bradbradallen

Homosexuality and Objectivism

Recommended Posts

One might argue that some people are born with a greater urge than others to engage in homosexual behavior, but that does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. Some people may be born with a greater urge to cheat on their spouses, have sex with children, have multiple sex partners, or murder someone, but that does not make such actions moral. If people are nothing more than a hierarchy of urges then morality is impossible.

You are simply begging the question that homosexuality is immoral. On what grounds do you compare it to murder?

I'm simply taking your argument to its logical extreme.

I think that a homosexual lifestyle is a poor choice for most people. I can't say that homosexuality is unequivocally wrong for everyone or that having a few homosexual experiences is necessarily a bad thing -- though I think that some people can develop an addiction to it -- but that is not really the issue that I'm discussing here. If a person becomes convinced that his addiction to homosexual sex implies that he has a "sexual orientation" over which he has no control, then he has lost the ability to control himself.

The notion that there is a sexual orientation that is beyond the province of choice is dehumanizing. It strips a person of his most fundamental human characteristic, the power of choice. A human is a rational animal. He has the power to think, evaluate his options, and choose his course of action. He must will himself to choose that which is right for him.

And you are correct that an urge is not an emotion. But the pleasure and joy of the satisfaction of an urge is. If we can satisfy our urges in the futherance of our long term happiness, then we are acting morally.

One might more properly say that if the satisfaction of our urges leads to the furtherance of our long term happiness, then we are acting morally. We may have many urges or whims on daily basis. Most are dismissed as fancy -- as unrealistic musings. But, occasionally we develop an urge to do something that, upon careful examination, can be seen as furthering our lives. It is those urges that we should follow.

No value that brings us joy is divorced from the satisfaction of urges. We build our values from the bottom up, just as we do our knowledge. Pleasure>Joy>Happiness = Percept>Concept>Integrated Mind.

If you are heterosexual, it is because you have certain urges that you discovered when you started masturbating. If you only started finding women attractive after you read Rand, then you are not human.

Of course there exist poisons, some of which taste sweet. And of course our urges can lead us to self destruction if they are not examined. But the urge comes first. Then the realization that urges are not an automatic form of cognition, then the development of an ethical theory. This is bottom up. No person ever started to develop urges because he found ethics. And without urges, you would never come to value anything at all. The prcoess of growing up is the process of integrating and delaying your urges to find ever more complex and satisfying and encompassing joys.

Values emerge from the bottom up. A system of ethics allows us to integrate those urges. You have to show that satisfying homosexual urges cannot be done without conflict in order to show that homosexuality is unethical.

I agree with everything up to the point at which you state that, "Values emerge from the bottom up." That is not true. You may have inherited values from earlier points in your life or from those around you but a system of ethics is not just a system that "allows us to integrate those urges." A system of ethics is a system that allows us to judge those urges in the light of the ultimate goal or value that we are attempting to achieve, the furtherance of our own lives.

In order to show that satisfying homosexual urges is unethical, I would have to show that satisfying those urges is not the best way for a person to further his life. So, I might bring up facts like the fact that homosexuals tend to have shorter life spans than heterosexuals, that they tend to commit suicide more often, or many other things. There may also be counter arguments extolling the benefits of such a lifestyle. But my main purpose here is not to discuss the merits or demerits of being homosexual.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that a homosexual lifestyle is a poor choice for most people. I can't say that homosexuality is unequivocally wrong for everyone or that having a few homosexual experiences is necessarily a bad thing -- though I think that some people can develop an addiction to it -- but that is not really the issue that I'm discussing here. If a person becomes convinced that his addiction to homosexual sex implies that he has a "sexual orientation" over which he has no control, then he has lost the ability to control himself.

The notion that there is a sexual orientation that is beyond the province of choice is dehumanizing. It strips a person of his most fundamental human characteristic, the power of choice. A human is a rational animal. He has the power to think, evaluate his options, and choose his course of action. He must will himself to choose that which is right for him.

You have a very simple view of what goes into human psychology and what can be done about it. And I'd watch out about using that "will." Many men have willed themselves into unhappy-for-all-involved heterosexual relationships including marriage they had no business in and thought they were perfectly rational. One's feelings more often than not can be more rational than one's thoughts, especially when discounted and ignored. Your body knows more than than merely your head and it's irrational to ignore it.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time, Darrell - HOW exactly did you make your choice. It's a simple question.

Ginny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell are you two crazy guys talking about?

My post #72 was simply expressing my agreement with yours and Brant's immediately preceeding posts. My post 74 was pointing out that Rich's post 73 was obviously not by that sane and grounded guy we know as Rich Engle, but by his evil alter-ego, Non Sekwi-Tor. Now, as to what Non Sekwi-Tor's post meant, I don't think even he knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orientation Creep

Mark Steyn

I was reading, as one does of a Saturday morning, the official Toronto Pride Week website:

As part of Toronto's 29th Annual Pride Week celebration, the LGBTTIQQ2S communities, families and friends will unveil this year's Pride Parade on Sunday June 28th at 2 pm...

Join our International Grand Marshal, Victor Juliet Mukasa, Parade Grand Marshal, El-Farouk Khaki and Honoured Group, AIDS Committee of Toronto, as they guide the LGBTTIQQ2S communities through our amazing stories of equality, human rights, respect, diversity, honour, love and acceptance...

Join our parade facebook group to cultivate a collaborative effort between a wide range of diverse LGBTTIQQ2S communities...

Okay, I'll bite. LGBTTIQQ2S?

Well, apparently:

LGBTTIQQ2S means "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgendered, Intersexual, Queer, Questioning, 2-Spirited..."

"2-Spirited" is, I believe, a bisexual Native-American, rather than "too spirited" as in Anne of Green Gables.

I found myself thinking of George M Cohan's old foighting Oirish song - "H-A-double R-I-G-A-N spells Harrigan": "L-G-B-double T-I-double Q-two-S spells ...Luhgibettyqueuetooess?"

It's like paying extra to get a vanity license plate, and then the DMV gives you the one they would have issued anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hougen #76:

The notion that there is a sexual orientation that is beyond the province of choice is dehumanizing. It strips a person of his most fundamental human characteristic, the power of choice. A human is a rational animal. He has the power to think, evaluate his options, and choose his course of action. He must will himself to choose that which is right for him.

This begs the question of what we have a choice about. Rand called this the distinction between the metaphysical (beyond our power to choose) and the man-made (within that power). To say that we can choose isn't sufficient to show that we can choose our sexual orientation. I'll take your word that you're uncomfortable with the possibility that this is in the first category, but that doesn't prove that it isn't.

Blackhorse, #36:

I agree with Ayn Rand's view on homosexuality...Have you ever stopped to think that like the other tenets of her philosophy that she was actually right about homosexuality, too?

This strikes me as presumptuous. How do you know we haven't thought this through? Though I can't speak for anyone else on OL, I can attest that I have and that I concluded she was wrong. You're getting ahead of the game by calling this opinion a tenet of her philosophy at all, since not all the parties to this thread buy into that either. Here's your chance. Give us an argument that starts with strictly philosophical Objectivist positions and reaches Rand's conclusion. None of the Objectivist deities ever did this, so the topic is all yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, not even Rand (assume you live by her every word) said homosexuality was against her philosophy. She said she found it personally disgusting. There's a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good grief, not even Rand (assume you live by her every word) said homosexuality was against her philosophy. She said she found it personally disgusting. There's a difference.

"Personally disgusting" makes it an entirely subjective value/non-value attribution.

But I'm not sure at all whether Rand would have agreed had she been told this. I believe she was convinced that homosexuality was an "objective" non-value:

Rand: "[i oppose homosexuality] because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral.

Whatever Rand regarded as "immoral" she meant to be understood as "objectively" immoral.

[David McK]:

Ayn Rand and Branden were of the opinion that homosexuality was a disease to be cured (see the first edition of 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem')

Jusrt curious: have Rand and N. Branden elaborated on how this alleged "disease" was to be "cured" by Objectivist means?

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full quote in #4 establishes clearly that Rand believed homosexuality comes from "unfortunate premises" and "psychological immorality." Her personal distaste was not all that she had to say on the topic.

When I predicted in #4 that we would see attempts to rationalize this away I was expecting a lot more of them. I don't think Rand would have bought into this distinction you make between her tastes and her philosophy. In a letter to Hospers (17 April 1960, Letters p. 506) she wrote "You say that you speak on politics from general observation and not as a philosopher. That is a point of difference between us: I never think or speak of anything except as a philosopher." This, like it or not, is a case in point.

I don't know the answer to the question you ask in #83, although I've heard Branden say he had accomplished this successfully. Albert Ellis, who was briefly his mentor early on, talked about putting patients on a schedule. Find a woman, ask her out, kiss on the 2nd or 3rd date, a little feeling up on the 4th, go all the way on the 5th. Or something to that effect. Sounds creepy to me. Probably to the woman, too.

Edited by Reidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I predicted in #4 that we would see attempts to rationalize this away I was expecting a lot more of them. I don't think Rand would have bought into this distinction you make between her tastes and her philosophy. In a letter to Hospers (17 April 1960, Letters p. 506) she wrote "You say that you speak on politics from general observation and not as a philosopher. That is a point of difference between us: I never think or speak of anything except as a philosopher." This, like it or not, is a case in point.

One, do you hold that Rand, like the Popes or Mohammed, is infallible?

And, Two, do you hold, whether or not she was infallible, that she was correct in her interpretation of homosexuality in any case? (You seem dubious.)

And, Three, do comments made in letters, not edited by Rand for publication, count as authoritative Randian ahadith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think a homosexual Objectivist, like a heterosexual Objectivist, would consummate his feelings for a person he respected and who shared his vision of existence.

As to 'changing homosexuals,' there is a test any heterosexual person can take to test the legitimacy of it. Would any amount of reconditioning orient you, sexually and emotionally, toward your own gender?

I agree that a homosexual Objectivist would seek out another homosexual Objectivist. However, your test is invalid. You're assuming what you're trying to prove, namely, that homosexuality is not a choice. If homosexuality is a choice, then, of course, no amount of reconditioning will change that choice. Nor would any amount of reconditioning cause a heterosexual to become homosexual.

Ask yourself this question: Would any amount of reconditioning cause you to become a murderer?

Rather, if you wanted to convert a heterosexual to a homosexual, your best bet would be to try to convince the heterosexual that it is in his rational self interest to be homosexual.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's take a hypothetical case: Let's just suppose that being a homosexual would serve your rational self-interest. I'm not saying it would, this is just a hypothetical to serve for this thought experiment. Would any amount of 'convincing' orient you sexually and emotionally toward other men? Would not your mind scream against it, because it is against your authentic nature?

If homosexuality was in my rational self interest then it would not go against my authentic nature so no, my mind would not scream against it. If being homosexual was in my rational self interest, then that is what I would be, but, since it's not, I'm not.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell, are you EVER going to tell us how you chose heterosexuality?

Ginny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of treating the homosexual like an unthinking animal that needs to be reconditioned, you might try to convince him that being homosexual was not in his rational self interest.

How do you do that? Find a hot stripper that looks vaguely boy-like?

No, you appeal to logic.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's take a hypothetical case: Let's just suppose that being a homosexual would serve your rational self-interest. I'm not saying it would, this is just a hypothetical to serve for this thought experiment. Would any amount of 'convincing' orient you sexually and emotionally toward other men? Would not your mind scream against it, because it is against your authentic nature?

If homosexuality was in my rational self interest then it would not go against my authentic nature so no, my mind would not scream against it. If being homosexual was in my rational self interest, then that is what I would be, but, since it's not, I'm not.

Darrell

Do you mean that inspite of your homosexual tendencies you have chosen to live as (I presume) an active heterosexual? Or do you mean that you have only heterosexual tendencies, but that if you were convinced it were reasonable to do so, you would engage in homosexuality? Or do you deny having sexual tendencies altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I deny the validity of the concept "homosexual" as in meaning "gay" in the modern sense of identity politics. We do not divide the world into drinkers and non-drinkers and expect drinkers to vote democrat or have a keen fashion sense. There are many different types of people who primarily engage in homosexual relations, from transsexuals who feel they were born the wrong gender, to very effeminate men who nevertheless treasure their phalluses, to the large majority of men who are "on the down low" and who may or may not have girlfriends. All this modern nonsense about gay identity is a product of the medicalization of sexuality by psychologists since Freud and by people on the left who espouse victimhood and identity politics to deal with their own alienation from the wider society.

Actually, I think we are much more in agreement than I originally thought. Good post.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I deny the validity of the concept "homosexual" as in meaning "gay" in the modern sense of identity politics. We do not divide the world into drinkers and non-drinkers and expect drinkers to vote democrat or have a keen fashion sense. There are many different types of people who primarily engage in homosexual relations, from transsexuals who feel they were born the wrong gender, to very effeminate men who nevertheless treasure their phalluses, to the large majority of men who are "on the down low" and who may or may not have girlfriends. All this modern nonsense about gay identity is a product of the medicalization of sexuality by psychologists since Freud and by people on the left who espouse victimhood and identity politics to deal with their own alienation from the wider society.

Actually, I think we are much more in agreement than I originally thought. Good post.

Darrell

Yes, we do overlap in some ways. Yet I find Rand's theory of human nature rationalistic. We are not rational (animals) whose every value descends top down from our intellect and will, but (rational) animals whose values develop from our most basic urges upward as we learn to integrate and harmonize them and pursue longer term goals in the same way we come to understand more abstract concepts. I realize that I need to write a monograph on this. But I think my gist is obvious enough for the purpose of immediate argument. I find that an answer to my inquiry to you in post 91 is indispensable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand's errors in her theory of emotions? I have written about them often here on OL. Here are a few just off the top of my head:

1. The emotional capacity is tabula rasa at birth (except apparently the pain-pleasure mechanism).

2. All emotions are subconscious reactions to consciously chosen values.

3. All emotions, although operating at the subconscious level, can be programmed by conscious effort.

1. I don't recall Rand stating that "emotional capacity is tabula rasa at birth."

Darrell,

Saying something ain't so don't make it ain't so. Here is your homework for you. Rand, VOS, "The Objectivist Ethics," p. 30.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa."

This view of Rand's is pretty basic knowledge for someone studying her work.

Fine. I stand corrected. However, upon further reflection, what she is saying above actually makes sense.

First, we have to understand Rand's definition of emotions. To her, an emotion is a response that is determined by a person's values. Now, because values are conceptual, what a newborn baby or an animal experiences is not an emotion in Rand's view. For example, a person in grave danger may experience fear because of the possibility of him losing his life. But, an animal doesn't have the concept of self or the concept of life, so whatever the animal experiences is not an emotion in the human sense. It is a more primitive sensation. Similarly, a baby may experience more primitive sensations until it develops the conceptual framework necessary to experience adult-like emotions.

She may not have clarified this point in her writing, but I do not find it to be a major flaw in her philosophy of emotions. In fact, viewed in the proper way, it is actually very illuminating.

2. She said that emotions are subconscious reactions determined by a person's values. She did not say that the values must have been consciously chosen. In fact, she stated in many places in her books that people often fail to consciously examine their values and therefore simply accept what others have said or what they have grown up believing.

This is in response to my statement above: "All emotions are subconscious reactions to consciously chosen values."

I worded this poorly since I was writing off the cuff. I did not mean that Rand said man consciously chooses all his values and that there is nothing automatic or passive. What I meant was something to the effect that she considers that all emotions can be impacted by consciously chosen values and that all man's values can be consciously chosen. I consider this to be a flaw in her theory of emotions that is not supported by science.

I do not consider this a flaw. Are you saying it is not possible to affect your values or some of your values by conscious processes?

I'm not going to address the issue of the subconscious in this reply. As interesting as it is, I don't think it is that important to this discussion.

Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious;...
Incidentally, this is another part of Rand's theory of emotions that is not borne out by science, i.e., that emotions are merely the results of cognition, never the cause. We got into this several times on OL with discussions of lobotomy, of Sylvan Tomkins and other interesting topics. I don't have time to go into all that now, but if you search, you will find a lot of stuff.

I think this is a misrepresentation of Rand's view. She said that emotions are not a tool of cognition, not that emotions were not a cause of cognition. I think she would agree that emotions could be a motivation for thought as well as action.

Now for the other part, the one about all emotions being able to be impacted by consciously chosen values. VOS, "The Objectivist Ethics," p. 31 (Rand is talking about "man"):
If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer.

Science does not bear this out, but you don't even need to go as far as science. I remember a harsh Rand critic (one who is wrong on many, many things about her and Objectivism), Jeff Walker, once stated something that is true in relation to this view. He said (in response to this attitude) that man is one of the most successful biological species on the planet. That struck me hard when I read it because it is correct. It's wrong to go around preaching that most people are irrational and that this means that their emotions are their "destroyer," then look at the world and see increasing life spans, increasing quality of life and health, increasing population explosions, etc. Just on a primary level of basic observation, this does not hold up. Something is missing from that formulation.

I agree that the above is a flaw in Rand's presentation of her theory, but that flaw pervades all of her philosophical presentation, not just her theory of emotions. Put simply, she overstates her case. I'm having a hard time remembering other examples. I will try to dig something up. From memory -- she says that it is beneficial for man to live in society with other men (because he may gain knowledge and be able to trade) but only if his rights are respected -- paraphrasing.

However, we live in a mixed economy in which are our rights are only partially protected and yet we are mostly much better off than we would be living alone on a desert island. Clearly, there comes a point where society is actually detrimental to one's existence or in which one's freedom is so limited that he cannot live qua man. But, there is a vast array of possibilities in between in which society is not optimal (totally free) and yet is still beneficial or even highly beneficial to man's existence.

If we take Rand literally, we should fight tooth and nail against even the smallest infringement of our rights. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear hawkish Objectivists calling for the bombing of Iran or other Middle Eastern countries that are bad actors. Some even want to use nukes. What drives this lunacy? Rand's overstatement of her case. If anyone that does not totally respect your rights is a disvalue, then it makes sense to eliminate that person. Instead, it would make more sense to realize that other human beings are generally valuable to one's existence and it only makes sense to actually think about eliminating them if they are grossly violating one's rights. Otherwise, it makes more sense to engage in a more moderate approach to trying to change their views or their behavior.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more time, Darrell - HOW exactly did you make your choice. It's a simple question.

Ginny

Sorry, I'm a page behind, trying to catch up.

I wanted certain things in life. Sex was one, of course, but not the only thing. I wanted a wholesome life with a wife and children -- a traditional family, holidays, vacations, trips, teaching and learning. I'm very devoted to my children. My wife has been out of town for the last three weeks, and I've had a great time staying up late playing board games with my kids. They're all good students and I'm very proud of all of them. I can see myself in them. It's very rewarding.

I'm not saying that my life has been perfect. It hasn't. Things haven't always gone as planned. There have been arguments and fights. There have been other problems. But, those problems are not related to the sex/gender aspect of my choice.

Also, it's often nice to just be able to have vanilla sex. A man and woman can have intimacy without having to do "disagreeable" things. Those things can highly erotic, but after a while you get tired of them and you really just want the emotional intimacy more than the eroticism.

Hope that helps.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell,

Just a few quick comments.

Fine. I stand corrected. However, upon further reflection, what she is saying above actually makes sense.

First, we have to understand Rand's definition of emotions.

Darrell,

The problem is that her definition is sorely incomplete. There is no way to understand or even arrive at the functions of the hippocampus, amygdala, etc., as observed in tests, using Rand's definition ("emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious"). These parts of the brain work well on a sensory-perceptual level and do not depend on the parts of the brain governing volition, although they can work with them.

Now, because values are conceptual, what a newborn baby or an animal experiences is not an emotion in Rand's view.

I don't have time to look it up, but that doesn't sound right. Rand wrote that an infant learns to see by choice. I can look this up if you wish.

(btw - Is it really necessary to pretend that the anger of a dog is fundamentally different than the anger of a human being, so the dog does not feel an "emotion" and a human being does? That's silly...)

Are you saying it is not possible to affect your values or some of your values by conscious processes?

No. That is black-and-white thinking imposed where it does not belong. This is precisely where I think Rand had a great insight and a serious problem of scope.

It is entirely possible to program part of your subconsious by conscious effort, especially consciously changing values. (Her insight.) It is not possible to program all of it that way. (Her problem of scope since she claimed you could.) Or from another angle, it is entirely possible to program part of your emotions by conscious effort. It is not possible to program all of them that way.

And there are degrees of possibility within the same emotions. Here's an example. It is entirely possible to stop being angry all the time by a conscious effort of restructuring your values. It is not possible to eliminate all anger from your mind that way. (A lobotomy works, but that is physical destruction of the brain cells.)

I am working on a project I find sorely lacking in our neck of the woods: motivational speaking from an Objectivist slant. The motivational arts deal precisely with reprogramming your subconsious and emotions, at least what is able to be reprogrammed.

(Incidentally, I find it odd you think discussing the subsoncsious is not important to Rand's theory of emotions since that is exactly where emotions reside according to Rand and where they are programmed.)

I think this is a misrepresentation of Rand's view. She said that emotions are not a tool of cognition, not that emotions were not a cause of cognition. I think she would agree that emotions could be a motivation for thought as well as action.

We are using the word "cognition" with different meanings. I was referring to actual cognitive concept formation (similar to the way Rand meant it at times), not just thinking thoughts. The moment you get into normative abstractions, excluding emotions from the referents (i.e., excluding them as cognitive cause) opens a nasty can of worms consistency-wise.

btw - Emotions are practically defined by Rand as the motivators of action, so we agree on that point.

I agree that the above is a flaw in Rand's presentation of her theory, but that flaw pervades all of her philosophical presentation, not just her theory of emotions. Put simply, she overstates her case.

It is good to see you checking these premises. In this manner you will get Rand's real intellectual gems and avoid her errors and bullying attitude.

There is great wealth in her writing. But, from what I have seen, those on both ends of the extreme poles, for and against her, actually miss most of it and spend their time trying to attack the good in her writing or trying to defend the indefensible. And both are generous with their distortions.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further in answer to #83's question about Objectivist straighten-out techniques: they once ran a Horror File item about aversion therapy (flash a picture of a sexy man and give the [male] patient a shock), so that's out.

It won't make him heterosexual, but he'll get a hardon every time he sees a fuse box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further in answer to #83's question about Objectivist straighten-out techniques: they once ran a Horror File item about aversion therapy (flash a picture of a sexy man and give the [male] patient a shock), so that's out.

It won't make him heterosexual, but he'll get a hardon every time he sees a fuse box.

That is the current best joke on the subject.

What shall we call this? Zapping Off?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to Hazard's #9 and #11:

One problem I see with this argument is that it doesn't explain why the slippery slope is supposed to take a sharp downward turn just where it reaches homosexuality and not somewhere else. I see no natural barrier to arguing "if you accept regular man-on-top sex between married partners who were virgins and have never cheated on each other, then why not, say, two Ken dolls and a boa constrictor?" If Hazard is right, then I don't see why I'm wrong.

(Go short on Mattell.)

Edited by Reidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reidy,

Could you clarify? I don't understand your post. If I'm right, then homosexuality is immoral, or at least that specific argument doesn't make it moral.

Jordan

Edited by Hazard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...