What is so philosophical about this question?
A lot, I would say. In the first place it is about right and wrong, so ethics is involved. Second because it makes me wonder, why we have so many moral ideas about sexuality in general and for instance not about dish washing.
When and why become something a moral issue? Gaysex seems to be such an issue. Let's focus on that question first.
Something becomes a moral issue when we have a conviction that something ought not to be done. The motivation can be derived from religious feelings or to say it in a simpler way: it is in the Bible.
Stephen Law comes with an amusing argumentation. You say that gaysex is wrong, because the Bible says so in Leviticus 18: 22 - 23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female;
it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."
Leviticus 20:13 is even more severe: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."
But if you say that this is a moral rule, then why do you eat moules or porkmeat or wear a linen jacket. That is also forbidden according to the Bible. The argument is that people are selective about what the Bible says and what should be read as a command of God.
Or to say it in other words, people choose only those things from the Bible to base their moral obligations on, which suits their personal opinions.
One theological work around is to hold that the Old Testamental laws of Leviticus are set aside by Jesus. However, also Paul declares that gaysex is unnatural in Romans 1: 18 - 32.
"and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
So refering to a Bible as an absolute source of knowledge about what is right and wrong could be ok, if you also can give a justification why some commands as mentioned in the Bible have to be obeyed and others may be ignored.
If we are not religious, we still could say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. However, Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.
It is a fact that you see similar behavior among other primates and all kinds of animals. Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal.
Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans.
Or think of that female spider that devours her partner after some intimate moments ^_^.
This leaves us with fundamental questions on ethics. Neither an eclectic use of a Bible or Koran, nor a reference to animal behavior is a sufficient argument to declare gay sex immoral or morally acceptable.
Or to be even more specific, what is the relation between our sexual behavior and ethics? Why does something become a moral issue tho all involved choose in free will and with sincere mutual consent to engage in certain sexual activities?
The Discussion
[13:18] herman Bergson: the floor is yours ^_^
[13:18] Samuel Okelly: "One theological work around is to hold that the Old Testamental laws of Leviticus are set aside by Jesus. " which one herman?
[13:19] hope63 Shepherd: could wse leave jesus out of this sam? no known testimony of his part..
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i thought the chapter again led to no answer in Law's opinion just a collections of for and against arguments that lead nowhere
[13:19] herman Bergson: It is said that Jesus in a way replaced the Mosaic Laws with his teachings..
[13:19] Alarice Beaumont: well.. if there would only love between men... no children... no people left on the world
[13:19] oola Neruda: different cultures in different places at different times... have different "rules" for society..... what is good/bad.... infanticide is one of those things.... who is to say which society ... and which time and place ...are right
[13:19] ChatNoir Talon: But that is not the case, there is not ONLY gay love
[13:20] hope63 Shepherd: sex in society..that is the question..
[13:20] Samuel Okelly: it is said that jesus fulfilled the mosaic law not replaced it
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: yes sam
[13:20] Sovereign Repine: Could it be that the behaviors mentioned, gay sex and beastiality create no offspring and that is the true motivation for the disapproval?
[13:20] Alarice Beaumont: fortunately... but i think ... that is the reason one find's it not "natural"
[13:20] Samuel Okelly: hope63 can you allow herman to answer on his own please?
[13:20] Samuel Okelly: I think to ask “Do you really think gaysex is wrong?” is an intentionally provocative question. I think until we can establish an understanding of what makes anything right or wrong )in order to avoid talking across each other) the specific nature of the question, namely “gaysex”, becomes a needless digression and only serves to open the door on some tired yet predictable bigoted religion bashing.
[13:20] hope63 Shepherd: open discussion sam..
[13:21] herman Bergson: That is an argument Sovereign...procreation
[13:21] herman Bergson: But that would make a lot of sexual actions immoral
[13:21] ChatNoir Talon: Most of them probably
[13:21] Marya Blaisdale: except it isn't that way, Alarice - so it seems incoherant to say that if all people were homosexual then there would be no children. On top of that, science offering the possibilities it does now - I expect even in the obviously unlikely event that all of humanity became homosexual - there would still be children.
[13:22] oola Neruda: i agree with Sam
[13:22] Sovereign Repine: and furthurmore that Paul was one of the first Catholics and not really representative of Jesus's teachings and for the same procreative reasoning disappoved?
[13:22] herman Bergson: I dont agree Samuel...
[13:22] herman Bergson: What is at stake here is the question....when becomes something a moral issue and why
[13:23] ChatNoir Talon: Something is wrong (to me, obviosuly) when it hurts people
[13:23] herman Bergson: one option is...because of religious feelings....but not everyone is religious
[13:23] Alarice Beaumont: i think this is because the society thinks it is not "common"
[13:23] Alarice Beaumont: and love between men is quite unusual
[13:23] oola Neruda: when and why.... yes... rather than a specific conclusion
[13:23] Marya Blaisdale: But as Stephen points out in his book, red hair is not common either - that doesn't make it wrong :]
[13:23] herman Bergson: But not 'common' doesnt need to mean immoral
[13:23] Samuel Okelly: is it logical to ask when something becomes "moral" if we dont have an understanding of what it means "to be moral"????
[13:23] hope63 Shepherd: procreation is propably the only universal for organisms. but- ari is not here unfortunately.. its a survival question.. not an ethical one..
[13:24] Daruma Boa: right hope
[13:24] oola Neruda: we are in an era when zero population growth is not just desirable...it is probably imparitive
[13:24] herman Bergson: Besides the general question I put forward, there is the observation that sexuality and ethics have a close relation
[13:24] Sovereign Repine: The truely ethical response to a person's sexual activities as long as it harms no one is for society to mind thier own business.
[13:25] Marya Blaisdale: Sam, Stephen provides this example specifically because it provides an opportunity to break down the reasoning as to why someone might think it is wrong - and therefore get to the point of how we decide what is moral and what is not
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: the situation in china upheld that one child famillies and 10000 children were lost in the earthquakes
[13:25] herman Bergson: Indeed Sovereign...I tend to agree with that view
[13:25] ChatNoir Talon: Agreed Sovereign
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but it has never been so :-)
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: every society makes laws regarding the bedroom
[13:26] Daruma Boa: true i know that from the us;-)
[13:26] herman Bergson: So I think that the relation between sexuality and ethics goes deeper...
[13:26] ChatNoir Talon: or the kitchen, or the rug, or the bathroom sink...
[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. the moral views of things which men and women do are even different in the society.. even if they do the same thing
[13:26] hope63 Shepherd: agreed. in gthe history of life -and i refer to darwin- the individual mind thei own business and survive if it works..
[13:26] herman Bergson: it is about free consent....bodily integrity....things like that
[13:26] Samuel Okelly: if that is the case marya, then "gaysex" IS reduced to a digression of a bigger issue
[13:27] Jangle McElroy: But gay sex was commonplace and accepted practice in a nearby and influenctial culture for centuries before Christ - in Greece, where Paul came from. So the Middle Eastern religions (Judaism/Christian/Muslim) have picked this as a banned practice, amongst others (like eating shelfish) as something that helps define the community they are from and the rule of law applied to the citizens.
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: right jangle
[13:27] Sovereign Repine: Could childhood nurturing create the negative image and is it the latent desire for gay sex that evokes the repugnance?
[13:28] herman Bergson: Indeed Jangl...even pedophilia was accepted among the Greeks
[13:28] oola Neruda: sovereign... i don't think it is that simple
[13:28] Marya Blaisdale: He uses this approach, Sam, because it is something that is easily understood - he approaches this in the book as a discussion between god and a man about why it is or is not wrong - it is stated in plain english and is easy for all levels of experience to understand - which, to my mind, is of greater importance
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: ys
[13:28] Ze Novikov: becareful not to confilate our understanding of sex and that of ancient Greece
[13:28] Ze Novikov: they are not the same
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: it was very well presented in the book
[13:28] Thoth Jantzen: referring back a bit, i think i agree with sam, too - the question as put is meant to get attention, sensationalize. the issue of what's right or wrong - how to decide that - is more fundamental than any more specific question. and that fundamemental question is really only approachable in socio-cultural contexts where right or wrongness matters and based on criteria important in those contexts. almost all the rules in the bible can be shown to have some practical 'purpose' - healthwise, family-wise, etc. - for the times they were formulated.
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. very good written
[13:29] herman Bergson: I agree Ze....it wasnt sex in our sense of the word
[13:29] oola Neruda: agreed toth
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well.....I dont agree....
[13:29] Samuel Okelly: furthermore is it “gay sex” we are being asked to consider or is it the broader social implications of redefining and reconstituting the family unit?
[13:30] herman Bergson: the question is just formulated with a wink...
[13:30] herman Bergson: and second..I put forward a completely different...wider question on ethics...
[13:30] Marya Blaisdale: The point is, I think, to allow 'anyone' to access philosophical thinking, from an angle that 'anyone' can understand - so to my mind, it is not a matter of sensationalising it - it is a matter of presenting the question and therefore the issue, in manner than can be understood by all people
[13:30] Thoth Jantzen: yes, but imho opinion it derails discussion before it gets started...
[13:30] Thoth Jantzen: polarizes it from the beginning.
[13:30] Sovereign Repine: 'the family unit' is a 'boogie man' used by christians to attempt to dominate
[13:31] herman Bergson: So see no polarisation here
[13:31] Thoth Jantzen: just my opinion. ur mileage, of course, may vary. ;o)
[13:31] oola Neruda: liberals and atheists embrace the idea of a family unit too...
[13:31] herman Bergson: Again....what is the question here is ..when and why becomes something a moral issue.....and gaysex is a sentive example of it
[13:32] Samuel Okelly: [13:30] Sovereign Repine: 'the family unit' is a 'boogie man' used by chrisians to attempt to dominate remember what i said about bigoted religious bashing?
[13:32] oola Neruda: agree Sam
[13:32] Thoth Jantzen: well, that's the thing. it's better to apporach such issues as people, not liberals or conservatives, gays or straights, atheists or theists.
[13:32] Sovereign Repine: every homosexul son and daughter is a family membe to someone
[13:32] herman Bergson: Then I want AGAIN return to my question....
[13:33] Sovereign Repine: so how can they not be part of the f'family unit'
[13:33] herman Bergson: I gave two options.....religious feelings and a look at nature
[13:34] Thoth Jantzen: well, there's a question....
[13:34] hope63 Shepherd: you see the things as you were told to see them.. not the origins... not the complexity of human/cultural development..
[13:34] herman Bergson: I put another argument forward......how are moral commands selected from the bible..
[13:34] Daruma Boa: lol a good one
[13:34] oola Neruda: maybe those are not the only options... think again of ... how do we know things... and all the nit picking of how things exist or are defined...etc....
[13:34] Jangle McElroy: Erratically and with prejudice
[13:34] hope63 Shepherd: how did moral commands come to beeing..
[13:34] Thoth Jantzen: what criteria do we use to define right and wrong? do we start from a religious standpoint? nature? seems that those limit choices and approaches. is there a more broad or fundamental context to begin from?
[13:35] Sovereign Repine: The natural condition for teh survivalof the species is heterosexul, all of us have the capacity for either hom or hetero sex.
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: culture question..
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well Thoth....the next question may help you answer that
[13:35] herman Bergson: Skepticism has a long tradition in philosophy
[13:36] herman Bergson: So the broader scene for an answer would be culture
[13:36] Samuel Okelly: to speak of "the bible" is a misguided digression in my view as i do not doubt that ppl long before moses received the decalogue acted with a sense of morality
[13:36] Thoth Jantzen: seems to me we should get as low as possible, and then work up to some level where morality matters, and look around there for some reasonable hooks to start thinking from mayeb.
[13:36] herman Bergson: True Samuel
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: ok sam. but since when .. and who..
[13:37] Sovereign Repine: yet every religious leader who speaks out on homosexuality quotes the bible
[13:37] Jangle McElroy: I'd politily suggest the survivial of the species argument is perhaps missing it's mark. When the rules were created the elders / rulers / priests cared about the survival of their people, no-one else. It's survival of 'us' whoever the 'we' are that define outselves by a particual ethical code, religious belief. or set of rules
[13:37] oola Neruda: not the muslims
[13:37] Thoth Jantzen: not the mullahs
[13:37] Thoth Jantzen: ;o)
[13:37] Sovereign Repine: well, a holy book of some kind
[13:37] Thoth Jantzen: well, that's sort of a given, no?
[13:37] Sovereign Repine: funny how all were written by the one and only god
[13:37] Samuel Okelly: Sovereign "yet every religious leader who speaks out on homosexuality quotes the bible" are you serious ?
[13:38] Laraya Mills: the most textes against homosexuality are from the old testament - and that is rooted from much older cultures, than christianity or Islam
[13:38] Marya Blaisdale: Please keep in mind, this question provided by Stephen Law is relative to an example he relates in his book - it is specific, and as I mentioned before, it is presented in such a way as to make it understandable - the example is provided via a conversation between the god of the bible and a man - just letting you know so you have the context
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: like' lara?
[13:38] ChatNoir Talon: Wait wait wait, this discussion seems to be going in circles. I've got a question, who's got a problem with gaysex?
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: this chapter is on line btw
[13:38] Jangle McElroy: The one and only god is appearing in different guises with similar teachings i na very small geographic area to a few different tribes though.
[13:38] Sovereign Repine: lol
[13:38] Laraya Mills: before jewish even, hope
[13:39] hope63 Shepherd: cite
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes ChatNoir...that is a good question
[13:39] Sovereign Repine: I do not
[13:39] ChatNoir Talon: If no one here does, then that means that part 1 of the discussion is done, right?
[13:39] Thoth Jantzen: chat, that question's answer depends on the approach to it. so u first need to find a good approach to answering it.
[13:39] oola Neruda: ask a prison inmate
[13:40] Marya Blaisdale: I expect most people who have taken the time to think about it, probably don't have a problem with it ChatNoir, but most people apparently don't think about it ...
[13:40] Laraya Mills: I live together with another woman...if that answers the question
[13:40] herman Bergson: It does Laraya ^_^
[13:40] Sovereign Repine: that is called enlightenment, Marya
[13:40] Jangle McElroy: Laraya - how if Mom ? ;)
[13:40] herman Bergson: But let us return to the fundamental ethical theory here
[13:40] Laraya Mills: not Mom, Jangle
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:41] Jangle McElroy: Understand, of course.
[13:41] ChatNoir Talon: Alright, seeing all of us here agree that gaysex is not a problem we can hit the ethical question of right and wrong
[13:41] herman Bergson: The issu ehere is....why something becomes an issue of right and wrong.....what critaria do we use
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: whom doees it harm????
[13:41] Sovereign Repine: but who determines what is right or wrong?
[13:42] Laraya Mills: I would like to raise 2 subjects, which go a bit deeper than this, if I may
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Sovereign..who does....
[13:42] ChatNoir Talon: The individual does, then it gets agreed upon by society
[13:42] herman Bergson: What means do we have to establish absolut emoral rules
[13:42] herman Bergson: do thewy exist?
[13:42] Sovereign Repine: I have decided that is is not wrong and that is the way it will be.
[13:42] hope63 Shepherd: morals and emotional sensations are not always compatible.. too complex to discuss on a basis like tonight..
[13:42] herman Bergson: Right Hope...
[13:43] Laraya Mills: for me the question is not w h o determines what is right or wrong...but think about w h a t determines what might be right or wrong...so going to the root of what r i g h t or w r o n g really is as such
[13:43] Sovereign Repine: It is a short discussion, Hope
[13:43] herman Bergson: What I want to show that it is not just a funny question about gaysex here...
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes...we could do that.....
[13:44] Daruma Boa: never thought that
[13:44] Ze Novikov: and what DO we mean by gay sex?
[13:44] herman Bergson: But first there is the observation of Hope.....emotions and moral values arent always in sync
[13:44] Laraya Mills: agree to hope for this point, yes
[13:44] Samuel Okelly: assuming the family unit is redefined to accommodate gay relationships (rather than simply gaysex), what are the moral consequences regarding children? Should they be allowed to know their biological parents for example?
[13:44] Jangle McElroy: Historically, it's the people who write things down and disseminate them that make the rules, sometimes their interpretation of what was said. There is continuing argument in those of Jewish faith because the bible says Moses dropped the commandments written perfectly by the finger of God on tablets. And when Moses went back for another set, God told him to write them down himself. The Jewish religion still debates whether the rules are perfect.
[13:44] herman Bergson: gay sex; sexual relations between people of the same gender
[13:45] Sovereign Repine: That is evident from all the fallen fundementalist preachers when caugt performing acts they preached against.
[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: oh it does harm the women... very nice men are no longer "on the market", Gemma.. quite a shame
[13:46] hope63 Shepherd: man hat mich grad bemerkt im chat lol
[13:46] Laraya Mills: I think the whole question of this moment is to easy, since it reduces to "sex....no matter whether gay or whatever sex....a better question might be what sex is without love...maybe like some sort of guitar with no strings....you can play it but It won#t be real music...
[13:46] herman Bergson: It is not my intention to answer all the questions that are brought up here...
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: nope it is not
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: and not possible anyway i think
[13:46] herman Bergson: But I hope you see the complexity of the issue
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: very much so
[13:46] Sovereign Repine: The consent for sexual relations is not a communal decision.
[13:46] hope63 Shepherd: herman.. you open up a beehive.. and this is what you get..lol
[13:47] ChatNoir Talon just eats up the honey
[13:47] herman Bergson: Indeed Hope...and all are alive and kicking :-)
[13:47] herman Bergson: That is a good thing to see
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: every class is a beehive
[13:47] Rodney Handrick: lol
[13:47] oola Neruda: would extramarital affairs be ok just because the people are of opposite sexes....
[13:47] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:47] oola Neruda: what is it we really need to find out
[13:47] Sovereign Repine: I suspect that this class is one of those enlightening moments.
[13:48] ChatNoir Talon: Ethical standings
[13:48] Samuel Okelly: FTR, I believe in an objective morality. I think the arrogance of relativism has shown itself to lead directly to chaos. To simply dismiss the existence of an objective morality merely on the grounds that ppl can not agree what it is or where to find is lazy philosophy . the truth is out there
[13:48] Laraya Mills: it is not so much the answer possibly to be given....but the numbr of different questions which everyone may take with her/him...
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: there has not been one argument presented here today that i have not heard before
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: on either side
[13:48] herman Bergson: The word extramarital already implies a lot of other moral obligations oola
[13:48] hope63 Shepherd: how about reflecting about the origins of morals/ethics.. how did they get into our brains..
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: or on the question of right and wrong
[13:49] oola Neruda: exactly Herman
[13:49] herman Bergson: Very true Gemma :-)
[13:49] ChatNoir Talon: Agreed, Gemma
[13:49] herman Bergson: And this brings us to the question: can there be new answers?
[13:49] Jangle McElroy: What about virtual affairs, perhaps that's a more relevant debate in an environment where you do not know the gender of a partner and they may look like a furry animal on your screen ?
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: not yet!\
[13:50] Sovereign Repine: these are not new questions to critical thinkers, indeed, it is those in the dark we shourld fear
[13:50] Daruma Boa: true
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: true gemma
[13:50] Laraya Mills: I don't fully agree gemma....we are still just scratching on the surfaces based on what thedifferent educations and families have given to us to start our path
[13:50] herman Bergson: That I was thinking Sovereign....we are a pretty educated group here
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: good question jangle.. emotions/sexual desires based on virtual stimulations..
[13:50] ChatNoir Talon: Why is that people who are ignorant are in the dark? People that know skin cancer is caused by sunlight should stick to darkness....
[13:51] Marya Blaisdale: Which is why, Sovereign, that it is a good thing that Stephen has written this book in such an accessible way
[13:51] Daruma Boa: point 26 / sl
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly that is why i say not yet on the question of new answers
[13:51] Sovereign Repine: The question is , so is to educate those in the dark, their bigoted parents?
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well...fortunately that is not our discussion of today ^_^
[13:52] Marya Blaisdale: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay- sex.html (in case anyone wants to read it) :)
[13:52] Laraya Mills: thx Marya ;-)
[13:52] Sovereign Repine: In regards to the teaching of right and wrong I think it fits very well. :)
[13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...:-)
[13:52] Daruma Boa: great thxs marya
[13:52] Jangle McElroy: Even reading the title dissuades me from reading the text.
[13:53] Marya Blaisdale: well if you're an experienced philospher Jangle, then there is no need for you to read it
[13:53] hope63 Shepherd: smile.. i'm wit yu jangel..
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: the text is really a dream
[13:54] herman Bergson: Well....to loose your critical attitude only because of a statement, isnt very philosophical
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: Marya, isn't the answer to that something along the lines of 'no one is ever experienced enough to assume they know?' ;)
[13:54] hope63 Shepherd: marya .. may be experienced philosopher is not always needed.. i retain a comment from jaspers 8 a philosopher>9 who said trhere is a philosophers in all of us:)
[13:54] herman Bergson: And just for the record....
[13:54] herman Bergson: I am NOT discussing Stephen Law's book here
[13:55] Marya Blaisdale: I do believe that Hope, and I do believe that no one knows everything :)
[13:55] Sovereign Repine: experienced philosopher?
[13:55] herman Bergson: I only use it as a starting point
[13:55] Marya Blaisdale nods
[13:55] herman Bergson: You can read it to get a focus on the subject at hand
[13:56] herman Bergson: But I will come up with other questions myself as I did today
[13:56] Daruma Boa: oh i am so sorry. i must leave now.
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: we all do i think :_)
[13:56] Laraya Mills: if you guys wish to, I tell you a little part of my private life since I life in one of such situation you are discussing here...maybe this might lead you to some track
[13:56] herman Bergson: Anyway.... I think we got at least a glimps of the basics of a theory on ethics...and what it all implies
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: see hyou all thursday
[13:57] Daruma Boa: hopr to see u all on thursday again;-)
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: next question
[13:57] Alarice Beaumont: bye Gemma :-)
[13:57] Daruma Boa: thank u herman!
[13:57] Ze Novikov: Herman once again tyvm and see you soon bbfn
[13:57] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:57] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:57] Qwark Allen: cya soon
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok...CLASS DISMISSED ^_^
[13:57] Samuel Okelly: thanks herman :) cheerio for now :)
[13:58] Jangle McElroy: Thanks
[13:58] herman Bergson: Thank you for the good debate
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[13:58] ChatNoir Talon: thanks herman
[13:58] ChatNoir Talon: see you all
[13:58] herman Bergson: Nice to see you Rodney..:-)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:58] Samuel Okelly:
[13:58] Samuel Okelly: †
[13:58] Samuel Okelly: † (( take care everyone )) †
[13:58] Samuel Okelly: †
[13:58] Samuel Okelly:
[13:58] herman Bergson: Bye Samuel
[13:58] Sovereign Repine: Thank you , Mr. Bergson
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: Hey!
[13:58] herman Bergson: My pleasure Sovereign
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment