, but there is a lot of environmental conditioning, just like being prone to anger or easy laughter has both biological precursors AND environmental conditioning).

Something doesn't have to be purely biological, or biological at all, to exist.
 
Quote:(snip)

I am a child of God.  I am a male.  I am about 50% Irish.
I love chocolate, but I am not a chocophile.  I am overweight, but I am not a fatty.
I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I do not think it best to claim, “I am a heterosexual.”
 
Some people are chocoholics. Some people are "fatties." Etc. "Homosexual" simply describes the attraction to one's own sex. What one does with that aspect of one's being is where the problems come in.
 
Quote:Sex is a much larger part of our lives, identities, goals, quests, … than God ever intended.

C.S. Lewis responds to this with his image of a group attending a show in a darken theater.  They are whooping it up as a large shiny half sphere is slowly lifted up and gradually it is revealed that below this lid is a … platter with a large rack of lamb.  No sooner than the glimpse of the lamb is barely realized, the lid slams shut and the audience is invited to voyeurously anticipate the next platter of food.  You might think these folks are starving, but it is much more likely that the God-given desire for sustenance has been radically perverted by the society where these folks live.  We live in a society where the God given desire for connection and reproduction through sexual relationship has been RADICALLY PERVERTED.
 
Sure. but human sexuality is a lot more complicated than "married couple wants babies, and, so, have sex" given concupiscence, human psychology, life, abuse of all sorts, bad relationships with parents, our pornified world, the existence of The Pill, etc. That reality shouldn't be ignored or wished away, and not having labels -- words -- for something because that something isn't ideal is weird to me, sort of like refusing to say the word "cancer" because "cancer bad."
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#19
(12-09-2017, 07:22 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 05:18 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 02:42 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
I liked your article.

I am not as confident that homosexuality is analogous to “same sex attractions” as you claim it to be.

I think it is a mistake to call people homosexuals or heterosexuals.  Being male and female is biology and there are MANY traits linked strongly and weakly to this biology.  (The possession of sex organs of a certain type STRONGLY.  The possession of secondary sexual characteristics like a deep voice somewhat strongly.  Various predilections that are likely more than just cultural dolls vs. toy guns weakly).  But having same sex attraction is not SOLELY biological by any study I have ever seen (it does have biological precursors, but there is a lot of environmental conditioning, just like being prone to anger or easy laughter has both biological precursors AND environmental conditioning).

Something doesn't have to be purely biological, or biological at all, to exist.
 
Quote:(snip)

I am a child of God.  I am a male.  I am about 50% Irish.
I love chocolate, but I am not a chocophile.  I am overweight, but I am not a fatty.
I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I do not think it best to claim, “I am a heterosexual.”
 
Some people are chocoholics. Some people are "fatties." Etc. "Homosexual" simply describes the attraction to one's own sex. What one does with that aspect of one's being is where the problems come in.
 
Quote:Sex is a much larger part of our lives, identities, goals, quests, … than God ever intended.

C.S. Lewis responds to this with his image of a group attending a show in a darken theater.  They are whooping it up as a large shiny half sphere is slowly lifted up and gradually it is revealed that below this lid is a … platter with a large rack of lamb.  No sooner than the glimpse of the lamb is barely realized, the lid slams shut and the audience is invited to voyeurously anticipate the next platter of food.  You might think these folks are starving, but it is much more likely that the God-given desire for sustenance has been radically perverted by the society where these folks live.  We live in a society where the God given desire for connection and reproduction through sexual relationship has been RADICALLY PERVERTED.
 
Sure. but human sexuality is a lot more complicated than "married couple wants babies, and, so, have sex" given concupiscence, human psychology, life, abuse of all sorts, bad relationships with parents, our pornified world, the existence of The Pill, etc. That reality shouldn't be ignored or wished away, and not having labels -- words -- for something because that something isn't ideal is weird to me, sort of like refusing to say the word "cancer" because "cancer bad."

I am not arguing against the label because it is "bad."  I am arguing against the label because it evidences the disordered state of our society by allowing that someone IS their sexual desires.  Who one internally feels attracted too should not be such a large part of their person.  Just like ones love of chocolate or weight relative to the norm should not be such a large part of their (my) person.  
This is largely if not totally about semantics.  I am merely saying that there is a huge barrier between our culture and right thinking.  Choosing words that reinforce the wrong thinking of our culture only makes the barrier more difficult to surmount.

And human sexuality is more complicated than what I think God intended, namely that sex is "unitive" and "procreative."  But this is WRONG IMO.  If sex was properly understood to be for the solidifying of a marital union between a man and woman for the purpose of creating a stable family unit AND for procreation within this family unit; then it would be much less complex.  The arguments against gay marriage would be obvious to everyone (even those with SSA).  That society has departed from this is true.  That right thinking individuals should be inviting a restoration of true thinking is what I advocate.  I am not advocating a denial of the reality, only that God's purposes be highlighted when possible especially when this conflicts with societal reality.

If I could unilaterally change the semantics of our society (perhaps through some time travel where 100 intelligent right thinking individual travel back in time 100 years and set about to teach all who they can fine), I think I would change the definition of sex such that is the sexual union of man and woman in marriage.  I would apply the term "perversion" to masterbation, premarital fornication, and homosexual acts (and to voyeurism as practiced by all who watch primetime TV and by those who watch pornography).  I don't see such a change happening and part of me recognizes that God is sovereign, but still this is what I think would help in the culture war.
  
Charity, TOm
Reply
#20
(12-09-2017, 07:22 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 05:18 PM)tomnossor Wrote:
(12-09-2017, 02:42 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: http://www.fisheaters.com/homosexuality.html
I liked your article.

I am not as confident that homosexuality is analogous to “same sex attractions” as you claim it to be.

I think it is a mistake to call people homosexuals or heterosexuals.  Being male and female is biology and there are MANY traits linked strongly and weakly to this biology.  (The possession of sex organs of a certain type STRONGLY.  The possession of secondary sexual characteristics like a deep voice somewhat strongly.  Various predilections that are likely more than just cultural dolls vs. toy guns weakly).  But having same sex attraction is not SOLELY biological by any study I have ever seen (it does have biological precursors, but there is a lot of environmental conditioning, just like being prone to anger or easy laughter has both biological precursors AND environmental conditioning).

Something doesn't have to be purely biological, or biological at all, to exist.
 
Quote:(snip)

I am a child of God.  I am a male.  I am about 50% Irish.
I love chocolate, but I am not a chocophile.  I am overweight, but I am not a fatty.
I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I do not think it best to claim, “I am a heterosexual.”
 
Some people are chocoholics. Some people are "fatties." Etc. "Homosexual" simply describes the attraction to one's own sex. What one does with that aspect of one's being is where the problems come in.
 
Quote:Sex is a much larger part of our lives, identities, goals, quests, … than God ever intended.

C.S. Lewis responds to this with his image of a group attending a show in a darken theater.  They are whooping it up as a large shiny half sphere is slowly lifted up and gradually it is revealed that below this lid is a … platter with a large rack of lamb.  No sooner than the glimpse of the lamb is barely realized, the lid slams shut and the audience is invited to voyeurously anticipate the next platter of food.  You might think these folks are starving, but it is much more likely that the God-given desire for sustenance has been radically perverted by the society where these folks live.  We live in a society where the God given desire for connection and reproduction through sexual relationship has been RADICALLY PERVERTED.
 
Sure. but human sexuality is a lot more complicated than "married couple wants babies, and, so, have sex" given concupiscence, human psychology, life, abuse of all sorts, bad relationships with parents, our pornified world, the existence of The Pill, etc. That reality shouldn't be ignored or wished away, and not having labels -- words -- for something because that something isn't ideal is weird to me, sort of like refusing to say the word "cancer" because "cancer bad."

Hi Vox!

 I'm curious how would you respond to Joseph Sciamra's article I posted above?

Thanks! :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)