NATION

PASSWORD

Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Thepeopl
Minister
 
Posts: 2004
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:54 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Why aren't Christians clamouring about heterosexual couples having sex while the woman is having her period? It is in the same lev. 20.
They, too, should have their parental rights revoked.
Last edited by Thepeopl on Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Necroghastia
Senator
 
Posts: 4243
Founded: May 11, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Necroghastia » Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:55 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

You do realize how how pyrrhic the thing you're advocating for is? You say you don't want gay people to spend their lives alone, but you would reduce options to a hollow, unfulfilling mockery of a true relationship or celibacy. Would a loving God truly reduce gay people to those options and those alone? Especially if he made them gay to begin with?
The Land of Spooky Scary Skeletons!

Pronouns: she/her

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 14004
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:56 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

You have been made aware of the psychological harm this terrible and damaging plan would cause:
The Free Joy State wrote:Discrimination (such as disallowing marriage and IVF to same-sex couples) is shown to raise rates of depression and anxiety, while hiding the fact you're LGBT+ can lead to mental harm (including dissociation, self-hatred and low self-esteem), not to mention a mass of half-truths and small lies.

So... no. What you advocate is not a recipe for happiness. Or truth.

Yet you persist anyway.

I am starting to suspect your argument really is nothing more than homophobia, albeit couched in nicer, softer language than has been used by some others. Deprivation of rights -- the causing of massive suffering, on people who share none of your beliefs -- for some ill-formed idea of "their good".
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Minister
 
Posts: 2004
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:57 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Yet you don't want LGBT to be able get married or have children? Do you even want to allow them to be in relationship because that sounds like you want them to remain alone.

No. I want people to marry and have children within sacramental marriages and familial structures. That, or practice celibacy in its various forms. I want all people to be an active part of such communities. Beyond family, friendship, romance, there is a love to quote Dante, that "moves the sun and the other stars."

So all adulterers will have their parental rights revoked too?

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7105
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:00 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?
Love is not just a physical thing.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Freiheit Reich
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5510
Founded: May 27, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Freiheit Reich » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:00 pm

Thepeopl wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Why aren't Christians clamouring about heterosexual couples having sex while the woman is having her period? It is in the same lev. 20.
They, too, should have their parental rights revoked.


This might help. Note, I don't agree with some of these rules, but I found it awhile ago and remember these rules. They are pretty strict. :

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#02

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

Yes, natural intercourse is permitted between a husband and wife during those times.

Although the natural marital act does not result in a new conception during pregnancy, the act itself is still inherently directed toward procreation. Natural intercourse is the type of sexual act that is inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive meanings. And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to pregnancy.

There are two common reasons that Catholics ask if marital relations is moral during the wife's period. First, some ask because St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that marital relations is not moral during menstruation. However, his opinion was based on a misunderstanding about reproductive biology, in that he thought harm would result to the offspring. Given the medical knowledge that no such harm results to the offspring from marital relations during menstruation, his opinion on this point is in error.

Second, some ask because they mistakenly think that conception cannot occur as a result of sexual relations during menstruation, and they mistakenly think that marital relations is not moral if procreation cannot possibly result. But as long as the sexual act is the type of act inherently directed at procreation, i.e. natural genital-to-genital intercourse, the act retains the procreative meaning intended by God for marital relations. For it is the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral object, not the attainment of the moral object, that causes an act to be either good, or intrinsically evil.

Even when natural intercourse is unable to attain procreation, it remains ordered toward procreation, and so it retains its proper procreative meaning. Natural marital relations is moral, even when the husband and wife are unable to conceive, because the essential moral nature of the act remains inherently ordered toward the threefold good intended by God for sexual relations: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58845
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:01 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?
Love is not just a physical thing.


Yes it’s also about chemistry and personality. I don’t understand why Lgbt people should have to marry someone they don’t love to not be alone and have children. You don’t see the harm that could cause someone?

User avatar
Necroghastia
Senator
 
Posts: 4243
Founded: May 11, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Necroghastia » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:03 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?
Love is not just a physical thing.

While romantic orientation does not always follow sexual orientation, I'm fairly sure that most most homosexual people are not heteroromantic.
The Land of Spooky Scary Skeletons!

Pronouns: she/her

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 14004
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:07 pm

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?
Love is not just a physical thing.

If you will never be romantically interested in another party, because you are sexually incompatible, there will always be something missing. Any physical activity will be viewed with negative emotions, if it is tolerable at all (and as sex an important part of bonding, that will not help the relationship). Also, deep, lasting love comes from sharing who you fully are as a person -- not withholding who you are and pretending to be the heterosexual society demands you be, because who you are is a crime.

So, what Lumen said was accurate. People will be forced -- as their grandparents' generation were -- into loveless, possibly unconsummated marriages for the sake of appearances. Forced into societal roles that won't suit them. Cursed to live lives of depression and self-hatred.

That is what your plan would bring to the world.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34052
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:34 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Those aren't choices, they want to be with someone of the same sex, but you are telling them that instead they are being denied something that straight people take for granted, i.e. form a consenting relationship freely with another adult. It may make you feel better to think that you are being generous by offering two shitty things in place of something you are taking away, but don't try to act as though you are being benevolent by offering this "choice."
Last edited by The New California Republic on Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 14004
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:43 am

The New California Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

Those aren't choices, they want to be with someone of the same sex, but you are telling them that instead they are being denied something that straight people take for granted, i.e. form a consenting relationship freely with another adult. It may make you feel better to think that you are being generous by offering two shitty things in place of something you are taking away, but don't try to act as though you are being benevolent by offering this "choice."

"You may not have a house to live in. But, you are not forgotten: you may live in this box or this charming doorway, if you so choose."

An overdramatic comparison? Perhaps. But it is not I who proposes denying a whole group of people real choice, genuine love, social acceptance, a family and happiness on the sole basis of my personal beliefs, and appears to wish to appear merciful while doing so.

But, this seems to have broadened rather a lot from the original OP and same-sex parents...
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri Dec 04, 2020 1:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Kernen
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6974
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:13 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

"I want you to be happy, but only by my definition of happiness. Tough shit if that doesn't make you happy."

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:So in other words marry someone they don’t love or never have any relations at all?
Love is not just a physical thing.

And yet society recognizes the serious value physical aspects of love play in relationship, families, and society. Let's stop pretending it doesn't matter.
From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Get abortions, do drugs, own guns, but never misstate legal procedure.

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63704
Founded: May 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kannap » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:40 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.


So you want homosexuals to marry/procreate in a loveless marriage and via sexual activity that they find no pleasure or enjoyment in?

Sounds utterly miserable, why would you wish that upon people?
24 years old, gay asexual, male Presbyterian, North Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident ostrich
Political Party: Not affiliated/Independent
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
Luna Amore wrote:note to self, insert clever reference to Kannap
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
RYM || Political test results
.::The List of National Sports::.

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12551
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:47 am

Kannap wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.


So you want homosexuals to marry/procreate in a loveless marriage and via sexual activity that they find no pleasure or enjoyment in?

Sounds utterly miserable, why would you wish that upon people?


Is he still going on about this?
FFS!

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12551
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:49 am

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Thepeopl wrote:Why aren't Christians clamouring about heterosexual couples having sex while the woman is having her period? It is in the same lev. 20.
They, too, should have their parental rights revoked.


This might help. Note, I don't agree with some of these rules, but I found it awhile ago and remember these rules. They are pretty strict. :

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#02

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?

Yes, natural intercourse is permitted between a husband and wife during those times.

Although the natural marital act does not result in a new conception during pregnancy, the act itself is still inherently directed toward procreation. Natural intercourse is the type of sexual act that is inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive meanings. And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to pregnancy.

There are two common reasons that Catholics ask if marital relations is moral during the wife's period. First, some ask because St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that marital relations is not moral during menstruation. However, his opinion was based on a misunderstanding about reproductive biology, in that he thought harm would result to the offspring. Given the medical knowledge that no such harm results to the offspring from marital relations during menstruation, his opinion on this point is in error.

Second, some ask because they mistakenly think that conception cannot occur as a result of sexual relations during menstruation, and they mistakenly think that marital relations is not moral if procreation cannot possibly result. But as long as the sexual act is the type of act inherently directed at procreation, i.e. natural genital-to-genital intercourse, the act retains the procreative meaning intended by God for marital relations. For it is the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral object, not the attainment of the moral object, that causes an act to be either good, or intrinsically evil.

Even when natural intercourse is unable to attain procreation, it remains ordered toward procreation, and so it retains its proper procreative meaning. Natural marital relations is moral, even when the husband and wife are unable to conceive, because the essential moral nature of the act remains inherently ordered toward the threefold good intended by God for sexual relations: the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings.


So let's pick and choose what we want to follow from Leviticus?

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Geneviev
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16432
Founded: Mar 03, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Geneviev » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:49 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.

That just sounds depressing. I don't think that's what God would want for anyone.
"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12551
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:50 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:I don’t follow. You therefore want to allow them to marry and adopt children?

Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.


Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7105
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:53 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Yes, with people of the opposite sex or remain celibate if they so choose.


Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

They'd choose between the two.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12551
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:54 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

They'd choose between the two.


So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Reko Guire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Dec 01, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Reko Guire » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:55 am

Celritannia wrote:
Sundiata wrote:They'd choose between the two.


So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7105
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:56 am

Reko Guire wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

Come on man, same-sex attraction is not a choice. Are you joking?
Last edited by Sundiata on Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Celritannia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12551
Founded: Nov 10, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Celritannia » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:56 am

Sundiata wrote:
Reko Guire wrote:If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.

Come on man, same-sex attraction is not a choice. Are you joking?


But they are not allowed to choose to be happy, by your logic.

My DeviantArt
Obey
When you annoy a Celritannian
U W0T M8?
Zirkagrad wrote:A person with a penchant for flying lions with long tongues, could possibly be a fan of Kiss. Maybe the classiest nation with a lion with its tongue hanging out. Enjoys only the finest tea.

Nakena wrote:NSG's Most Serene Salad

Crysuko wrote:My little crony: corruption is magic
Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman.
Atheist, Environmentalist, Pansexual, Left-Libertarian.

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63704
Founded: May 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kannap » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:59 am

Sundiata wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
Would you force them to do this? Or force them to be celibate?

They'd choose between the two.


Are you going to force them to do this?
24 years old, gay asexual, male Presbyterian, North Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident ostrich
Political Party: Not affiliated/Independent
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
Luna Amore wrote:note to self, insert clever reference to Kannap
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
RYM || Political test results
.::The List of National Sports::.

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63704
Founded: May 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kannap » Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:59 am

Reko Guire wrote:
Celritannia wrote:
So they choose between 2 options that will never make them happy?

Yeah, that's still being forced.

If they want to be happy they could just choose to be straight.


Can straight people just choose to be gay? If it's possible, do it.
24 years old, gay asexual, male Presbyterian, North Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident ostrich
Political Party: Not affiliated/Independent
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
Luna Amore wrote:note to self, insert clever reference to Kannap
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
RYM || Political test results
.::The List of National Sports::.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7105
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sundiata » Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:03 pm

Kannap wrote:Sounds utterly miserable, why would you wish that upon people?

I don't wish suffering upon people but these trials, as well as similar trials are necessary to forge us well. Struggles aren't arbitrary. "They are always there to show which way is safe to go," to quote St. Josemaria. Pain and difficulty will someday cease.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eahland, Fereni, Free Las Pinas, Infected Mushroom, Kowani, Loeje, New haven america, Senkaku, Shrillland, Thermodolia, Varkaria

Advertisement

Remove ads