The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

My view on same sex marriage is

52% 52% 
[ 15 ]
45% 45% 
[ 13 ]
3% 3% 
[ 1 ]
 
Total Votes : 29

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 14:30

@Woofer wrote:
As I said before its basic science and/or occult teaching - a positive and a negative completing a circuit to bring something into manifestation.

I guess we're talking about children here, and not just simply depositing sperm.

Some heterosexual couples choose not to have children.

Some heterosexual couples cannot have children.

So they're not married then?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 14:32

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
It is not `simply` but yes, in part. As I said before its basic science and/or occult teaching - a positive and a negative completing a circuit to bring something into manifestation.  But homosexuals cannot do this as scientifically and in occult terms they repel each other. But the homosexual gets round this by inserting his penis into the exit point for excretion (apologies for crudeness). No point into getting into a discussion of whether this is natural or not because it could get heated.  I agree its no body`s business but theirs but resent it being labelled a marriage.  Just my opinion which I will not change.

So it's all about private parts then :)

Not totally no. If that is your perspective it could be about any orifice, private or not (for instance holes in public toilet walls).  Its about positive and negative IMO.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 14:40

@Woofer wrote:
Not totally no. If that is your perspective it could be about any orifice, private or not (for instance holes in public toilet walls).  Its about positive and negative IMO.

But like I said, that 'positive and negative' stuff is just your take on things. So it affects your understanding of the word 'marriage' only.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 14:43

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
As I said before its basic science and/or occult teaching - a positive and a negative completing a circuit to bring something into manifestation.

I guess we're talking about children here, and not just simply depositing sperm.

Some heterosexual couples choose not to have children.

Some heterosexual couples cannot have children.

So they're not married then?

Re children: On the material level, yes, whether children materialise or not.  I`m not saying that a joining of homosexuals cannot achieve a joining on the mental and spiritual levels.

Whether homosexual couples want children or not, they aren`t married in the real terms of the word IMO.  I guess to debate further the root meaning of the word marriage must be determined.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 14:46

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Not totally no. If that is your perspective it could be about any orifice, private or not (for instance holes in public toilet walls).  Its about positive and negative IMO.

But like I said, that 'positive and negative' stuff is just your take on things.  So it affects your understanding of the word 'marriage' only.

Yes, it is my take on things and includes the word marriage.  As I`ve said there`s no point in discussing unless the root meaning of the word marriage is established.  It is what the thread started as, i.e. that the meaning of the original word is being changed to accommodate our more relaxed society.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.02.14 14:51

@Woofer wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Not totally no. If that is your perspective it could be about any orifice, private or not (for instance holes in public toilet walls).  Its about positive and negative IMO.

But like I said, that 'positive and negative' stuff is just your take on things.  So it affects your understanding of the word 'marriage' only.

Yes, it is my take on things and includes the word marriage.  As I've said there's no point in discussing unless the root meaning of the word marriage is established.  It is what the thread started as, i.e. that the meaning of the original word is being changed to accommodate our more relaxed society.
The word 'gay' has similarly undergone a radical transformation.

I should know - since I was born on a Sunday.

Hence: 'bonny and blithe - and good and gay'

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 14:53

@Woofer wrote:
Yes, it is my take on things and includes the word marriage.  As I`ve said there`s no point in discussing unless the root meaning of the word marriage is established.  It is what the thread started as, i.e. that the meaning of the original word is being changed to accommodate our more relaxed society.

I guess we could look at some sources then.

Marriage has never had just one meaning. Adjectives commonly used with the word reveal the institution’s diversity, among them traditional, religious, civil, arranged, gay, plural, group, open, heterosexual, common-law, interracial, same-sex, polygamous, and monogamous. And this diversity has been in evidence, if not since the beginning of time, at least since the beginning of marriage itself, roughly some 4000 years ago.

Multiple wives, for example, proliferate in the Bible. King Solomon famously had 700, although most were apparently instruments of political alliance rather than participants in royal romance. (For that, he had 300 concubines.)

Marriage can be sanctioned legally or religiously, and typically confers upon married people a special legal status with particular rights, benefits, and obligations. Access to this special status has changed over time. Interracial marriages, for example, were legalized in the United States by the Supreme Court as recently as 1967, and as of this writing, same-sex marriage, while banned in some states and ignored in some, is recognized in others.

Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the most common definition of the term in the Western world today—this in spite of the prevalence on the one hand of divorce (enabling people to marry several different partners in sequence), and on the other, of an increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage. And as society becomes more inclusive, it is likely that “equal protection under the law” will be further extended to same-sex couples.

In crafting definitions for a word that represents an institution that is rapidly evolving, the dictionary may well have to keep adding, changing, and reordering senses, splitting or combining them as the institution changes. Inevitably, those who want to preserve what they cherish as traditional values will resist new definitions, while those who anticipate, welcome, and fight for societal change will be impatient when new definitions do not appear as quickly as they would wish. But we should all remember that while it is not the job of a dictionary to drive social change, it is inevitable that it will reflect such change.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Cristobell on 25.02.14 15:04

@PeterMac wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.  End of story.
They already DO.  That is the point I was making.
A formally registered civil partnership already confers all the inheritance rights, pensions and everything else on the other partner.
And it may be accompanied by a solemn ceremony according to the wishes of the persons involved, Humanist, Church or any other form of Blessing they deem appropriate.
But why call it Marriage.

There is a similar devaluation of the word Graduate, which started in the USA
In Britain you graduated on receipt of a degree from a recognised University
Then in the states the end of term party for 6th formers became "6th form graduation"
This has, sadly spread to the UK
And there are even junior schools where the children '"graduate" at age 11.   (All of them obviously.  No one can be seen to fail )
And some are complete with silly little mortar boards.

Which is all nice and Disney, but what do you now call the ceremony of receiving a Degree from a decent University ?

All that has been achieved is the hijacking of a perfectly well understood word, so that now, if you are interviewing someone and they say they "graduated" in law, for example, you have no idea whether this was O level, A level, LLB, or an LLM.



Its a shame that the word 'Graduation' has been hijacked, but such is the evolution of language. I don't actually have a problem with the idea of High School students graduating, in fact I think its great. It gives kids something to aim for and probably keeps a lot of them in school. It is good thing to celebrate our kids achievements, thats the kind of behaviour we want to encourage. From a sociological perspective, it tells prospective employers that the candidate has at least achieved a basic all round education.

I don think it steals the thunder from real academics. Imo, it encourages the kids to study further and to aim for the 'big' one.
Those of us who have enjoyed that heady moment, know that it just the beginning of our education.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 15:19

@whatliesbehindthesofa - I see you have provided a selection of other peoples` definitions of the word marriage, but they are not mine.

A marriage is two entities becoming one.  From my perspective this is not possible on the physical plane unless they are opposite in polarity  - maybe it is on the mental or spiritual, I wouldn`t know, but doubt it.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 15:26

@Woofer wrote:@whatliesbehindthesofa - I see you have provided a selection of other peoples` definitions of the word marriage, but they are not mine.

A marriage is two entities becoming one.  From my perspective this is not possible on the physical plane unless they are opposite in polarity  - maybe it is on the mental or spiritual, I wouldn`t know, but doubt it.

I think we're agreed - your definition is not mine either, as it appears to be based on the occult and positives and negatives and polarities and physical planes.

The issue is whether we should 'redefine' the word marriage by changes in law. I've submitted that the word is not universally agreed to mean "one man and one woman", especially not when you look back at history, even the Bible itself.

If we can't agree on the definition of the word "marriage", then how can that definition possibly be redefined by changes in law?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Cristobell on 25.02.14 15:41

@tigger wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
Parliament may have changed the law, but it is vitally important that we continue to assert the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman.

I - and many others - shall continue to assert the truth that all people should be treated equally, regardless of what some ancient text has to say on the subject.

Husbands used to be able to beat their wives.  Luckily, that got 'redefined'.  People use to be able own other people as property.  Luckily, that got 'redefined'.  Women didn't used to be able to vote.  Luckily, that got 'redefined.'


Bravo WLBTS!   Society is based on a 2000 year old text because no-one has come up with something better.  I don't know what the Law has got to do with any of it, although on the face of it we are Christians, we are in fact a secular society, and all humans should have equal rights.  From my perspective if someone wants to shackle themselves to another with the words of a MAN made law, they want their bumps felt.  yes

And just to throw another (feminist) log on the fire, why should married parents receive financial privileges above their their non married contemporaries merely for being married?  Isn't that a little bit antiquated, and on a more sinister level, a form of social engineering?  

There will be many experts who will come forward and state that the best environment for a child is within a stable marriage with a heterosexual couple, and if you don't come from that kind of home, your life is wrecked.  I would argue that as many lives are wrecked through keeping up the pretence that everything is tickedy boo and trying to live up to society's expectations.

The past 20 years has seen a rise in homosexual couples adopting children, most notably Elton John, and even among white middle classes.  Time will tell whether these children grow up to be disturbed adults, imo, they won't, because they were much wanted, and much loved, and any child who receives enough love will not grow up to be a criminal.

I'm confused, whichever law it is, it will be man-made. I cannot see any other way the laws are made.
I also didn't know society is based on a 2000 year old text?  Or would that be the Pauline gospel?

This is not meant to upset you, a genuine query.



It doesn't upset me in the least Tigger - why would it?  And who is Pauline?

I am referring of course to The Bible. The masses were taught how to behave through simple stories and parables.  

Yes indeed all laws are man-made - and therein lies the problem and the cause of much bloodshed throughout history. The problem being its pretty darned impossible to get everyone to agree on what those Laws should be, especially if you take the man on the moon out of the equation.

We are answerable to ourselves Tigger, the way in which we live our lives is our legacy, there will come a time when the only thing left will be our reputations. Whilst I appreciate there must be Laws and indeed Order, and that we must abide by those Laws - they mustn't be above question.  If the Law says you must do something you find morally repugnant, would you do it? As William Blake said 'I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans'.

The debate about Gay marriage is moot.  It only makes a tiny dent in the complete overhaul that Governments will have to face one day.  The truth is the population have moved with the times, even if the authorities haven't.  The fastest growing demographic is single, and single parent households and people can't be manipulated to get, and stay, married by offering them a measly tax break.  

The Stepford world of the 1950's doesn't exist anymore.  The issue highlighted in this thread, is one of the last remaining 'your government knows best' dictates that the Right are clinging onto. The truth is people are now too enlightened to ostracise individuals because of their ethnicity or sexual preferences.  Its mean.  

If people wish to marry in a service recognised by the State, what difference does it make to others? Why must the country unite in tutting?  At some stage or other those homosexual couples might want to adopt, and then we will have a whole new debate about them not being married!  Sheesh.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 15:47

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:@whatliesbehindthesofa - I see you have provided a selection of other peoples` definitions of the word marriage, but they are not mine.

A marriage is two entities becoming one.  From my perspective this is not possible on the physical plane unless they are opposite in polarity  - maybe it is on the mental or spiritual, I wouldn`t know, but doubt it.

I think we're agreed - your definition is not mine either, as it appears to be based on the occult and positives and negatives and polarities and physical planes.

The issue is whether we should 'redefine' the word marriage by changes in law.  I've submitted that the word is not universally agreed to mean "one man and one woman", especially not when you look back at history, even the Bible itself.

If we can't agree on the definition of the word "marriage", then how can that definition possibly be redefined by changes in law?

Well, I suppose it will be redefined whether people agree or not - in order to fit in with how society has changed.  But my opinion will never change from it being ridiculous for gay couples to be married - what`s wrong with having a civil partnership?  My 2 life long gay friends got `married` a few years ago and I really couldn`t see the point.  It entails getting rid of the words `husband` and `wife`for starters and everyone using the word `partner`, but perhaps this is evolution in progress.  Whether the word `marriage` has a universal meaning or not, to me it will always mean `becoming as one` and IMO two positives or two negatives cannot become as one.  You may argue that although a person is a male physically, he can be a female mentally and that I can accept, but joining physically - no - and as a nurse, the cases of terrible permanent damage caused influenced my opinion that it just `aint right.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by plebgate on 25.02.14 15:52

@Woofer wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:@whatliesbehindthesofa - I see you have provided a selection of other peoples` definitions of the word marriage, but they are not mine.

A marriage is two entities becoming one.  From my perspective this is not possible on the physical plane unless they are opposite in polarity  - maybe it is on the mental or spiritual, I wouldn`t know, but doubt it.

I think we're agreed - your definition is not mine either, as it appears to be based on the occult and positives and negatives and polarities and physical planes.

The issue is whether we should 'redefine' the word marriage by changes in law.  I've submitted that the word is not universally agreed to mean "one man and one woman", especially not when you look back at history, even the Bible itself.

If we can't agree on the definition of the word "marriage", then how can that definition possibly be redefined by changes in law?

Well, I suppose it will be redefined whether people agree or not - in order to fit in with how society has changed.  But my opinion will never change from it being ridiculous for gay couples to be married - what`s wrong with having a civil partnership?  My 2 life long gay friends got `married` a few years ago and I really couldn`t see the point.  It entails getting rid of the words `husband` and `wife`for starters and everyone using the word `partner`, but perhaps this is evolution in progress.  Whether the word `marriage` has a universal meaning or not, to me it will always mean `becoming as one` and IMO two positives or two negatives cannot become as one.  You may argue that although a person is a male physically, he can be a female mentally and that I can accept, but joining physically - no.
I will always use the words husband/wife not partner.   Ridiculous. 

Cameron did not have this in his manifesto and there are many who still wonder why this was all rushed through.    Ah liberal democrats springs to mind.  Get em out, all of them.

He will rue the day he formed a coalition with that lot, IMO, of course.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 15:55

@Woofer wrote:
Well, I suppose it will be redefined whether people agree or not - in order to fit in with how society has changed.  But my opinion will never change from it being ridiculous for gay couples to be married - what`s wrong with having a civil partnership?  My 2 life long gay friends got `married` a few years ago and I really couldn`t see the point.  It entails getting rid of the words `husband` and `wife`for starters and everyone using the word `partner`, but perhaps this is evolution in progress. 

You're getting confused by the legal issues.  The words 'husband' and 'wife' exist, and aren't going to magically disappear.  Millions of people are not going to wake up one day and decide that their wife or husband is now their partner.

@Woofer wrote:
Whether the word `marriage` has a universal meaning or not, to me it will always mean `becoming as one` and IMO two positives or two negatives cannot become as one.  You may argue that although a person is a male physically, he can be a female mentally and that I can accept, but joining physically - no.

People of the same sex do join physically, whether you think they should or not.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 16:01

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
Well, I suppose it will be redefined whether people agree or not - in order to fit in with how society has changed.  But my opinion will never change from it being ridiculous for gay couples to be married - what`s wrong with having a civil partnership?  My 2 life long gay friends got `married` a few years ago and I really couldn`t see the point.  It entails getting rid of the words `husband` and `wife`for starters and everyone using the word `partner`, but perhaps this is evolution in progress. 

You're getting confused by the legal issues.  The words 'husband' and 'wife' exist, and aren't going to magically disappear.  Millions of people are not going to wake up one day and decide that their wife or husband is now their partner.

@Woofer wrote:
Whether the word `marriage` has a universal meaning or not, to me it will always mean `becoming as one` and IMO two positives or two negatives cannot become as one.  You may argue that although a person is a male physically, he can be a female mentally and that I can accept, but joining physically - no.

People of the same sex do join physically, whether you think they should or not.

Oooooooooooh thanks for letting me know  big grin  - perhaps you missed the bit where I explained what I witnessed as a nurse.
No point debating really - we`re coming from different perspectives.

P.S.  Our world has come about via the uniting of opposites.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 25.02.14 16:06

@Woofer wrote:
Oooooooooooh thanks for letting me know  big grin  - perhaps you missed the bit where I explained what I witnessed as a nurse.
No point debating really - we`re coming from different perspectives.

I haven't seen any mention of what you've witnessed as a nurse, Woofer :)

The only reason I'm arguing about this issue is because you said:

@Woofer wrote:
Because you are distorting the true meaning of the word and besides, its absolutely ridiculous to say that two men or two women are `married`.

As I've submitted, I haven't distorted anything. Your definition of marriage isn't the only one.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Woofer on 25.02.14 16:09

Seems not.  Good job we don`t all think the same isn`t it.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by tigger on 25.02.14 17:17

I think marriage is closely linked to sex - otherwise how can one explain that virtually the only reason allowed by the church for divorce used to be non- consumation.

There must by now be studies available to compare the mental and physical condition of children from mixed, same sex and single parent families (separate data for single men and women) I'd think.
As far as a baby reared by two males, I'd not approve as there is plenty of evidence that breastfeeding is of great importance for health reasons alone.

It's quite true that there are plenty of children in 'normal' families who are badly treated and unhappy in their situation.
However, the isolation of many mothers may lead to unhappy children, since the 'normal' environment for humans is that of an extended family living close to each other - we are tribal creatures after all - isolation is imo to blame for such situations.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Same sex marriage on 13 March 2014 - but first, emergency new regulations to stop blokes becoming 'Queens' and to remove the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from our laws

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.02.14 20:00

@Woofer wrote:
P.S.  Our world has come about via the uniting of opposites.
'complementary' to each other is I think the right word, rather than 'opposite'

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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