Homosexuality- Does choice matter?


Recommended Posts

Drew wrote:

"Rational men want to understand themselves and know why they feel what they feel and want what they want."

Nope. Rationality has little to do with feelings or wishes. Understanding yourself will not help you drive a car, learn algebra, or write a coherent sentence about your sexual urges. The world did not start with your emotional life.

"The world did not start with your emotional life." Really?

Knowing "why", of an emotion or a feeling, is often down-played and even rejected against 'rationality'. Emotions are highly important both as an instant, automatic assessment and (specific emotions) their own reward. Just to get the causation and priority firmly fixed.

"An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand

Playboy, March 1964

An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . .

In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?”

“Philosophical Detection,”

I think that emotions are all connected to ideas. They are controlled by our judgments. Our emotional faculty has to always act but we have a choice about how it acts or which way basically, because of our faculty of reason. You control whether you think or not, whether you identity reality or evade it and this determines the character of your emotions. I do not believe that emotions exist outside the province of reason, that is outside of the effects of our volitional actions of consciousness. I mean I don't think emotions are ever free of reason, which means cannot behave independently of what is going on in our minds in respect to what we can volitionally control about our minds. Our emotional faculty works in tandem with our rational-faculty, but the hierarchy is head above "heart". I just think I need to point out that I dont think the behavior of emotions is independent of the rational-faculty, so in other words, feelings are not instincts or mindless urges. They are always connected to ideas and ideas can be judged and chosen or rejected. They are always connected to judgment and don't behave freely of it, or freely of either our reason or irrationality. For instance, as a practice of introspection, you can focus on an emotion and discover why you are feeling it and so also discover if what it is you are consciously aware of on some level is something you are judging correctly or not, because you can discover what the reality is that you are conscious of that is the cause of the feeling and look at that reality to see if what you are thinking about it is correct or not. You know what I mean? I mean an emotion is connected to something about reality you are aware of and you are judging that reality in some way and that is what makes your feeling the way it is, so by inspecting the feeling, you can discover what it is you are conscious of and how you are judging it (you can decide too if you need to do something). Then once you understand it, your feeling might change if you've had to change your mind about how you were judging reality.

So, I would never say that it is the other way, that however you feel, reality must be in conformity with it. The subject was if choice mattered in sexuality. My answer is yes, because choice matters in the intellect. Sexual-interests, largely existing for people in an undefined way, like an x-factor at the bottom of their minds, are controlled by what is volitional about the mind, by ideas about reality. What you want, sexually, is based on judgments, primary ones, which for most people are not identified in their minds, the judgments they’ve made maybe before they even knew the words that could name them, and they instead go by the feelings based on them, taking a primary emotional realm for granted as if it is seated in them as an immovable concrete, something untouchable.

Sexuality is not an exception to any other emotion. The hierarchy is head above heart. That means sexual-desire is controlled by a judgment about existence and the self, the existence of existence and the existence of one's life. How these are primarily regarded decides "sexuality" and how they are primarily decided is a choice.

I don't think sexuality is a mindless bodily "urge". I think "urges" have interests behind them and interests are content of a rational-faculty. I think it's philosophical, so conceptual not instinctual. The only "instinct" to it is the same basic overall feeling inherent to life of the desire to live. Sexuality is related to the answer of how to make one's life possible. It is controlled by our answers to survival. It is how we choose to channel that desire to live, or that is to say our basic choices do channel it. Those choices are philosophical, so volitional.

I agree with the Ayn Rand quotes too and am very familiar with them myself. You hit the proverbial nail squarely on. Thanks. Ayn Rand is always unfailingly refreshing.

A very good mini-essay, Drew: you write "... the choice debate is shallow". Agreed, the "lifestyle choice" argument is limited at best, patronizing at worst -- which does not negate the right to choice and a series of life-choices. The moral choice is to choose what one knows one IS, forgoing inner conflict and 'mind-body split'.

Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it and again bringing in the relevant Ayn Rand support too. "The moral choice is to choose what one knows one IS, forgoing inner conflict and 'mind-body split'. Yes. I concur. I would only add as emphasis that knowing what one is is also just a matter of basic objectivity, so a choice and it is not automatic because nothing of knowledge is, but is a matter of an act of volition to identify your identity as it is. Like, if you do try to identify what you are by referring to your feelings, then you will ultimately decide you are the other sex than you are because you are being principally irrational and evading the self-evident for your answer. Either that or you'll decide that your sexual-identity is not fixed, so as if you don't actually have a sexual-identity. You can, as Mr-Ms Jenner has so stellar-ly proven, believe you are the opposite sex, or even that someone else is the sex they are not. So, for instance, I think what explains "transgenderism" is the basic failure of mind-body integrity, the solution to which is simple even if it takes an intellectual effort. It is objective identification of the self's objective reality. It is basing one's self-concept not on some mysterious inner quality but on the self-evident fact of oneself, one's overt sexual-identity. The mysterious inner quality is also only the feeling of evading objective identity. I mean, that evaded outer identity is the "girl inside" or "boy" as the case may be. That overt, concrete reality is the only basis for a primary concept of oneself. Self-identification of self-evident sexual-identity is the only basis for one's inner self, intellectually. Transgenderism is one of the most severe examples of the problem of "placing your heart above your head", of the primacy of consciousness, of looking inward for the outer facts and then changing the facts to suit one's feeling or baseless concept of self.

The individual's objective sexual-identity is the cocneptual basis for his or her sexual idenity in his or her mind. There is no other basis and it is not automatic, although it may seem to be, but is something that takes identificaiton too, so a choice, focus and effort, on principle.

Objective self-identification can be a great challenge too, because of all the contradictions to reality we have to live with in the world when our individual rights exist in standing violation, so it is just the easier solution for some to choose to give up on identity than to defend it.

So, to know what you are is based on identification too and identification is always a choice that can be evaded and also always takes effort. Knowing what you are is an act of reason. One does not just feel the right way automatically. The only basis to one's concept of one's sexual-identity is one's objective sexual-identity and to make that connection is an act of reason. It is an achievement, in other words, a "psychological" achievement, which I prefer to just call an epistemological one.

I know I may have I just opened up a whole new "can of worms", but I may not be back for a while to respond because I have a lot of work to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only "instinct" to it is the same basic overall feeling inherent to life of the desire to live. Sexuality is related to the answer of how to make one's life possible. It is controlled by our answers to survival. It is how we choose to channel that desire to live, or that is to say our basic choices do channel it. Those choices are philosophical, so volitional.

Whoopsies. You just made sex a lifestyle choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael writes:

Even Glenn Beck said this was one of the dumbest things any presidential hopeful has ever said.

What Ben Carson said was perfectly true.

Homosexual activists don't just want equal rights under the law, because they can already have them under civil unions... which by the way I am in complete favor of.

Their real agenda is to desecrate the sacred bond of marriage which is the very foundation of Western civilization.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, they gotta create that "common child."

Separate the child from his values, e.g., religion, philosophy; his country and his family and poof - the common child ready to be raised by the state...

Hell, even Calypso Louie Farrakhan demanded, in a great speech yesterday, that the black man had to take over the schools in the inner cities that fail black children..." with oppressive white history.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Farrakhan demanded, in a great speech yesterday, that the black man had to take over the schools in the inner cities that fail black children

He's obviously ill informed. That happened 30 years ago.

Atlanta http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/verdict-reached-in-atlanta-school-testing-trial.html?_r=0

Chicago http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/08/former-chicago-public-schools-ceo-indicted/73595890/

Detroit http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/21275

Baltimore https://books.google.com/books?id=Q3sAei8AlmYC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=baltimore+schools+black+teachers+administrators&source=bl&ots=acGyGntcun&sig=4-FoLXQ7Q0ovyNS0JLxRskRrZO0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCTgKahUKEwiPl6yY4rzIAhWI0YAKHTU_DIo#v=onepage&q=baltimore%20schools%20black%20teachers%20administrators&f=false

Philadelphia http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/05/17/white-teachers-sue-philadelphia-school-charge-race-bias/

However dominant and entrenched black teachers are, many are leaving the profession, booted for stupidity.

"Researchers examined the decade between 2002 and 2012 because it was a period of rapid expansion of public charter schools and closures of traditional district schools. There also were other state and federal policy changes, such as the use of teacher evaluation systems, that caused some churn and upheaval in teaching ranks. The largest drop took place in the District of Columbia, where between 2003 and 2011, the portion of the D.C. teaching force that was white more than doubled from 16 percent to 39 percent while the share of teachers who were black shrank from 77 percent to 49 percent." https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/the-number-of-black-teachers-has-dropped-in-nine-us-cities/2015/09/15/9e86878e-5be6-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

Small steps forward. If we could boot them out of the Federal government, we'd be on to something.

"African-Americans are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of State Department employees, 37 percent of the Department of Education, 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development ... 42 percent of the EEOC, 55 percent of the Government Printing Office, 82 percent of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ... 44 percent at Fannie Mae and 50 percent at Freddie Mac." http://buchanan.org/blog/obamas-race-based-spoils-system-4844

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their real agenda is to desecrate the sacred bond of marriage which is the very foundation of Western civilization.

Greg,

That thinking is too collectivist for me to take seriously.

Some homosexual activists have that agenda. Some do not.

I do agree that the ones who do have that agenda can get particularly nasty about it. Just like some of those who oppose them.

But, behind every argument to involve the government in marriage (hetero and homo) is a gun. A big fat gun with a bully holding a finger on the trigger.

I believe the marriage bed is no place for guns as a foundation. So, to me, the real issue in this debate is who will have power over others, who will make others conform to their way of thinking, like it or not. It has very little to do with the essence of marriage.

(Want proof? Watch what happens when you say get the government out of marriage and mean it. Activists on both sides go apeshit.)

For those who believe modern civilization will collapse without traditional marriage having a monopoly on the word "marriage," let them try to convince others. But, please, without guns.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael writes:

Even Glenn Beck said this was one of the dumbest things any presidential hopeful has ever said.

What Ben Carson said was perfectly true.

Homosexual activists don't just want equal rights under the law, because they can already have them under civil unions... which by the way I am in complete favor of.

Their real agenda is to desecrate the sacred bond of marriage which is the very foundation of Western civilization.

Greg

That's silly. Even if that's the intent it won't be the result. Gays getting married has to do with equality under the law. If heterosexual union is special, why does that need to be buffed up with legal benefits and obligations for straights only? Heterosexual marriage is a government welfare benefit, social, psychological and economic, that jacks up one group at the expense of a minority.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heterosexual marriage is a government welfare benefit

Huh?

Marriage penalty

How welfare undermines marriage

Single mom is better off with $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job

"In 2013, federal and state governments spent over $943 billion on welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services ... Roughly half of this welfare assistance or $470 billion goes to families with children, most of which are headed by single parents." https://singlemotherguide.com/grants-for-single-mothers/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant writes:

That's silly.

The end of the distinction

between the sacred and the profane

marks the end of civilization.

You are the majority so you are getting your wish. :wink:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

That's silly.

The end of the distinction

between the sacred and the profane

marks the end of civilization.

You are the majority so you are getting your wish. :wink:

Greg

Awesome! More magic predictions of doom and fantasies of others getting punished!

I wonder: Is having an ape-like brain a "lifestyle choice," or is it a defect that certain people are just born with and will never overcome?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

That's silly.

The end of the distinction

between the sacred and the profane

marks the end of civilization.

You are the majority so you are getting your wish. :wink:

Greg

And burn in hell?

Hey, I agree with you on many things. Are you damned or am I redeemed?

--Brant

sacred: you agree with Greg?

profane: you disagree with Greg?

the end of civiization: but it keeps on getting bigger; for at least 10,000 years now (it's hard to keep civilization down--maybe I should try to switch gears and buff civilization up [kinda boring though; no one pays to watch])

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant writes:

And burn in hell?

Now you're being silly. :wink:

Heaven and Hell are both right here right now.

What I meant about your getting your wish is that you're getting a nation with no distinction between the sacred and the profane.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

Their real agenda is to desecrate the sacred bond of marriage which is the very foundation of Western civilization.

Michael writes:

That thinking is too collectivist for me to take seriously.

That's ok, Michael... no one else here does either. :laugh:

Your view is the dynamic powerful growing majority view, while I belong to a rapidly dwindling minority.

And right now we're both getting the opportunity to observe first hand what happens in America when your majority erases the dividing line between the sacred and the profane.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

And burn in hell?

Now you're being silly. :wink:

Heaven and Hell are both right here right now.

What I meant about your getting your wish is that you're getting a nation with no distinction between the sacred and the profane.

Greg

Because of equality under the law for two people who love each other? Gimme a break.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your view is the dynamic powerful growing majority view...

Greg,

Do you think so?

There are a few people I have seen who express the view that government should not be in the marriage business, but I see no indication that this is a majority view. On the contrary, it seems to be a view few hold. Not even all libertarians agree with this.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I may have I just opened up a whole new "can of worms", but I may not be back for a while to respond because I have a lot of work to do.

Interested readers can peruse a 120-page preview of Drew's second volume of independent philosophy, at his website. This is called "Homosexuality and Philosophy," which is said to be approximately 1,600 pages.

It is kind of hard to get a grip on Drew's philosophy -- or rather to sum up the message of this book. Here, however, is the text that appears on its back cover. There is no paragraphing, though Drew's manuscript is well-paragraphed:

"This book addresses how sexual values mean and are determined by what man lives for. In this second volume of my theory of homosexuality, I discuss the purposes to which individual existence can be aimed at, what the difference is between them and how sexuality fits with what purpose is chosen. These purposes and sexualities are shown in this volume as determined by man’s chosen evaluation of existence as either good or evil, explaining this as deciding life’s purpose as set one way or the other in line with which way that evaluation is made, and showing the respective corresponding means to what end is chosen by it - with also their respective corresponding sexual-values. Again, as in Volume I, the book focuses on the relationship between sexuality and a society of either individualism or statism-collectivism and explains the morality of productive-work to show how life’s work is ordered by the values, fundamentally sexual, it is subject to and why. This is to reveal what sexual-values are correct and so which ones impose no conflict with the principles of the individual’s independent productivity and freedom; so to expose what values are incorrect, and require a life where work is ordered by the statist-collectivist principle. This means the basic needs of individual life bound by either a statist-collectivist principle that corresponds to a sexual value-system chosen which underlies it to order it that way, or by the individualist principle corresponding similarly to a life ordering a sexual-value system chosen which contrariwise decides a condition of life based on individual freedom. The book is an advocacy of productive-freedom and shows the context of ideas and values supportive of it, pointing to how men’s chosen sexuality decides either the sacrifice of it or the honoring of it, and does so fundamentally. As in Volume One, again sexuality is treated here as entirely a matter of choice and thus explainable because of this by only the use of philosophical analysis. My point is that what value-choice serves as his premise is the foundation of the individual’s life and likewise also the state of the world itself in its value-premise. This can be either a principally self-destructive sexual-premise or a productive, life-assertive one and the fundamental choice that decides the fate of a man and the world is sexual. It is a basic sexual-value choice, but even more so, it is a basic moral judgment made about life itself, as good or evil. This choice decides a sexuality and the fate of the world, since all men must decide the same issue. I write here too with a focus on the esteem of or contempt for man’s life, to advance the sexual value-system corresponding to the esteem for existence and man’s life; so what I criticize here systematically is a chosen sexuality deciding life be ordered by intellectual-moral contempt for man’s identity, his life, his consciousness and for existence itself."

From an introductory passage on Drew's main page at Life=exists.com:

Heterosexuality is irrational. That's why I wrote this book. There is no more important issue confronting humanity than the irrationality of heterosexuality. Overpopulation and war are both logically the effects of heterosexuality. That means both the "military-industrial complex", which means making war for money and the welfare-state, are both necessitated by heterosexuality. I wrote this book because I think homosexuality is necessary to man's life and is the solution.
Heterosexuality is the wrong morality for man. Heterosexuality is a sexual-morality and it's both irresponsible and destructive. Another sexual-morality is needed and basically it's the morality of homosexual sexuality. Aligning reproduction to homosexual values, would stop overpopulation, cause a rational-balance to occur in world-population, put an end to abortion too, put an end to starvation in the world as well. It's the answer to getting rid of the power of state, church and corporation to control men's lives and minds.
However, that means it needs to be understood what it is, what it means. To that end I wrote this book to debunk the idea of homosexuality being genetic in any way and to align it with the power of choice and reason. I know most believe that homosexuality or sexuality at all, is not a choice. This is not true. It is a choice, but not the kind you think. It doesn't need to be made consciously to be a choice. What is not understood about sexuality is that sexuality is morality, as I've just indicated, but more importantly, sexuality is philosophy. Our sexuality is our philosophy. It is our philosophy controlling our values, interests and feelings, and philosophy is acquired from the earliest stages of our lives without us even being capable of explaining it. It is all the sometimes lightning-fast assessments we make, basically without deliberation. We make choices before we can understand them. Sexuality grows the way it does because it is the growth of philosophy. Only later in life is it possible to analyze it and know what one's philosophy is. I mean it takes an acquired skill to assess what one's premises are, but you have them all throughout your life, regardless of if you ever work to identify them or not. This is also your sexuality.
Therefore, sexuality is a choice, but a choice we are always making as we advance through life, a living choice that is the actions of our premises. You may not know when you decided it or know at all what your choice means, but knowing these things is not a condition of choosing.
That said, I am here to exonerate the virtue of the homosexual choice. In doing this, I will explain what that choice is and why it is right, its implications too for the entirely of a man's and a society’s existence. That means I will explain why heterosexuality will eventually destroy the world if men don't change. My book(s) explains exactly why these things are true. I've demonstrated how sexuality works from man's basic epistemology to his values and actions. This is the most important thing for anyone to understand at this point in history. It is fundamental to life, just like the facts of reproduction, but is entirely absent from the culture, from men's ideas and reasoning. Men must know the basic facts of their sexual-values in order to live their lives right, just as the basic facts of reproduction are fundamental to man's existence.

Drew states on his site that he is proofreading this volume, and that it may not be finished until December. We may see him here again in the new year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I've followed this only with passing interest. But it sounds to me like this person, Drew, is making a fundamental dichotomy where one does not exist.

Maybe he is flipping the good versus evil in religion. What I mean is traditionally, God (or some form of authority) commands, among many commandments, that homosexuality is evil. So those who follow that religion or culture treat it as such (among the other stuff).

On this flip, heterosexuality seems to be seen as an entire morality ("the wrong morality for man"), an epistemology ("heterosexuality is irrational"), and probably a lot more on the fundamental level, i.e., sexual orientation is a primary condition of existence.

In other words, if I understand the blurb you cited, Drew doesn't believe some God decreed heterosexuality is evil or anything like that. He believes heterosexuality is somehow inherently evil and destructive of all human life.

All I can say is good luck with that.

:smile:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I've followed this only with passing interest. But it sounds to me like this person, Drew, is making a fundamental dichotomy where one does not exist.

I am looking forward to Drew's return. I have a few questions in mind -- mostly dealing with anthropology and primatology. I wonder if he has read any literature on sexuality in the other great apes. The bonobos -- the secular, libertine, feminized Ed Hudgins-style bonobos -- seem to use sex as a means to social cohesion, conflict-avoidance, and well, generalized leftishness and non-American un-Christian whoopee.

I'd also test Drew's acquaintance with recent scientific work that attempts to puzzle out any 'genetic/epigenetic' markers of homosexuality. For example, a few of us might have noticed this week's PR piddle about a study that claims to be able to predict sexual orientation. See "Epigenetic algorithm accurately predicts male sexual orientation."

Maybe he is flipping the good versus evil in religion. What I mean is traditionally, God (or some form of authority) commands, among many commandments, that homosexuality is evil. So those who follow that religion or culture treat it as such (among the other stuff).

I got a few chills up the spine while reading the preview. The kindest way I could characterize the greater work is that it is likely the result of an Idée fixe.

On this flip, heterosexuality seems to be seen as an entire morality ("the wrong morality for man"), an epistemology ("heterosexuality is irrational"), and probably a lot more on the fundamental level, i.e., sexual orientation is a primary condition of existence.

This reminds me of Greg's bizarre theory of homosexuality, which until Drew's appearance ranked as Zaniest of the Zany:

In my opinion, homosexuality is the result of childhood sexual molestation, and is passed on from adult to child. But for the imprint to stick, the victim needs to grow to hate the molester, that is what makes the nature of the molester grow inside of them. And if they don't give up that hatred, by default they become what they hate, and continue the practice by molesting others.

Yeah, don`t grow to hate your molester, boys and girls -- or, well, you will turn into Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper.

Zany!

In other words, if I understand the blurb you cited, Drew doesn't believe some God decreed heterosexuality is evil or anything like that. He believes heterosexuality is somehow inherently evil and destructive of all human life.

All I can say is good luck with that.

There is independent thinking and then there is independent thinking and then there is being walled-off from reality in a basement bunker a million miles from congress with other minds, plonking out a ten-pound book that Changes Everything. As I said, I look forward to some interesting discussion when the proofreading is complete.

Meanwhile, here's a fun wee video to get Moralist horny ...

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

So where is Marlin Perkins...

 

                                                             I need to buy insurance......

 

 

                                                                                                                             blank.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael writes:

Do you think so?

In regards to homosexual "marriage"... yes. The present dominant view reverses thousands of years of moral precedence. This is to what I was referring about removing the distinction between the sacred and the profane.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

Because of equality under the law for two people who love each other? Gimme a break.

You don't need me to give you that break because you already have it, Brant.

Your view is the politically correct majority so you already have your wish. The secular left has decreed by law that there is no longer any distinction between the sacred and the profane.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacred and profane. Is that religious and secular?

A church wedding would be sacred (especially Christian) and if it's not heterosexual it's profane if in that church if it violates doctrine?

How are the Episcopalians doing with this?

Sacred and profane applied to law seems to be the interjection of religious doctrine into a state legal function and it just got kicked out.

Now the country is going to hell--is soon to be there? Is there? WTF?

While there's no making real sense of this, Greg, I tried.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now