|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 01, 2020, 04:53:23 PM
News: 2020 Election day live thread: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=409870.0

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자))
  11th Circuit rules that bans on anti-LGBTQ "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: 11th Circuit rules that bans on anti-LGBTQ "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment  (Read 1726 times)
Ferguson97
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,909
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: -6.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 20, 2020, 01:47:26 PM »



Despicable ruling. I hope that SCOTUS will overturn this, but I think they will affirm it.

Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,746
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2020, 02:22:56 PM »

Time for a rehearing en banc (or - failing that - a petition to SCOTUS, where we'd probably have to rely on Roberts & Gorsuch).
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,200
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2020, 03:06:42 PM »

Defy the ruling and dare Republicans to make big deal out of this. This is a hill worth dying on.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,171
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2020, 03:21:41 PM »

Content-based restrictions on speech invite strict scrutiny, whodathunk?
Logged
Smug Internet Libertarian
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,474
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2020, 01:20:49 AM »

Completely fair decision.
Logged
Gulf Coastal Elite
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -1.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2020, 01:38:02 AM »

Time for a rehearing en banc (or - failing that - a petition to SCOTUS, where we'd probably have to rely on Roberts & Gorsuch).
At this point, the strategy for liberal litigators is trying to keep cases out of SCOTUS whenever possible — an unfavorable ruling there would go into effect in the entire country, not just in three states.
Logged
DeSantis/Noem 2024
TheFonz
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.74, S: -4.52

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2020, 12:49:09 PM »

Just because something is despicable doesn't mean it should be illegal. Freedom ruling, and will be affirmed by a minimum of 6-3.
Logged
politicallefty
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,098
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2020, 12:55:51 PM »

What does this specific law cover? I could see how adult "conversion therapy" bans could theoretically violate the First Amendment. If this is a law designed to protect minors, I think that's another issue entirely.
Logged
All eyes have seen the glory of the crushing of the Trump
BRTD
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 92,000
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2020, 01:33:05 PM »

Just because something is despicable doesn't mean it should be illegal. Freedom ruling, and will be affirmed by a minimum of 6-3.

There's a huge assumption on this that the Supreme Court is even guaranteed to hear it. For one as noted, the plaintiffs probably wouldn't want to appeal as that would result in a national ruling instead of just the circuit, and second, there's no guarantee the SCOTUS would even hear the case. SCOTUS only hears like 70 cases a year out of thousands that go through the federal judiciary.
Logged
Forumlurker the anti-communist
Forumlurker161
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,765


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2020, 02:53:06 PM »

Yes...keep pushing millennials from joining the GOP.
Don't be afraid, keep doing it.
Logged
RussFeingoldWasRobbed
Progress96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,433
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2020, 03:01:38 PM »

Lolbertarians strike again
Logged
Smug Internet Libertarian
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,474
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2020, 03:51:23 PM »


So as a libertarian, you think I should endorse the government banning something simply because I don't like it? You have a strange interpretation of libertarianism.
Logged
Alcibiades
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,023
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -6.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2020, 04:05:23 PM »


So as a libertarian, you think I should endorse the government banning something simply because I don't like it? You have a strange interpretation of libertarianism.

Do you not think that there is a strong case to be made that conversion therapy, at the very least for minors, violates the NAP?
Logged
Smug Internet Libertarian
John Dule
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,474
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2020, 05:05:46 PM »


So as a libertarian, you think I should endorse the government banning something simply because I don't like it? You have a strange interpretation of libertarianism.

Do you not think that there is a strong case to be made that conversion therapy, at the very least for minors, violates the NAP?

Definitely for minors, but you can't stop consenting adults from signing up.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,689
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2020, 05:44:20 PM »

Conversion therapy can be incredibly dangerous. It can involve things such as ingesting ipecac and even go as far as conversion rape, not to mention all sorts of potentially damaging and unproven psychological techniques. State medical boards and associations should be able to revoke the licenses of those engaging in conversion therapy.

With that being said most conversion therapy is aimed at minors. Extremely conservative parents who are desperate to fix their children will send them to conversion programs or camps. That aside, conversion therapy is not a hill to die on, but if conservatives want to do that they are welcomed to do so.
Logged
vileplume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 355
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2020, 05:58:39 PM »

What does this specific law cover? I could see how adult "conversion therapy" bans could theoretically violate the First Amendment. If this is a law designed to protect minors, I think that's another issue entirely.
Yes if an adult wants to try to change their sexuality (causing themselves mental trauma and wasting a lot of their own money in the process) then it is arguable that they should be allowed to do so. However to counter this, it's proven that you can't force change your sexuality (it can naturally shift over the course of a person's life, which is very different) so wouldn't adult conversion therapy technically fall foul of misleading/false advertising laws?

However parents forcing their child to go through it is simply child abuse by another name and there's no question that it should be banned. I really hope that this is not what is upheld in the end...
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,171
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2020, 12:50:20 PM »

However to counter this, it's proven that you can't force change your sexuality (it can naturally shift over the course of a person's life, which is very different) so wouldn't adult conversion therapy technically fall foul of misleading/false advertising laws?

Sexual orientation is a Freudian psychological concept that was made up in the 1890s.  That the current liberal gospel requires a relatively new theoretical invention be regarded as an immutable human characteristic is as uninformed and uncritical as it is radical.  If you reject or critique this orthodoxy, then you are invariably labeled a bigot or homophobe.

If, like you say, your sexual orientation can naturally evolve or change over the course of your lifetime (presumably from changes in brain physiology) then there is no reason these same changes can't be induced as a result of drugs or other interventions (i.e., conversion therapy.)  In fact, it is the insistence on sexual orientation as the modality of human sexual expression that even makes conversion therapy theoretically possible. 
Logged
President Elect Biden!!
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2020, 01:35:04 PM »

Sexual orientation is a Freudian psychological concept that was made up in the 1890s.  That the current liberal gospel requires a relatively new theoretical invention be regarded as an immutable human characteristic is as uninformed and uncritical as it is radical.  If you reject or critique this orthodoxy, then you are invariably labeled a bigot or homophobe.

If, like you say, your sexual orientation can naturally evolve or change over the course of your lifetime (presumably from changes in brain physiology) then there is no reason these same changes can't be induced as a result of drugs or other interventions (i.e., conversion therapy.)  In fact, it is the insistence on sexual orientation as the modality of human sexual expression that even makes conversion therapy theoretically possible. 
The idea that Freud invented sexual orientation is pretty far off.

While sexual orientation does not exactly exist - nor does race, for that matter - people perceive it as existing and act as if it exists. Such actions result in it actually seeming to exist. To reject or critique this does not make you a bigot, but someone who refuses to admit facts. We ought then to understand that sexual orientation does exist, or at least a person can be almost solely sexually attracted to one gender. This seems to develop during puberty, and there is very little evidence supporting it changing after puberty or being changed by any outside factors during puberty.

To allow experiments to be run on children, so we can satisfy scientific curiosity as to whether or not something as personal and intimate as an individual’s sexual orientation can be noticeably altered? That fails virtually every ethical test in the book.
Logged
JoeSiris
Sheliak5
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2020, 02:52:18 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2020, 11:31:51 PM by True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) »

However to counter this, it's proven that you can't force change your sexuality (it can naturally shift over the course of a person's life, which is very different) so wouldn't adult conversion therapy technically fall foul of misleading/false advertising laws?

Sexual orientation is a Freudian psychological concept that was made up in the 1890s.  That the current liberal gospel requires a relatively new theoretical invention be regarded as an immutable human characteristic is as uninformed and uncritical as it is radical.  If you reject or critique this orthodoxy, then you are invariably labeled a bigot or homophobe.

If, like you say, your sexual orientation can naturally evolve or change over the course of your lifetime (presumably from changes in brain physiology) then there is no reason these same changes can't be induced as a result of drugs or other interventions (i.e., conversion therapy.)  In fact, it is the insistence on sexual orientation as the modality of human sexual expression that even makes conversion therapy theoretically possible.  

You are so good at using big words while saying absolutely nothing.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,171
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2020, 03:02:05 PM »

The idea that Freud invented sexual orientation is pretty far off.

Freud did not himself first theorize sexual orientation as a concept, to be sure, but his deterministic theories of psychosexual development put him in a certain kinship with psychologists (like Krafft-Ebing) who studied genetic, physiological and environmental factors and their interactions to arrive at a scientific "sexual orientation."  This type of research continues today, often with immense public interest.  Sexual orientation theory reflects a hyper-modern drive to pathologize human sexual behavior/variation, which is the exact same type of drive that gave us fascist conceptions of single-race utopias too, after all Cheesy  

Quote
While sexual orientation does not exactly exist - nor does race, for that matter - people perceive it as existing and act as if it exists. Such actions result in it actually seeming to exist. To reject or critique this does not make you a bigot, but someone who refuses to admit facts. We ought then to understand that sexual orientation does exist, or at least a person can be almost solely sexually attracted to one gender. This seems to develop during puberty, and there is very little evidence supporting it changing after puberty or being changed by any outside factors during puberty.

Something "seeming to exist" makes it a fact?  lolwut?  It "seemed" that sexual orientation didn't exist before anyone started talking about it in the 19th century, and (like all other theories) sexual orientation will once again be updated/fall by the wayside when something comes along to challenge it.  I suppose something seeming to exist makes it real in a sense, but only because people start thinking/acting like it does.  

I never said I "rejected" sexual orientation in the way you imply.  It simply is what it is, a way of describing an (observable?  unobservable?) long-term and persistant attraction to certain genders*.  If describing such is what you want to do, then the language of sexual orientation is fine to use.  But there's no a priori reason to think that describing such is the only or best way to conceptualize human sexuality (i.e., why even talk about individuals being "sexually oriented" to specific genders?  couldn't we just as easily be "sexually oriented" to certain hair colors?)  I happen to be of the antiquated opinion that who you choose to have sex with, date, marry and/or reproduce with is a personal decision wrought with moral/spiritual consequence, regardless of what scientific theories of sexual orientation may say about our agency over our sexual desires.  

*which, funnily enough, if sexual orientation is imputed onto people based on their genetic make-up or brain chemistry...but "gender" is socially defined and constructed...then it means that...a supposedly natural predisposition kneels to our recently invented conceptions of.....#REF!

Quote
To allow experiments to be run on children, so we can satisfy scientific curiosity as to whether or not something as personal and intimate as an individual’s sexual orientation can be noticeably altered? That fails virtually every ethical test in the book.

That you describe sexual orientation as too "personal" and "intimate" to attempt to change is exactly what reveals the superb reasoning in this opinion.  The real issue for liberals isn't that sexual orientation can't be changed (in theory) but the political, social or moral belief that it shouldn't be changed.  Viewed in this light, it's obvious to see that restrictions on conversion talk therapy (even for minors) while other types of sexual counselling are allowed is a content-based regulation of speech in violation of the First Amendment.  
Logged
Calthrina950
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,077
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2020, 05:43:36 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2020, 11:33:41 PM by True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) »

However to counter this, it's proven that you can't force change your sexuality (it can naturally shift over the course of a person's life, which is very different) so wouldn't adult conversion therapy technically fall foul of misleading/false advertising laws?

Sexual orientation is a Freudian psychological concept that was made up in the 1890s.  That the current liberal gospel requires a relatively new theoretical invention be regarded as an immutable human characteristic is as uninformed and uncritical as it is radical.  If you reject or critique this orthodoxy, then you are invariably labeled a bigot or homophobe.

If, like you say, your sexual orientation can naturally evolve or change over the course of your lifetime (presumably from changes in brain physiology) then there is no reason these same changes can't be induced as a result of drugs or other interventions (i.e., conversion therapy.)  In fact, it is the insistence on sexual orientation as the modality of human sexual expression that even makes conversion therapy theoretically possible.  

You are so good at using big words while saying absolutely nothing.

I have no real stake in the conversion therapy issue. But I do find it interesting that Del Tachi has adopted the positions which he's expounded upon here. And I do wonder whether he would approve of a future decision by a conservative Supreme Court majority to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges. If sexual orientation is an invented concept-and marriage itself, is an invented concept-then doesn't that mean that it's form can be changed again?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,441


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2020, 05:46:29 PM »

The idea that Freud invented sexual orientation is pretty far off.

Freud did not himself first theorize sexual orientation as a concept, to be sure, but his deterministic theories of psychosexual development put him in a certain kinship with psychologists (like Krafft-Ebing) who studied genetic, physiological and environmental factors and their interactions to arrive at a scientific "sexual orientation."  This type of research continues today, often with immense public interest.  Sexual orientation theory reflects a hyper-modern drive to pathologize human sexual behavior/variation, which is the exact same type of drive that gave us fascist conceptions of single-race utopias too, after all Cheesy  

Quote
While sexual orientation does not exactly exist - nor does race, for that matter - people perceive it as existing and act as if it exists. Such actions result in it actually seeming to exist. To reject or critique this does not make you a bigot, but someone who refuses to admit facts. We ought then to understand that sexual orientation does exist, or at least a person can be almost solely sexually attracted to one gender. This seems to develop during puberty, and there is very little evidence supporting it changing after puberty or being changed by any outside factors during puberty.

Something "seeming to exist" makes it a fact?  lolwut?  It "seemed" that sexual orientation didn't exist before anyone started talking about it in the 19th century, and (like all other theories) sexual orientation will once again be updated/fall by the wayside when something comes along to challenge it.  I suppose something seeming to exist makes it real in a sense, but only because people start thinking/acting like it does.  

I never said I "rejected" sexual orientation in the way you imply.  It simply is what it is, a way of describing an (observable?  unobservable?) long-term and persistant attraction to certain genders*.  If describing such is what you want to do, then the language of sexual orientation is fine to use.  But there's no a priori reason to think that describing such is the only or best way to conceptualize human sexuality (i.e., why even talk about individuals being "sexually oriented" to specific genders?  couldn't we just as easily be "sexually oriented" to certain hair colors?)  I happen to be of the antiquated opinion that who you choose to have sex with, date, marry and/or reproduce with is a personal decision wrought with moral/spiritual consequence, regardless of what scientific theories of sexual orientation may say about our agency over our sexual desires.  

*which, funnily enough, if sexual orientation is imputed onto people based on their genetic make-up or brain chemistry...but "gender" is socially defined and constructed...then it means that...a supposedly natural predisposition kneels to our recently invented conceptions of.....#REF!

Quote
To allow experiments to be run on children, so we can satisfy scientific curiosity as to whether or not something as personal and intimate as an individual’s sexual orientation can be noticeably altered? That fails virtually every ethical test in the book.

That you describe sexual orientation as too "personal" and "intimate" to attempt to change is exactly what reveals the superb reasoning in this opinion.  The real issue for liberals isn't that sexual orientation can't be changed (in theory) but the political, social or moral belief that it shouldn't be changed.  Viewed in this light, it's obvious to see that restrictions on conversion talk therapy (even for minors) while other types of sexual counselling are allowed is a content-based regulation of speech in violation of the First Amendment.  

That's super.

The moral/spiritual consequence of being married to my husband is amazing. The love is strong, the mutual support is beneficial to my health, the cuddles rock and the sex is legendary. Disprove it.
Logged
President Elect Biden!!
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2020, 07:57:30 PM »

Freud did not himself first theorize sexual orientation as a concept, to be sure, but his deterministic theories of psychosexual development put him in a certain kinship with psychologists (like Krafft-Ebing) who studied genetic, physiological and environmental factors and their interactions to arrive at a scientific "sexual orientation."  This type of research continues today, often with immense public interest.  Sexual orientation theory reflects a hyper-modern drive to pathologize human sexual behavior/variation, which is the exact same type of drive that gave us fascist conceptions of single-race utopias too, after all.

Something "seeming to exist" makes it a fact?  lolwut?  It "seemed" that sexual orientation didn't exist before anyone started talking about it in the 19th century, and (like all other theories) sexual orientation will once again be updated/fall by the wayside when something comes along to challenge it.  I suppose something seeming to exist makes it real in a sense, but only because people start thinking/acting like it does.
“Sexual orientation theory”, as you call it, is not a criticism of sexual orientation. It is a criticism of the idea of sexual identity, not the ideas of sexual attraction or sexual activity. A criticism of identity is a debate over terms. I doubt you would criticize someone for saying they are black - although race doesn’t quite exist - because they identify as black.

Quote
I never said I "rejected" sexual orientation in the way you imply.  It simply is what it is, a way of describing an (observable?  unobservable?) long-term and persistant attraction to certain genders*.  If describing such is what you want to do, then the language of sexual orientation is fine to use.  But there's no a priori reason to think that describing such is the only or best way to conceptualize human sexuality (i.e., why even talk about individuals being "sexually oriented" to specific genders?  couldn't we just as easily be "sexually oriented" to certain hair colors?)  I happen to be of the antiquated opinion that who you choose to have sex with, date, marry and/or reproduce with is a personal decision wrought with moral/spiritual consequence, regardless of what scientific theories of sexual orientation may say about our agency over our sexual desires.
Your use of “the antiquated opinion” is an appeal to rhetorical persecution, begging you are just of that minority we call old-fashioned. Do not use the term again, for it makes any argument counter yours seem to be attacking the poor, persecuted, old idea.

I do not know anyone who uses “scientific theories of sexual orientation” who demands that you surrender your agency over your own life choices. Gender is a relatively fixed idea, rooted deeply in scientific facts regarding sex and sexual orientation. You plead and beg that we allow people to choose their partner, rather than giving out sexual orientations to people. You do this in spite of the fact that no one I know of “assigns” sexual orientation and then forcibly limits partners

Quote
That you describe sexual orientation as too "personal" and "intimate" to attempt to change is exactly what reveals the superb reasoning in this opinion.  The real issue for liberals isn't that sexual orientation can't be changed (in theory) but the political, social or moral belief that it shouldn't be changed.  Viewed in this light, it's obvious to see that restrictions on conversion talk therapy (even for minors) while other types of sexual counselling are allowed is a content-based regulation of speech in violation of the First Amendment.  
You JUST pleaded that a person’s choice of partner is too personal and intimate to be decided by the Fairy Godmother you claim assigns people a label with a sexual orientation and then demands they choose their partner based on that.

I plead moral belief, and that at least some of my morality should be reflected by law. Perhaps a doctor can cut off a child’s hand if the parents ask nicely - a hand’s integrity can be changed. It is my assertion that the law should NOT give parents an inalienable right to alter their child as they choose. I have always refused to void morality entirely out of the law, and the idea you just delivered some stunning blow by asserting that a “liberal” moral belief that something shouldn’t be changed ought to be illegal is easily disproven.

Just anarchists assert that government only ought to prevent people from doing impossible things. It is instead my assertion that conversion therapy is so potentially harmful, it ought to be outlawed.
Logged
EastOfEden
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,252


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2020, 08:28:56 PM »

Well, I hope Ossoff and Warnock are paying attention to this. Losing issue for Republicans just about everywhere at this point.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,226
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2020, 11:28:01 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2020, 11:41:14 PM by True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) »

To be fair, a lot of psychology over the past couple of centuries has been an effort to find a secular substitute for the concept of religion serving to "perfect" man. While psychology has overall been a beneficial craft, in pursuit of a mythical universal form of perfection, it has had a distressing tendency to pathologize a wide variety of behaviors and preferences simply because they are not the usual ones most people have, and has done so without regard to whether they cause harm to that person or to others.

That aside dealt with, on to this specific case.
  • First, it narrowly applies only to purely speech-based SOCE*, so it doesn't apply to SOCE in general, just one particular form of it that has direct First Amendment implications well beyond the specific topic area of SOCE.
  • Second, based on what I read in the opinion, I think narrowly-crafted regulations to ensure that minors are seeking SOCE of their own accord and not because their parents are insisting upon it would likely pass muster with the majority here, and such regulations definitely should be allowed and passed in my opinion, not just for SOCE, but a wide variety of counseling topics.
  • Third, the weakest part of the dissent was the objection that the plaintiffs could simply move their practice elsewhere if they wished to continue it and thus were not suffering irreparable harm. Even if you think the rest of the dissent was perfect, I would hope that no one else would agree that it's okay to ban speech in some jurisdictions so long as it is allowed elsewhere.

* I use the inelegant term SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Effort) rather than "conversion therapy" because that's the term that was consistently used in both the opinion and the dissent.



Also, please try to keep vitriol directed at opinions, not people. I like not having to moderate this board that much. Moderating two posts and editing a third because it quoted a moderated post is more work than I usually have to do here.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.081 seconds with 12 queries.