Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

26Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 12:50 pm

Guest


Guest
PBulldog2 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?


http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-study-social-economic-differences-between-children-raised-2397884.html

UT study: Social, economic differences between children raised by same-sex, heterosexual parents

Challenging more than a decade of scholarship, a study out of the University of Texas has found that adults raised by same-sex parents reported significant differences in the quality of their lives compared with children of married, heterosexual biological parents.

"It's the largest nationally representative study that concerns the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships," said Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology who authored the study funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

Some have criticized the study's methodology, while others say it is the most expansive such study to date.

Regnerus' work surveyed 3,000 Americans ages 18 to 39 — 175 of whom reported their mothers had lesbian relationships and 73 of whom reported that their fathers had gay relationships. He looked at 40 categories. Among the findings:

■ 69 percent of adults with lesbian mothers and 57 percent with gay fathers reported receiving welfare while growing up. Seventeen percent of those raised by their biological parents who were married did.

■ 38 percent of adults with lesbian mothers and 23 percent with gay fathers reported they are on welfare. Ten percent of those raised by their biological parents are.

■ 19 percent with gay or lesbian parents reported having recent psychological therapy. Eight percent of those raised by married biological parents did.

"The people we studied reflected differently about their own life today and their life in the past. For those with a parent who had a same-sex relationship, those outcomes were decidedly different things, often worse," said Regnerus, who stressed that his findings were not influenced by politics.

Regnerus said his research did not offer causes for the differences and cautioned that his findings should be viewed as a look at an "early generation" of children raised by gay parents in an era less tolerant of such relationships.

For years, research suggested children of gay parents experienced no more significant outcomes than those of heterosexual parents, Regnerus said. In the report, he wrote that it "reveals far greater diversity in the experience of lesbian motherhood (and to a lesser extent, gay fatherhood) than has been acknowledged or understood."

Scientists attribute the departure from previous work to the breadth of Regnerus' data set. Past studies based their findings on less representative "samples of convenience," for example by soliciting study subjects at political forums. Regnerus' data are more reflective of the larger population due to the larger number of those surveyed, said David Eggebeen, an associate professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University.

The study has caused a stir. Eggebeen called the study disquieting.

"These are results that should make everyone take pause," he said. "However, this not end of the story. This study doesn't prove anything, but it raises questions."

Cynthia Osborne, an associate professor at UT's Lyndon B. Johnson School for Public Affairs, said, "We don't have good theoretical reasons as to why these differences might be."

Osborne and others said Regnerus did not differentiate between planned same-sex families and same-sex families born of broken heterosexual relationships.

A joint statement by Washington-based Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, among others, called the study a "flawed, misleading and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents."

"Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said.

The conservative, Christian Family Research Council did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but council leaders told ABC News that the study underscores the need for heterosexual marriage.

Regnerus said he hopes the data will be used to further understanding of families with homosexual parents.

"I'm aware of the sensitivity of the subject, and my intention isn't to create or cause harm," he said. "But research questions shouldn't be off-limits."

27Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 2:48 pm

Sal

Sal
The military should not be a social experiment.[/quote]

You might want to rethink that one. The military has been the catalyst for social change on more than one occasion. Many of the same arguments you make against gays and women serving equally were made in the past about blacks. It'll hurt morale, it'll hurt readiness, blah, blah, blah. Our service personnel are professionals, and more than proficient in adapting to a changing world. It is quickly becoming glaringly apparent that gays and women in the military are serving honorably and effectively. When that fact is recognized by the rest of the country, the inequality with which these heroes are being treated will become untenable.

You are correct about one thing. Your view of women and gays is of the past. You are a dinosaur, and your worldview is dying off with every passing day. Good riddance.

28Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 2:51 pm

Sal

Sal
PBulldog2 wrote:I'm a little too angry to respond right now. I'll give it a day or so.

Oh, c'mon! Let fly! That's what internet forums are for. Twisted Evil

29Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 3:04 pm

Guest


Guest
BP Snacks wrote:
PBulldog2 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?


http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-study-social-economic-differences-between-children-raised-2397884.html

UT study: Social, economic differences between children raised by same-sex, heterosexual parents

Challenging more than a decade of scholarship, a study out of the University of Texas has found that adults raised by same-sex parents reported significant differences in the quality of their lives compared with children of married, heterosexual biological parents.

"It's the largest nationally representative study that concerns the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships," said Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology who authored the study funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

Some have criticized the study's methodology, while others say it is the most expansive such study to date.

Regnerus' work surveyed 3,000 Americans ages 18 to 39 — 175 of whom reported their mothers had lesbian relationships and 73 of whom reported that their fathers had gay relationships. He looked at 40 categories. Among the findings:

■ 69 percent of adults with lesbian mothers and 57 percent with gay fathers reported receiving welfare while growing up. Seventeen percent of those raised by their biological parents who were married did.

■ 38 percent of adults with lesbian mothers and 23 percent with gay fathers reported they are on welfare. Ten percent of those raised by their biological parents are.

■ 19 percent with gay or lesbian parents reported having recent psychological therapy. Eight percent of those raised by married biological parents did.

"The people we studied reflected differently about their own life today and their life in the past. For those with a parent who had a same-sex relationship, those outcomes were decidedly different things, often worse," said Regnerus, who stressed that his findings were not influenced by politics.

Regnerus said his research did not offer causes for the differences and cautioned that his findings should be viewed as a look at an "early generation" of children raised by gay parents in an era less tolerant of such relationships.

For years, research suggested children of gay parents experienced no more significant outcomes than those of heterosexual parents, Regnerus said. In the report, he wrote that it "reveals far greater diversity in the experience of lesbian motherhood (and to a lesser extent, gay fatherhood) than has been acknowledged or understood."

Scientists attribute the departure from previous work to the breadth of Regnerus' data set. Past studies based their findings on less representative "samples of convenience," for example by soliciting study subjects at political forums. Regnerus' data are more reflective of the larger population due to the larger number of those surveyed, said David Eggebeen, an associate professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University.

The study has caused a stir. Eggebeen called the study disquieting.

"These are results that should make everyone take pause," he said. "However, this not end of the story. This study doesn't prove anything, but it raises questions."

Cynthia Osborne, an associate professor at UT's Lyndon B. Johnson School for Public Affairs, said, "We don't have good theoretical reasons as to why these differences might be."

Osborne and others said Regnerus did not differentiate between planned same-sex families and same-sex families born of broken heterosexual relationships.

A joint statement by Washington-based Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, among others, called the study a "flawed, misleading and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents."

"Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said.

The conservative, Christian Family Research Council did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but council leaders told ABC News that the study underscores the need for heterosexual marriage.

Regnerus said he hopes the data will be used to further understanding of families with homosexual parents.

"I'm aware of the sensitivity of the subject, and my intention isn't to create or cause harm," he said. "But research questions shouldn't be off-limits."

this is a unfair biased peice of research.

it refers to children who have BOTH parents which is a rare occasion these days anyway.

also gays and lesbian families dont enjoy the same benefits from a working spouse as maried heterosexual couples. I know for a fact. even the little things like getting the respect for the other same sex parent to tend to child dealings while the other works can be a hassle for same sex couples and this little thing can also be a cost to these couples. there are so many little things that are cost to same sex couples that married hetero couples dont even have to worry about.

also, there are FEW lesbian and gay couples that you could even do a research on. My situation would probaly be off the charts.

so you can shove your research up your ass. researchers havnt even seen the "REAL" families who are and have taken on the burden as good citizens. WHY/ because we stay hidden from assholes like you.

30Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 4:18 pm

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
Slicef18 wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Bombs and missiles are just Phallasses...thw whole military is a phallic worshipping religion... Twisted Evil

I'm not sure everyone will understand what you said. And I'm not sure some of those that do understand it will agree(like it).
But what you say is in fact felicitous to the au courant.

Oh yeah well mine's bigger than yours....shock and awe dude... affraid

31Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 5:55 pm

PBulldog2

PBulldog2
salinsky wrote:
PBulldog2 wrote:I'm a little too angry to respond right now. I'll give it a day or so.

Oh, c'mon! Let fly! That's what internet forums are for. Twisted Evil

I didn't want to write anything I might regret. Twisted Evil

And I still have about 17 hours to go before I can comment.

32Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 5:59 pm

PBulldog2

PBulldog2
chrissy8 wrote:
BP Snacks wrote:
PBulldog2 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?


http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-study-social-economic-differences-between-children-raised-2397884.html

UT study: Social, economic differences between children raised by same-sex, heterosexual parents

Challenging more than a decade of scholarship, a study out of the University of Texas has found that adults raised by same-sex parents reported significant differences in the quality of their lives compared with children of married, heterosexual biological parents.

"It's the largest nationally representative study that concerns the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships," said Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology who authored the study funded by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation.

Some have criticized the study's methodology, while others say it is the most expansive such study to date.

Regnerus' work surveyed 3,000 Americans ages 18 to 39 — 175 of whom reported their mothers had lesbian relationships and 73 of whom reported that their fathers had gay relationships. He looked at 40 categories. Among the findings:

■ 69 percent of adults with lesbian mothers and 57 percent with gay fathers reported receiving welfare while growing up. Seventeen percent of those raised by their biological parents who were married did.

■ 38 percent of adults with lesbian mothers and 23 percent with gay fathers reported they are on welfare. Ten percent of those raised by their biological parents are.

■ 19 percent with gay or lesbian parents reported having recent psychological therapy. Eight percent of those raised by married biological parents did.

"The people we studied reflected differently about their own life today and their life in the past. For those with a parent who had a same-sex relationship, those outcomes were decidedly different things, often worse," said Regnerus, who stressed that his findings were not influenced by politics.

Regnerus said his research did not offer causes for the differences and cautioned that his findings should be viewed as a look at an "early generation" of children raised by gay parents in an era less tolerant of such relationships.

For years, research suggested children of gay parents experienced no more significant outcomes than those of heterosexual parents, Regnerus said. In the report, he wrote that it "reveals far greater diversity in the experience of lesbian motherhood (and to a lesser extent, gay fatherhood) than has been acknowledged or understood."

Scientists attribute the departure from previous work to the breadth of Regnerus' data set. Past studies based their findings on less representative "samples of convenience," for example by soliciting study subjects at political forums. Regnerus' data are more reflective of the larger population due to the larger number of those surveyed, said David Eggebeen, an associate professor of sociology at Pennsylvania State University.

The study has caused a stir. Eggebeen called the study disquieting.

"These are results that should make everyone take pause," he said. "However, this not end of the story. This study doesn't prove anything, but it raises questions."

Cynthia Osborne, an associate professor at UT's Lyndon B. Johnson School for Public Affairs, said, "We don't have good theoretical reasons as to why these differences might be."

Osborne and others said Regnerus did not differentiate between planned same-sex families and same-sex families born of broken heterosexual relationships.

A joint statement by Washington-based Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation, among others, called the study a "flawed, misleading and scientifically unsound paper that seeks to disparage lesbian and gay parents."

"Because of the serious flaws, this so-called study doesn't match 30 years of scientific research that shows overwhelmingly that children raised by parents who are LGBT do equally as well as their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said.

The conservative, Christian Family Research Council did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but council leaders told ABC News that the study underscores the need for heterosexual marriage.

Regnerus said he hopes the data will be used to further understanding of families with homosexual parents.

"I'm aware of the sensitivity of the subject, and my intention isn't to create or cause harm," he said. "But research questions shouldn't be off-limits."

this is a unfair biased peice of research.

it refers to children who have BOTH parents which is a rare occasion these days anyway.

also gays and lesbian families dont enjoy the same benefits from a working spouse as maried heterosexual couples. I know for a fact. even the little things like getting the respect for the other same sex parent to tend to child dealings while the other works can be a hassle for same sex couples and this little thing can also be a cost to these couples. there are so many little things that are cost to same sex couples that married hetero couples dont even have to worry about.

also, there are FEW lesbian and gay couples that you could even do a research on. My situation would probaly be off the charts.

so you can shove your research up your ass. researchers havnt even seen the "REAL" families who are and have taken on the burden as good citizens. WHY/ because we stay hidden from
assholes like you.

Yup....that was the kind of thing I was afraid I might say. lol!

33Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 6:55 pm

Nekochan

Nekochan
salinsky wrote:The military should not be a social experiment.

You might want to rethink that one. The military has been the catalyst for social change on more than one occasion. Many of the same arguments you make against gays and women serving equally were made in the past about blacks. It'll hurt morale, it'll hurt readiness, blah, blah, blah. Our service personnel are professionals, and more than proficient in adapting to a changing world. It is quickly becoming glaringly apparent that gays and women in the military are serving honorably and effectively. When that fact is recognized by the rest of the country, the inequality with which these heroes are being treated will become untenable.

You are correct about one thing. Your view of women and gays is of the past. You are a dinosaur, and your worldview is dying off with every passing day. Good riddance.
[/quote]

Women serving has hurt morale and readiness in some areas.
Race/Color has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation. Different, entirely.

As to the study about children of gays, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

34Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 8:17 pm

NaNook

NaNook
I hope we can discover an all-purpose oil. Otherwise, soldiers will have to carry gun oil and anal oil. I hope they don't mix them up causing a weapon to miss-fire or a burning, itching sensation around the anus. Cool

35Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/16/2012, 11:26 pm

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit
obama is going to use tax payer money to send all the gay people their own personal fruitcakes(leftover from Christmas no doubt) Who eats those things? Gay people will stick anything in their mouth.



Last edited by ghandi on 6/17/2012, 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

36Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/17/2012, 12:07 am

Sal

Sal
Hey, look! It's a bigot circle jerk and they've brought their own lube. LMAO!

37Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/17/2012, 6:53 pm

VectorMan

VectorMan
ghandi wrote:obama is going to use tax payer money to send all the gay people their own personal pruitcakes(leftover from Christmas no doubt) Who eats those things? Gay people will stick anything in their mouth.

I love fruit cake with a cold glass of milk. Yum.

Is there a straight pride month? If not I call bullshit!

These damn busy body gays get on my last nerve. We are accepted now more than any other time in history. But, I guess that's not good enough for them. It's good enough for me, so don't ask me and I won't tell.
Rolling Eyes

38Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/17/2012, 7:50 pm

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit
Everyone has their own special month and special organization: naacp, february, national mexican month, black pride month.

Nothing for the white people who's tax money is wrongfully contributed to these months and organizations.

I declare July national white people month. Unless some non working, non tax paying group has already claimed July.

39Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/18/2012, 3:15 pm

PBulldog2

PBulldog2
ghandi wrote:obama is going to use tax payer money to send all the gay people their own personal fruitcakes(leftover from Christmas no doubt) Who eats those things? Gay people will stick anything in their mouth.

Absolutely NOT Gandhi -

Your posts are disgusting. I wonder about your age, your maturity.

Why are you obviously trying to manipulate and bait other posters?

You can head back under your troll bridge anytime......you won't be missed.

40Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/18/2012, 3:29 pm

PBulldog2

PBulldog2
Nekochan wrote:
PBulldog2 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?


Like I said, we're in a time where there is talk of greatly reducing existing military benefits. This is about the federal government recognizing gay marriage in the same way it recognizes traditional marriage. We're talking about everything from social security benefits to family benefits for military families.
How do you propose to pay for all these extra benefits for gays and their families, while at the same time telling existing traditional military families that their benefits will be cut?
How do you think this will affect readiness? Morale? For those who say that I "hate gays" because of my stance, I will say that for many of the same reasons that I do not believe that women should serve in combat zones, I think there are going to be problems with openly gays serving. And I sure don't hate women! I understand that there are gays who proudly and bravely serve in the military and they have served for years. But I believe that "don't ask don't tell" was working. And I do not know if the military can afford this kind of change and shake up in morale and readiness at a time when significant cuts of benefits are coming.
The bottom line for me, regarding the military, is not what is "fair". Serving in the military is not about fairness or equality. The military is, by design, selective. Not everyone is eligible to serve. Not everyone has an automatic "right" to be in the military. This is not a civil rights issue. Decisions about military funding and military selection should be about performing the mission and about military readiness. That is the bottom line.

It's also about the soldiers, pilots, officers, whatever who happen to be gay. Why should they receive less in spousal benefits than those who are traditionally married? I mean, what is the REAL objection? Much of what I have read on here shows that many people still consider homo or bisexuals to be "less than" - second rate people, if you will.

Frankly, I think it is selfish in the extreme to be concerned about sharing military benefits with same-sex couples.

When that battle is going on, a soldier is a soldier. His or her sexuality doesn't matter. That's the last thing on their minds. Why should same-sex couples receive fewer benefits than straight couples? I mean WHY? What's the idea behind the curtain here?

You mentioned morale. All I can say is if a soldier is so sensitive that he gets down and blue because he has a gay man in his unit, then that soldier may not be fit for battle in the first place.

41Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/18/2012, 3:31 pm

PBulldog2

PBulldog2
PBulldog2 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
PBulldog2 wrote:
Nekochan wrote:What happens when gays in the military demand family housing and other allowances?

Why would they be denied this, Neko? Why would their relationships, many of them long-term, be considered "less than"? Should the children of gay relationships be denied the same allowances given to children in traditional marriage relationships?


Like I said, we're in a time where there is talk of greatly reducing existing military benefits. This is about the federal government recognizing gay marriage in the same way it recognizes traditional marriage. We're talking about everything from social security benefits to family benefits for military families.
How do you propose to pay for all these extra benefits for gays and their families, while at the same time telling existing traditional military families that their benefits will be cut?
How do you think this will affect readiness? Morale? For those who say that I "hate gays" because of my stance, I will say that for many of the same reasons that I do not believe that women should serve in combat zones, I think there are going to be problems with openly gays serving. And I sure don't hate women! I understand that there are gays who proudly and bravely serve in the military and they have served for years. But I believe that "don't ask don't tell" was working. And I do not know if the military can afford this kind of change and shake up in morale and readiness at a time when significant cuts of benefits are coming.
The bottom line for me, regarding the military, is not what is "fair". Serving in the military is not about fairness or equality. The military is, by design, selective. Not everyone is eligible to serve. Not everyone has an automatic "right" to be in the military. This is not a civil rights issue. Decisions about military funding and military selection should be about performing the mission and about military readiness. That is the bottom line.

It's also about the soldiers, pilots, officers, whatever who happen to be gay. Why should they receive less in spousal benefits than those who are traditionally married? I mean, what is the REAL objection? Much of what I have read on here shows that many people still consider homo or bisexuals to be "less than" - second rate people, if you will.

Frankly, I think it is selfish in the extreme to be concerned about sharing military benefits with same-sex couples.

When that battle is going on, a soldier is a soldier. His or her sexuality doesn't matter. That's the last thing on their minds. Why should same-sex couples receive fewer benefits than straight couples? I mean WHY? What's the belief hiding behind the curtain here?

You mentioned morale. All I can say is if a soldier is so sensitive that he gets down and blue because he has a gay man in his unit, then that soldier may not be fit for battle in the first place.

42Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/18/2012, 4:22 pm

Guest


Guest
When they let those fairys is when we started losing the war. But that li b media is covering it up/

43Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/18/2012, 6:06 pm

PBulldog2

PBulldog2
TittyMan wrote:When they let those fairys is when we started losing the war. But that li b media is covering it up/

A little homophobic, are we?

44Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month - Page 2 Empty Re: Pentagon to Honor Gay Pride Month on 6/20/2012, 7:21 am

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
VectorMan wrote:

These damn busy body gays get on my last nerve. We are accepted now more than any other time in history. But, I guess that's not good enough for them. It's good enough for me, so don't ask me and I won't tell.[/b] Rolling Eyes
I agree. Queers are now the most loved and looked up to of all Americans.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum