Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.
A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.
I think I’ll end with this one. I am starting to get bored of being shunned into a corner by the Politically Correct crowd with terms like “hatemongers”. The Left constantly appeals to emotional arguments and good intentions. To say this is an anti-gay issue assumes a redefining of marriage that he has yet to justify throughout his entire essay.
The appeal to European countries by many today is a strange one. A few years ago, I heard that Europe is going to a 4-day workweek. America is falling behind. We should be like them. This is just more of the Left’s anti-American sentiment. It is simply arrogant. Since when is doing less work and becoming socialistic a good thing?
So here in this argument we have yet another appeal to mighty Europe. Yes, the Scandinavian countries are apparently the model to follow. Why, because they haven’t slid down the proverbial “slippery slope”. None of these countries comes close to “American Exceptionalism” (to borrow Rush’s terminology). In fact, Europe’s socialism is causing itself to be defeated with the rise of Far Eastern countries coming up on the world stage. They simply will not be able to compete. I just don’t understand the appeal to these guys.
I must confess. I just don’t get it. Why do Leftists always appeal to Europe? Europe has been burying its head for over a century. If it is so wonderful, move there. Yet, we don’t see this massive immigration to Europe except by one group of people. I’ll bet you’re wondering which group that might be. Islamic peoples are indeed migrating.
Last I checked, nothing is not able to resist something. Bidstrup’s non-existent foundation for his position will not resist Islam. If he thinks Christianity is oppressive, he simply has no idea what Europe is in for in the next few decades.
Of course his argument picks the worst scenario such as Bestial marriage. Notice however, he offers no argument. None! He offers no reason why Polygamy hasn’t been legalized other than by the force of the state. Is he really suggesting that Polygamists in those Scandinavian countries are simply ambivalent towards the state’s understanding of marriage? Here is a great example in a post written about Islamic polygamists. Enough said I think about that.
And of course, we could look to nations in the past that have become immoral in their view of marriage. God’s judgment eventually comes in many forms. The wicked and disgusting Canaanites were destroyed. We don’t even know what happened to the Aztecs. They just disappeared.
To end this, we must not redefine institutions given by the Creator because of pragmatism or some new social fad. Bidstrup’s essay has no foundation to build upon, and it has no ability resist true evil. It is simply another form of man’s suppression of the truth in order that he may attempt to rid society of its conscience and do what his sinful desires lead him. If anyone believes that sinful man is morally neutral and that Christians would not be a future target to be neutralized, they are sorely wrong. Not only does history demonstrate that to be the case, we see it now in post-Christian Europe and Canada.
7 comments:
I did read on another website, someone (I won't name it since it was not commented here) made an interesting point about my "rant". He argued that America is falling behind in education. He also said doing less work is a good thing. Just making these two statements in the same breath leaves one wondering about the postmodern thought.
First of all, who controls education? Obviously the Left and there socialistic views.
Second, how is doing less work going to help us to be competitive?
Of course, the assumption is America's free-market philosophy is wrong. Yet the problem with Mighty Europe is that it is the philosophy of the Left. They are going to be facing serious economic problems in the near future. Pointing fingers at America isn't going to make this go away.
Anyway... just more silliness on the web. Apparently, a homosexual may write an essay and put forth non-arguments for his position, anybody who dares to question the argumentation offered is homophobic blah blah blah.
Blog war.... GO!
Yes. America IS falling behind in education. No doubt. Our science, math, and reading skills are fast slipping behind other countries. Why?
In K-12 we have a ridiculous culture war going on; with plenty of input via the "right" (and are also in charge of policy currently). On one hand we argue that all [persons] are created equal. But we can't allow opposing view points! We say Church and state are separated, but anytime someone becomes upset that Christmas, a God-citing pledge, or anything else is shoved down their throat, they are un-American. Not that ANY of that has to do with traditional education. I'm not looking to a school to institute any religious values in my kids (if I had any); if I was, I'd send them to a school that was aligned to my religion. And the ongoing debate on evolution (and as a Kansan, I can give a talk on said issue) is crazy. There's plenty of scientific fact that leans toward this assumption. Now, as someone who believes in God, I see how amazing the idea of God being so mighty and powerful that He/She planned the whole thing to the point that the beginning, middle, and end were all known and She could get us to the here and now via a single spark that would lead to such amazing diversity. And even though I think people who look at creation and say there is no God are bat-loony-crazy, school isn't there to to teach beliefs. I can tell my hypothetical kid when they get home, "that theory at school is a good one; but HOW did it happen? Let me tell you about a fella named J.C." Yet instead of doing that, we fight to get a science-less creationism in school. Finish off the death-blow to K-12 with the No Child Left Behind era tests-are-all mentality. Because that's the way the real world works; we have no references at our hands and are forced to memorize everything. In this era of test scores, no matter how good or bad your school is, you are forced to do "better" or you lose funding, and beyond that, the idea of not leaving anyone behind doesn't say that all [persons] are created equal; it says they were created equal, and, my Lord, they'll die it too. But in a traditional educational sense that IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be true. Some people are going to be "left behind" if the measuring stick is held up to every subject! I wasn't a math whiz in high school. But guess what? That's okay! I hold down a job with benefits and so on without much trig or calc.
Higher ed and it's impact heavily depends on the school. I'd say 75% of United States colleges are leftist. I still don't understand what's bad about socialism (it worked for Jesus), but even a capitalist like myself found plenty of individual market-based people in my Liberal Arts college. What I did find consistent was the mentality of the right to want to slash public funding to higher education, because we were more interested in trading abroad than selling (see:"shooting people") our brand of "freedom". And I don't ascribe to the belief that someone has to kill in the way we are currently killing for me to be free. There have been just wars. There will be more of them. This one doesn't fall in that category. All this aside, however, the most threatening thing to higher education is remarkably similar to that which has plagued K-12; we're all academically equal. Now, a "C" isn't average, it's terrible! My mommy and daddy are gonna complain! I'm gonna cry! So now everyone has to get A's in college. Look at stats on how the value of the grade has decreased in recent years, and you'll see many of our problems in the more complex and specialized education.
Now. Howzabout doing less work. Want to know about an American company that does less work? Google. Their employees enjoy more vacation, more free time, and happier work spaces that 90% of the work force, and with far better pay. Why? Because they do a good job. I'm not saying we should all get to kick our feet up and money should fall from the sky. But there seems to be a belief that time = work effort that just isn't true. Sure, there will be times where we have to work more. But we could achieve a "four day work week" easily. How much time does the average person at work spend goofing off? How many innovations could we make that would make life cleaner, more efficient, and so on?
I don't think there's a country in the world that has it perfect. But I know that we've fallen from the top. The United States is going to face devastating economic hardship well before Europe if there aren't some serious changes in our country.
And if a homosexual put forth arguments like yours (a fellow who gets excited about Rush Limbaugh's plans to ruin democratic voting, no less), I'd call them out just as quickly. Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't make it a non-argument. Sorry if I find your words consistently homophobic, but reading back over your posts, I do. I've yet to read Jesus speak on homosexuality in the Bible. And, more often, the Old Testament references to homosexuality are focused on pedophilia, not consenting adults. And here you are telling us about societies that were blown away because you say so. "We don’t even know what happened to the Aztecs. They just disappeared." You want to talk about a non-argument! "I don't know what happened. BUT I BET IT WAS BAD, THOSE DIRTY, DIRTY SINNERS! BWAHAHAHA!!!" So, as I amass your writings (where you yourself admit that you're dumbfounded by the ideas, and can't comprehend them), yea I think you're afraid. I was once.
I'm sure, however, that the state can join two consenting people in a contract. If your assembly doesn't like that contract, fine. We don't like your assembly. But you have a right to it. Just as the Islamics has the right to theirs. And my Jewish friends don't have to believe that they missed the boat and Jesus was their covenant. Funny thing about God is when He came down to earth, He was awfully forgiving, especially to those who gave their fullest measure to try. In my area live a lesbian couple currently raising a child. One of them teaches multicultural awareness; fighting against mostly racially-driven divides in this country. And they have a loving daughter. She's far too young to have a sexual orientation, but I'd be willing to say that it is God's will that she have her two loving parents. And, if I'm wrong, I have to believe that God doesn't sit waiting to smite me. I have read His word. I have defended His name. I have knelt before Him in awe and wonder. So if my interpretation was wrong, at least I was loving and accepting... and didn't sit trying to bend laws to the opposite.
I hope that forever we can have our views and give them publicly. But as far as the state goes, this round goes to the left; because they're correct. No reason the state can't join two adults in a union. Amen.
Howdy Nolan,
Good to see your comment. There is much in your statements on education that I readily agree with. So do not take what I have to say here as just disagreeing for disagreeing sake.
You pointed out my non-argument in reference to the Aztecs. If this is the big one, then I’ll concede the point happily. My simple point was tied to the Canaanites. We know that God destroys nations. We know from the Bible and archeology just how wicked and disgusting they were. God’s justice is eventually displayed in the destruction of nations. I was not trying to say the Aztecs were destroyed only for homosexuality. Simply knowing a little history and knowing God’s providence, knowing God’s description of man as a wicked rebel sinner, it does not take a lot of imagination that the Aztecs were a wicked people. We do have some archeology from their history to know they were not nice.
But my overall point in my posts is that we now have a dictatorship declaring to the citizenry that morals must be based upon man. This doesn’t seem to strike you in any way. In this recent court decision, you gave up being a citizen of a free republic and now live under an Oligarchy.
Another main point I raised was that Bidstrup and the Court have no foundation for their arguments. They do not believe that God is able to speak and has done so. You seem to deny this as well because of your understanding of free-will. You stated, “I do. I've yet to read Jesus speak on homosexuality in the Bible. And, more often, the Old Testament references to homosexuality are focused on pedophilia, not consenting adults.”
You read the Bible and came away with this conclusion? Every Theologically Liberal theologian I have read that says the same thing starts with the presupposition that God is not able to speak clearly in His Word. You are flat wrong in your assertion that God has only spoken about pedophilia. If you would like to get into specific texts I would be glad to do so. But reading things like “she” in reference to God shows your unwillingness to deal with God’s revelation.
“I'm sure, however, that the state can join two consenting people in a contract. If your assembly doesn't like that contract, fine.”
The quote of Anthony Kennedy is based on a similar argument. Yet how do we say anything is wrong? This moral relativism has no basis in logic, reason or morality. You may not like my argumentation. You may think my counter-arguments were not arguments. The fact is I am arguing presuppositionally. Most are unfamiliar with it. I challenged Bidstrup’s argumentation on a presuppositional level. I challenge yours as well. You are simply not able to justify your argumentation.
Allow me to offer you an example with the evolution issue. Evolutionary science, materialism and naturalism use the “scientific method” as the means for gaining knowledge. Yet this system is not able to justify the “scientific method”. How do we know about the Scientific Method? How do we know the Laws of Logic exist? How do we know reason exists? How do we know morality exist? How do we justify these things? You are not able to do so in a consistent manner. That is one of main criticisms I have of Bidstrup. So you may continue to agree with the Left’s position, but you must do so by agreeing might makes right. That is the basis of the California’s decision. You are now a slave of their system of government unless we are able to overthrow the yoke of tyranny they have begun.
God Bless
Howard
I did want to comment on Socialism separately. Socialism destroys the right to own property and the right to liberty. I am puzzled why so many want to the way of Socialism after a century of eastern Europe's problems.
We also know from history that socialism fails every time it is tried. The Separatists tried it in plymouth. William Bradford's On Plimouth Plantation explains that the first few years was nearly as devastating as that first winter. Socialism was the primary cause. It almost destroyed them. Freedom and the right to own property immediately saved the fledgling community. They had more than they knew what to do with. Hence we now celebrate..."Thanksgiving"!
To argue that Jesus was a socialist is a bit of a stretch. The Kingdom of God within the church community is not the same as the state. So I agree with your assessment that the Religious Right mixes church and state. But here is an example where the Left does it as well. Even if you are right, that is not the State.
I would be willing to go to the text to discuss this point. What texts would lead you to believe Jesus was a socialist? But then, you must understand I believe Jesus is the Eternal Son of God. I believe Jesus is able to speak sufficiently and clearly to what He is addressing. I do not believe the Bible is full of errors or contradictions. Jesus speaks of the Hebrew Scriptures as not only true for people that they were written for, but that they speak to modern man as the ultimate authority. I share His view as much as I can.
"Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't make it a non-argument. Sorry if I find your words consistently homophobic, but reading back over your posts, I do."
Since it is easy to misunderstand or not grasp how the other side sees something, I must ask. What is it that I am saying that is homophobic? For it seems to me, that simply disagreeing with homosexuals by definition is homophobic. Could you offer a specific example of something that was homophobic? Or was it the Canaanites bit? Perhaps mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah would be homophobic? Perhaps Romans 1?
The trouble I see is that anything the Bible plainly says, has now been done away with as some cultural issue. Anyone who would use the Traditional texts would be seen as homophobic. So there seems to be nothing that could possibly be said that is not homophobic.
Thanks
God Bless
Howard
I too believe Jesus is the Eternal Son of God. But I never got the impression that he was really wrapped up in getting me a copy of His book and reading it like a text book; with life being a pass / fail test.
So you follow all the Bible says, whether or not it's Old or New Testament?
I offer you this bit of wisdom from Aaron Sorkin:
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that can I ask another? My chief-of-staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you."
But yet... you're not Catholic. You don't align yourself to the rock Christ built. And what of transubstantiation?
Why is the Bible perfect? Catholics assembled the work, which was later edited down by others.
And God only communicated His word clearly once-- with Jesus. The Bible is Divinely INSPIRED. NOT DIVINE. There were humans in the way. Racist humans. Sexist humans. And it shows in the book. And instead of saying, "no, God took control of the pen so He could clearly lay things out for me". This is silly. Why would He do that? He never asked anyone to take notes. The New Testament wasn't written until after He was dead. The Gospels don't fully match up. There's so many, many, many problems with the book, if taken literally. It's still the best book ever written. It is still the premiere way to have an understanding of God. But to look at it and say, "this is true like tested science and history; every word".
Then again... since you don't believe in science... "How do we know about the Scientific Method? How do we know the Laws of Logic exist? How do we know reason exists? How do we know morality exist? How do we justify these things? You are not able to do so in a consistent manner." I mean, REALLY? REALLY?! Years of philosophy, built upon each other, and you come out with "how do we know" about ANYTHING? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you haven't had a face to face conversation with Jesus. So somebody taught you read. How do you know what words are? Why do you accept them for their meanings? How do you know you exist? Sadly, the Bible isn't everything. It was assumed that we'd look outside of it for things.
Socialism. Your comments on socialism can be described at BEST as ignorant. Congrats for bringing up an example of where something similar to it failed in our country. You wouldn't happen to have seen any capitalist failings around, would you? Socialism has had success in other countries, to varying degrees (with varying degrees of implementation). And your definition of socialism is pure, 100%, "aw shucks" crazy. Socialism would FAR more accurately be described as "everyone has a right to property" instead of "nobody". You like capitalism because you have property. But there are lost of people in the United States who don't. They have the "right" to it, but they can't get enough money to actually have it (because you keep taking it all). So, instead, a country says, "Everyone gets a piece, because we're all citizens". That's a pretty giving attitude. Kinda like that Jesus guy, who instead of saying, "only the people who planned ahead for my really long sermon can have any fish or bread" said, "let's split this up". Then again, you probably don't think much of J.C... I mean with your capitalism-is-all leanings, you've probably found a way to rationalize a Commandment against stealing property with the fact that Jesus went to a temple and caused some individual property damage when He could have just asked people to move without giving an inch as to "literal" word.
Finally, and probably without bothering to return to your patch of the web, you are homophobic. It's gonna take me awhile to get to "the point" here, but I think I'll bother anyways. For kicks, Google "Bible against interracial marriage". 9 out of 10 hits you get will say, "oh, no, no, no, the Bible isn't against interracial marriage!" 4 out of 10 will say, "but it is against inter-faith marriage". It's a matter of interpretation.
The clearest item against consenting same sex adults in the Bible is Romans 1. If you've made it to Romans 1, and you think the Bible is literal, (watch out for the water bubble in the sky), then so be it. But this is Paul. Paul who doesn't speak highly of women (and, by the by, God doesn't actually have a gender. Yet to read "God had a penis" in the Bible... just read a bunch of men putting themselves in positions of power). Paul who says it's okay to have slaves (maybe your capitalist viewpoint agrees?). Interpretations of this passage have gone as floppy as "it's probably against Greek religious practices". Honestly, I just think Paul is an opinioned guy. Some of his opinions are good. Some of them aren't.
As for you, personally, you seem fairly afraid of gays. Tell me how many gay friends you have. Jesus had friends who were prostitutes, so I'm assuming, even if you hate them, you should have some good gay friends, right? But, 20 hours with no replies to your subjects, you come back with this burning question in your mind after re-reading the posts: "am I a homophobe?" Maybe, for your sake, you phrase it more like, "How, in this guy's world view, can I EVER be right?" Well, ya can't. At some point reason has to enter into things. Jesus used parables. He used logic and reason. And the way you speak about homosexuality is the same way a Nazi would speak about it (Nazi's, interestingly enough, claimed to be socialists... not that has any bearing on anything). You see something about homosexuality, and you feel the need to beat it down. And how? On a blog, where you don't aim to have a discussion; you aim to support your belief, via your interpretation. This isn't like the tempest. You weren't aiming to have a discussion. You were aiming to stand on your pulpit and preach "the truth".
You dislike Islamic polygamy, but didn't God have a prophet who got away with impregnating another woman when it was "needed"? I'd bet you're also against incest, but somehow "Adam and Eve" populated the planet. These are items that can't be rationalized.
Want some really good, well-cited positions on the Bible? Check out www.godhatesfags.com . Watch the videos on a variety of topics; not just homosexuality. Well versed, the people there. They know their stuff. I'm betting you don't want to be like them, but what you do is only slightly different. You say, "I'm right, because the magic book says so", just less publically.
I almost didn't bother replying to anything. I have trouble stomaching your views, your condescension, and "high" ground. Even though I don't suppose I'll be changing any of your views anytime soon, I did so for two reasons:
1) God teaches loving and teaching. So I've gotta try once.
2) Gettysburg. Your profile says you like Gettysburg. You ever really think about that movie? The North is wrong. They're fighting against the same sort of revolution the whole country was involved in years earlier. They're fighting to maintain an over-bearing government "because". There were very, very few people who cared about slavery-- it was just a way to wedge some justification. And then you have the South. Fighting for states rights... including to take away the rights of other people. They're all good people. And they're wrong. All of 'em. You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong-wrong. And I'm sure, amid my myriad of points, I'm wrong. But there's the nice thing about me being a moderate liberal-- I may be wrong, but I'm open. I know somewhere I'm wrong. And I'll keep on correcting myself. Keep learning. Keep expanding. But I'll be open the whole time. The "right" and Conservative is closed. To conserve is to "hold on". You want things to be a mythical "way they used to be". As if divorce rates were lesser (they weren't) in the 1950's when there were "less homosexuals". We're all wrong. But, if you're willing to try, maybe you can get the speck out of your eye whilst I continue to work on mine. I'd suggest staying away from Rush Limbaugh as a helpful starting point.
Howdy Nolan,
First, I want to say that I appreciate your comments on the education portion. There is much I agree with. As for the rest, there is so much to with which to interact, that I think I will just stick to a few points that perhaps will bring us back to the text of Scripture.
2) You cite Aaron Sorkin. I do not know of him specifically, but the questions and arguments have been used widely, especially on the internet. I’d like to offer a few responses to that.
a) I do think about those questions all the time. They are asked of Christians all the time. There are answers. Reformed Protestants in general and Reformed Baptists in particular have more than sufficiently answered these objections. Please keep in mind, I am not a Fundamentalist Baptist. I am a Reformed Baptist. I understand that from your vantage point there is no difference. Believe me when I tell you there is a world of difference.
b) Another problem with your paragraph of questions is that it is meant to deflect all clear passages of Scripture. The idea is to cast doubt on the Bible as being a trustworthy source. Then the Christian is supposed to work with a barrage of out of context arguments all at once while being painted into a corner as a hateful bigot. If you would like to discuss each question separately, I would be more than happy to do so. Simply because Christians have disagreed doesn’t mean the Bible is any more unclear than a computer book “written for dummies”. God has given us the freedom to argue about the texts of Scripture, but He doesn’t give us the freedom to be intellectually lazy or arrogant to say there is no real way of understanding the text.
c) Atheists widely use these arguments to disprove the Bible altogether. The reason is simple. If you cast doubt that the Bible is actually God’s Word in one part, then the obvious logical connection is that the whole thing must be pitched, otherwise you are just picking and choosing what you like. If Genesis 1-11 is not historical, then the New Testament is not either. As you know, the New Testament heavily relies on an historical and literal Adam in contrast with Christ. It also heavily relies on an historical flood in contrast to Christ’s coming judgment and the salvation of His people.
d) Muslims use this exact form of argumentation in order to demonstrate that Jesus is not the Son of God nor was He raised from the dead. I have said for a long time that Liberal theology is not able to withstand Islam.
3) Ultimately this is a question of ultimate authorities. Challenging Bidstrup’s position is to be done on this level.
“I mean, REALLY? REALLY?! Years of philosophy, built upon each other, and you come out with "how do we know" about ANYTHING? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you haven't had a face to face conversation with Jesus. So somebody taught you read. How do you know what words are? Why do you accept them for their meanings? How do you know you exist? Sadly, the Bible isn't everything. It was assumed that we'd look outside of it for things.”
Again, I do not deny we may know things. I am simply getting at how we do know things. If I follow your methodology, we just pick and choose (while it seems you accuse me of doing that?). Obviously you assume some kind of theistic worldview. You must in order to be somewhat rational. Yet, if you are going to argue some kind of moral position, you cannot say that God has given to us His revelation and then say He hasn’t. Or (as it seems to be what you are saying) God is simply unclear, so we need to grope around to figure out what is right. Again, this is irrational and leads to “might makes right”.
The critique of not being able to justify “the scientific method” is not just from Bible thumping folks. We live in the post-modern era. The major reason, if I understand the current trends in philosophy, is that philosophers are caught in this philosophical conundrum. The Scientific Method can’t prove the Scientific Method. It must be assumed in a worldview that says we can’t know anything outside our senses.
If you would really like to understand my position here, there is a debate between Greg Bahnsen and Stein. Bahnsen is a Presbyterian and Stein is an atheist. Now I know you are not an atheist, but you seem to be arguing some form of theological agnosticism.
http://how2fish.org/debate%20audio
%20files/Bahnsen%20vs%20Stein/
Bahnsen_vs_Stein.mp3
Again, I would really like to interact specifically on the major objections raised in your paragraph by Sorkin. If you are truly willing to consider that the Bible might possibly be a consistent whole and that God has truly spoken and still speaks today, then you will see that a harmonization of the text is not only possible but necessary.
God Bless
Howard
Post a Comment