The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The acceptance of homosexuality in society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,172 times Debate No: 13153
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




This is the argument against the acceptance of homosexuality in society.
First a few things to iron out before contentions:
I do not hate homosexuals
I do not believe any act of violence can be vindicated especially in today's society
I am not religious in the least bit

Pro should start by giving a solid argument against my statement.


Thank you for inviting me into this debate. This is my first so please let me know if my debate decorum is inappropriate. I am looking forward to a good exchange of ideas so we can both see the other side of the coin.

Your opening statement is a little vague and I don't know how to argue it. I could list all my counter arguments for what I could guess would be your views but that would be counter-intuitive. Why not list your reasons why you feel homosexuals should never be accepted in mainstream society!
Debate Round No. 1


....You accepted the debate which means you accepted the procedure... If I ask you to give your argument you don't say you simply do not want to and tell me to.. you give your argument. You agreed to giving your argument first when you accepted the debate.


My argument will not deviate onto the point of whether homosexuality is good or bad. My argument is that not only is the acceptance of homosexuality in our society required but it is essential if if we want to strengthen our society, uphold good morals and even strengthen marriage. If we fail to accept homosexuality we risk brushing all the people, who identify themselves as gay, aside into the fringes of society and the damage done to the people involved will be immeasurable.
I will give an example of what I mean. Pierre Seel was born in a time when homosexuality was not welcomed into society (1923) but found a place for himself in the homosexual scene in his home town of Mulhouse, france. But all this changed when the Nazis rolled into town and after weeks of interrogation and torture he found himself in the Schirmeck concentration camp. Now I know this may seem a little heavy handed but this part (involving the concentration camp) is important to keep in context for what comes after. I quote from his obituary in the British newspaper, the Independant, what has to be the most shocking moment in his sorry story.

"While the camp's Nazi leader Karl Buck (who died in luxury in 1977) gave his Sunday-morning addresses, rooks circled bodies on the gallows. One summer's day Buck ordered all to watch a miscreant be eaten alive by the guard dogs. This turned out to be Jo, whom Seel had not realized was there"

Jo was Pierre's first homosexual romance. And he watched him have a bucket placed on his head and set upon by dogs till he was dead. Pierre was lucky and survived his time at the camp and for seemingly no reason was released in 1941. He spent the rest of the war working for the Germans in a variety of roles before he got his chance to desert. The years following the war were not kind to homosexuals or to Pierre. Homosexuality was still frowned upon and in most country's very illegal. Some survivors of the camps who were identified as gay went back to prison after their release to serve for the crime of being gay. After all he had seen and experienced in the post war period, Pierre renounced his homosexuality in 1950 and it was then that the damage was done. He got married and even had children but for years his sexuality troubled him. His marriage suffered and ended in 1978 and Pierre was very close to drinking himself to death. Eventually he came to terms with his sexuality in a time when it had become more acceptable.

The point I make by telling this story its is a good example of what would happen if homosexuality is pushed to the fringes of our society (not the concentration camps I would hope, but more the social exclusion and pressure to conform to heterosexuality). Homosexuals, estranged from everyday life, would be forced into living a life that they do not want nor cannot function in. I cannot think of anything more unfair for the homosexuals themselves or for the people they get involved with in the name of romance to get away from who they are. You may argue that homosexuality is a choice but I feel that is irrelevant. I personally don't believe it is a choice (because I could not stop being interested in women, even if the threat of being set upon by dogs was offered if I didn't and neither could Pierre) but if there is a choice, that doesn't make it any less evil to force a person to live a life they do not want. I am not saying concentration camps would return nor am I implying that that is something you would want. I am saying if we don't accept and embrace homosexuals as equals and offer exactly the same rights and privileges heterosexuals expect then we would cast them out and homosexual will always be a dirty word in some quarters. The idea that homosexuality would destroy marriage and damage the fundamentals of our society are ridiculous. If anything allowing gay people these rights would strengthen marriage AND our society (for proof of this I refer to the fact that divorce rates in Holland have fallen even since the introduction of gay marriage). Allowing gay people to participate would strengthen society because not including them would damage it and the horrors that have happened in the past would be repeated. Am I arguing for special treatment for gay people? No, in a perfect world homosexuality would be mundane. In a perfect world a child at 15 would come out to their parents and they would reply "So what?". Yes it is different from the majority but homosexuals should be viewed completely as equals. And just as boring as everyday life.

Vote pro! And I look forward to your response. Thank you for raising this debate!

Moi, Pierre Seel, d�port� homosexuel (Book by Pierre Steel, annoyingly unpublished in my country but widely available in America)
Debate Round No. 2


First of all I would like to thank my opponent for engaging with me in such a stimulating topic. But, I would also like to inquire as to why exactly Pro feels as if he is free to stray from what is acceptable debate conduct whenever he pleases. I do find it extremely rude, the act of him frivolously manipulating the debate's own inherent infrastructure. This debate was to be centered upon the initial thesis which is as follows: The acceptance of homosexuality in society; Pro has diverted the argument, evidently by attempting a transparent rhetorical device. Do consider Pro's poor abidance to the rules of conduct when voting.
{Note: to understand this argument better, I must explain to you precisely why homosexuals are irrational.
1- It's not even partially inborn (as proven by every single scientific study done to date(No, I'm not talking about what the hyperactive thesis is claiming, I'm talking about what the actual science suggests and reveals after scrutiny)).
2- It is in fact an askew sexual development having to do with biological predisposition(note that word, predisposition is implicit, thus it is *not* causal.) being confirmed via environment(~80% causal).
3- Thus the acceptance of it is really a superficial endeavor aimed toward choosing to protect one's own mechanism of personal gratification rather than fulfilling their obligatory evolutionary/societal objectives. This makes it irrational on a social, psychological and emotional standing. And, moreover, the most notably important reason it is also irrational is due to the sense that it does not adhere to the cardinal principles/paradigms of evolution.}
Pro provides us with what is essentially a regurgitation of a historical account for the greater part of his argument. In subsequence, he attempts to convince us that if we do not accept homosexuals as equals, we will ultimately deem them outcasts (vulnerable to crucifixion/violence) to atypical society. My question to Pro: Do you honestly think society functions in such a black and white manner? If we don't accept something our immediate reflex is to act violently toward it? Is there no representational concept of a grey area in your mind? I do find it a bit unsettling to think as though we are really this simple. Crudely put, this is a course of action similar to what a primordial society would uptake, this distinctive ideology of yes or no. You see, what differentiates advanced societies from the primitive is the ability to expand upon our societal decision space. Take for example, people with eating disorders, like Pica(persistent ingestion of nonnutritive substances(i.e. rocks, sand, etc.), rather than organic food), have you heard any accounts of the majority acting violently towards people with such a pathology? I don't recall ever hearing about one for myself, and I suppose it wouldn't be to entirely na�ve to diagnose this specific awareness as mere indifference. They(the majority of civilized persons) couldn't possibly care that much to act violently against people with Pica, but there is no reason to accept or celebrate or normalize this condition, it has no benefit whatsoever to our species(and then on, society) to promote it in such a way. There is no Pica genocide, and correspondingly, there is no Pica civil right. I personally believe it is only rational that society espouses an identical or equivalent view towards homosexuality due to the lack of overall benefit it grants to us as a species. Now some might tend to argue that homosexuality apparently benefits society in arcane ways, but I assure each and every one of you who believe this that those practices are adaptive, and not intrinsic, and furthermore, inherently idiosyncratic.
Bonobo chimps partake in homosexuality solely for the sake of social reasons, but as previously stated, these practices are not intrinsic to the societal/intrinsic nature of the chimps so much as they are completely adaptational with respect to their discrete societal circumstances. Another alleged benefit is population control. This one is quite simple to refute, you see homosexuals have absolutely no significance in regards to population. This is logically proven when it is discovered that opposite sex couples that choose to omit procreative activity are far more prevalent than same sex couples. But there is no population control apparent right now is there? We are living in a vastly overpopulated world right now and it would seem pretty obvious that the professed homosexual population control mechanism is either currently out of order or simply just doesn't work(I'd tend towards the latter). Even the proposed theories of evolutionary altruism work with the notion that homosexuals should not be accepted or celebrated(but not treated with violence as a response). One has to sacrifice her own evolutionary obligation in order for the relative to be more successful, this shows that the sacrificial subject is ultimately of lesser value than the successful object. You see the idea of indifference(what my whole entire argument hereinbefore, herein, and hereinafter is based on) fits perfectly because it abides objectively to evolution(or 'nature' as some might call it, but I don't tend towards the espousal of that term for the reason that most airheads are quick to combat it with ostensible theories of animal homosexuality. In which they are relevant in the least bit because to claim that since animals seemingly partake in it and that this makes it thereby natural, is foul account of a naturalistic fallacy.) and does not instigate violence(contrary to superficial notions stated in your former argument), and it spares society from normalizing something that is inherently irrational(which does make the normalization irrational, and well as the normalizers(society). You really want to live in an irrational society? You're willing to remain ignorant to/discard pure logic for the exchange of appeasing and gratifying a set of irrational people? Really?).
Let's analyze an excerpt from your argument.
"Allowing gay people to participate would strengthen society because not including them would damage it and the horrors that have happened in the past would be repeated."
I just want to clearly elucidate your reasoning here, with the hopes that you might become conscious of the imponderable error you've committed to your own logicality. Namely, the idea that you appeal to the past should be felt as an embarrassment. This is the equivalent of preaching that the Nazi regime will conquer all of Europe if we don't eradicate each and every skinhead off of the face of the Earth, whilst spitting in the face of the notion of societal advancement(ever wonder how we develop as a society? It's from making sure all of the bad things don't happen again. If we weren't constantly setting up societal securities(such as obstructions of violent acts) we would still be living in the Stone Age, go figure). The cardinal point of my argument against yours is that the claim that if we don't accept them we automatically need to reject them and act violently towards them is just down right mildewing with fallacy. Essentially what happened, is the (justified) tidal wave of societal consensus that liberated the beaches of (justified) minorities such as women and African Americans is subsequently splashing through the alleyways of the (unjustified) city that is homosexuality. The people who live in this city are abusing the left over water to vindicate themselves.
Ultimately, I think your general sense of logic might be a bit impaired. That's not to say that you are alone in society, though. Just a conventional case of being easily susceptible to whatever the media fills your head with and then blindly supporting it. Hopefully you will come around sooner or later so I can stop using such pretentious syntaxes in my attempt to transmogrify you. I am eagerly awaiting whichever defense you decide to angrily cast at me.


I must confess that like I said in my first argument I am very new to debate so if my form is a little off I would appreciate if my opponent (maybe in a private message to avoid wasting characters) would refer to me an official debate guideline or something similar. I came to this site eager to learn I would ask voters to forgive my inexperience and view my arguments (and my opponents) for what they are.

However I do feel my argument is valid. Looking at the title and the first argument all I had to go on was that my opponent was against homosexuality's acceptance in society and this is not for religious reasons or blind hatred and he did not feel violence was to be tolerated. I do not want to get into semantics but in using the term acceptance I had to conclude that my opponent is therefore against acceptance therefore not allowing homosexuals or those that practice homosexual acts to participate in society. I felt my example was a good, albeit extreme, example of people not accepting homosexuality and the people who practice it. But my point was not about the violence specifically. More about how not accepting a person into society is automatically excluding them and that my opponent appears to be arguing that if homosexuals want to partake in society that they must leave their sexuality at the door.

Now I will argue against my opponents points.

1. "It's not even partially inborn (as proven by every single scientific study done to date(No, I'm not talking about what the hyperactive thesis is claiming, I'm talking about what the actual science suggests and reveals after scrutiny))."

Can you prove this point with references? I suspect you can't for the same reason I cannot prove otherwise. The topic is still hotly debated in scientific circles. For every one study that shows it is biological there is another that shows it is not. Here is one for the inborn theory [] and another [] there are many more that I could list (and will if my opponent wants me to) and there are many studies that counter the ones I have presented but I feel that to draw any conclusions on this hotly debated subject is wrong. If someone had proven this point without a shadow of a doubt it would have achieved more international fan fare. No study has proven anything on this subject without any doubt therefore my opponents next two points are invalid. I did not claim my opinion on this subject as face and included it merely for context. It was not a defining point in my first argument and it is not relevant to this discussion. The debate title does not ask whether homosexuality is inborn or not. It asks whether homosexuals should be accepted in our society and this flawed scientific viewpoint is not valid and all of your points based on it are a fallacy.

2."Thus the acceptance of it is really a superficial endeavor aimed toward choosing to protect one's own mechanism of personal gratification rather than fulfilling their obligatory evolutionary/societal objectives."

Can you again provide references that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what our societal and evolutionary objectives are? And how a person who does not follow these obligations is damaging to society? My opponents entire argument is based on homosexuals not fulfilling some kind of quota or that they are not "required". Can you outline why a person should attempt to follow these objectives and at least tell us what the objectives are? Is it wrong to allow people the opportunity to participate in society and also enjoy what you would call personal gratification but what I would call the right to love whoever they want?

3."My question to Pro: Do you honestly think society functions in such a black and white manner? "

I believe that society can either accept homosexuals and treat them as an equal or not accept them and deny them participation. I am against the latter because when it has been done in the past it has had an adverse affect on the people denied their rights. You are proposing societal indifference which is similar to social exclusion. This is a black and white matter because you can either exclude or include. You cannot exclude and include.

4."If we don't accept something our immediate reflex is to act violently toward it? "

Not always but if we don't accept a people in our society then by definition they are not welcome in our society. This has been proved time and time again with a variety of different movements and the damage done to these people has been, at times, monstrous. Examples (of admittedly varied extremes of social exclusion) African Americans, Muslims, Women, even the heavy metal scene is an example. I will go into specifics and how these apply if my opponent wants me to but I am sure that everyone knows what I am referring to.

5. "...There is no Pica genocide, and correspondingly, there is no Pica civil right. "

People who have Pica are accepted in society. They can work, claim benefits, receive medical treatment and are not excluded from society. The reason is that it is a disorder and you would not exclude someone from society who has a medical problem. You nor anyone else has proved that Homosexuality is a disorder therefore it does not apply. Also I am sure many homosexuals will appreciate you comparing their sexuality to a particularly harmful eating disorder.

My opponents argument is based on scientific theory that has yet to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and using that to justify socially excluding a minority group because they do not achieve unnamed goals. I agree that we should not give homosexuals (or any other group for that matter) any special treatment above what any other citizen can expect (civil rights, access to society's utility's etc) and that includes all the things my opponent and I take for granted.. But he is arguing for social indifference and as a by product that would mean social exclusion. This is the basis of my argument that to socially exclude anyone for their sexuality is immoral. Seeing as he has not identified how far this social indifference should go I feel I must ask my opponent: How far would you go with this indifference? Would it affect civil rights? Rights to benefits? Employment rights? Marriage? What aspects of society do you feel homosexuals should be excluded from and why? Are you arguing that people should stop being homosexual? If you would like me to show how any kind of social exclusion is not beneficial to society then I will explain my logic but I would like to think that it is obvious why social exclusion is negative on society and dangerous to the people it is aimed at. I refer you back to my second argument that I feel still stands as my opponent has failed to show why my argument is flawed in a satisfactory way.

I would genuinely like to thank my opponent for giving his argument but I would ask that he refrain from personal insults in the future. I would ask that he argues my points and not imply that I am logically impaired or that I am a mindless drone, who is unable to think for myself, because I disagree with him. I would also appreciate it if he would stop seeing this as an opportunity to "transform" me into his "correct" image. I mean no ill toward my opponent and genuinely want to be challenged but I cannot get behind his first argument for the reasons mentioned above.

Thank you and I wish you well.
Debate Round No. 3


Your deciphering of the thesis was indeed a presumptuous one. The thesis was the acceptance of homosexuality in society, and so, analytically, the converse would be the non acceptance of homosexuality is society. Do note, the non acceptance does by no means imply the rejection or disapproval, it only implies the notion of simply not accepting and nothing else. Throughout your whole entire argument, you seem to preach the same point which instates "how not accepting a person into society is automatically excluding them". I really cannot take you seriously when you attempt to ground your entire argument atop of a principle that is simply not correct. This is not a matter of opinion as you may later try to proclaim. This is basically turning society into a system of immediate reflex from one polar axis to the antipode. You're seriously striving to use this as an argument and needless to say it is quite laughable. I'm not deliberately trying to insult you, my friend, but such a piss poor venture of false principle is not even worth my time. Regardless, I will continue procedurally and demonstrate how utterly wrong you are.

Okay first things first, Pro opts for picking and choosing statements rather than legitimately arguing against my full points. Do consider this evasion when voting. Another statement I must make before we will get into the full of the argument is this one of mine will be suffused by links containing evidences and extrapolations, so be sure to read through all of those as the logic I will be presenting here will be supported by them. If Pro decides to circumvent a reciprocal elaboration of my evidences, do take note of this elusion and again, consider it when voting.

Contention 1:

Contention 2:

Contention 3:

Contention 4:

Contention 5:

Contention 6:

So, how does it feel? Coming onto this site for the first time and being mercilessly raped... it has been an effortless duty for myself to rebuke each and every single one of your propositions(not just your premises, but your propositions), doesn't that say something about this argument? You can attempt to try and exhaust through your current contentions but I don't see much hope in them.. as your faithful opponent I do suggest you seek new contentions or else you might just be sealing your own fate. I was really hoping for at least somewhat of a challenge here, evidently I've been in receipt of nothing but gigantic straw man(a fusty one, for that matter. Next time you argue on a topic, make sure your views and contentions aren't severely dated/na�ve(nothing personal, it's not you that I am confronting, it's your critically flawed sense of logicality)). One does stultify from lack of genuinely onerous competition, and as for your response; sock it to me. I suppose I am obligated to round off the debate with you despite the voided opposition that your penuriously weak zephyr of hot air, er... argument*, presents.


Thanks to my opponent for putting such effort into his rebuttal. He does sound very pleased with himself and so he should. However, I feel I have to reject his arguments.



My opponent lists close to fifty sources to prove his own analysis of what homosexuality is ( First off my argument has never centered on why people are gay. Personally I do not believe the how's or whys of homosexuality as such are important to this debate but seeing as they are the backbone of my opponents argument I will look at this issue again. My opponent lists close to fifty different sources and claims these are concrete evidence that back his conclusion that homosexuality is a "sexual deviancy". All of which are related either through endorsement by or written by members of NARTH (my opponents favorite is written by their president) and whilst I am no scientist of medical professional of any kind it would be very hard for me to refute these studies. However I can safely say that vast majority of the science and health care community looks upon this organisation and its "pseudo science" as dangerous as it is based on faulty assumptions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5). My references cover a variety of institutions and include the Royal College of psychiatrists in London, the American Psychological association and the British medical association. I am not saying who is correct here because to be honest I do not know. I have my personal beliefs but like I said in my last post will not attempt to take on the whole "ex gay" community on my own. However I will base my opinion on the consensus that most mainstream medical and scientific institutions have rejected many of NARTH's assertions. Again I do not want to say who is right or wrong here. All I know is that the consensus over the matter of whether homosexuality is a deviancy or an acceptable alternative to homosexuality lies with the latter. To ignore all the research except the sources cited by one institution and claim that one institution is factually correct against a tide of evidence claiming otherwise from all over the world is not even close to acceptable. And also earlier claiming that "It's not even partially inborn (as proven by every single scientific study done to date" is just plain wrong. Not every single scientific done to date claims what you claim. I am not saying your sources are wrong, I am saying it is wrong for you to base your entire argument on a minority voice in the international scientific community.


The first part of my opponents argument is clearly veering on Eugenics (6). My argument here is that you have, again, based this on your "truth" that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. I say veering on Eugenics because my opponent has thankfully (and only just) avoided it by arguing that his biased and inadequate sources and theory's on homosexuality are fact and therefore homosexuals should be met with social indifference. I thank my opponent for finally explaining what he means by social indifference because (thanks to him not explaining his argument fully from the start) now I can counter it. If you suggest that we should be socially indifferent to a certain minority that is still a form of discrimination because you are singling out a minority of people for differing treatment (7). Again, the fact that you have been very selective in your research when coming to your conclusion has meant that your findings are flawed you have not shown why we should discriminate against homosexuality with indifference. Further, your argue that we should be slaves to the laws of evolution and that we only exist to pass on our genes indefinitely. I would like to think that as an evolved and intelligent species we have surpassed out evolutionary goals and can enjoy our existence as we see fit. We have become the dominant species of this planet and homosexuality has been around for thousands of years (8) so whilst homosexuality has done no harm to our evolution and ascent so far what makes you say it would start hurting society now?


Whilst you may be correct in saying that there are varying levels of social inclusion you had not yet outlined exactly what you meant my social indifference (and could not find any summary of the term anywhere...) so I had to assume you meant to ignore homosexuals in society therefore to exclude them. Now you have finally explained what you meant I can again refute it with with the points I made in my second rebuttal. By your on definition to be socially indifferent to homosexuals is to treat them differently than everyone else. If we assume that the majority (heterosexual) people are not treated with indifference and you say that we should treat homosexuals with indifference then that is discrimination. To avoid repeating myself, see the above post.


See above. poor reference sourcing, flawed theory based on selective research, flawed theory that we should be chained to our evolutionary "requirements".


Yet again based his rebuttal on poor research leading to a flawed theory.


Fair enough. I made an assumption based on a lack of information to my opponents argument. But the truth is not that far away from what I was arguing. To treat anyone differently based on class or type of person is discrimination. You have only proposed indifference to homosexuality so therefore you are suggesting discrimination based on sexual preference. You have come to this conclusion using research without looking at the whole spectrum of debate, used this research as fact in the face of countless counter research by much more established body's than Narth, and finally used your own views on how the human race should live based on an almost Eugenics based opinion (claimed as fact, which would mean if you are right that you are the only person on Earth who knows the meaning of life!) to come to the conclusion that discriminating with your "social indifference" against homosexuals is justified.


My opponent has based his entire argument on flawed principles. He has taken one derided minority voice in the scientific community and ignored all other research to come to a twisted conclusion. His decorum in general has been terrible, showing a complete lack of respect, quickness to insult and an unbelievable arrogance. But first I must offer an apology for the length this debate has come too. Nobody would have the time to read all of this and it is due to my own lack of experience and my opponents love of hearing himself speak. If anyone does feel that they want to vote on this (and I wouldn't be surprised if this did not got a single vote either way...who has the time to read what may end up being of book length) I feel I must make clear that any vote for my opponent is a vote for biased research and poor conclusions.

Debate Round No. 4


BlueGalaxy forfeited this round.


Summary of my arguments.

In the past there have been groups of people who have been discriminated against for a variety of reasons. My opponents belief that homosexuals should be treated with a societal indifference (and therefore treated differently in society's eyes) is entirely based on a minority scientific belief that homosexuals are "irrational" and therefore not worthy of being treated with respect and dignity. In the face of most of the medical community's consensus (that homosexuality is a healthy and viable alternative to heterosexuality) he has taken one voice as fact and forsaken all other evidence that proves to the contrary. He cannot justify his twisted beliefs and therefore veers dangerously towards blind bigotry. My argument is not based on the hows and whys homosexuals exist. I do not believe it matters if it is a personal choice, biological imperative, psychological dysfunction or any other option. These debates over homosexuality almost always come down to this point and it is a waste of time. The true question is should we embrace homosexual people in our society and treat them truly as equals? My answer is emphatically, yes. Why do I believe this? Because societal discrimination leads to suffering within the targeted minority and this rarely benefits society. The view that homosexuals are broken individuals (who suffer from a medical condition) is a dangerous belief that has lead to people attempting to lead lives that they do not want. We have all heard of stories about the fifty year old man that decides he is gay and abandons his wife family but do you think that would have happened if he was in an environment where it was ok to be gay? This is why I believe embracing homosexuals as equals is essential to our society because to not would hurt homosexuals and all of us. Plus it is a fundamental human right morally as written in the American constitution and the EU Treaty on the subject of sexual orientation discrimination.

Thanks to my opponent for an enjoyable debate and a good learning experience. I wish you luck in the voting.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TBooth 7 years ago
Lol, owned. Great job Adrian!
Posted by BlueGalaxy 7 years ago
Just got back from a trip aye, I'll be posting in a matter of hours
Posted by BlueGalaxy 7 years ago
I posted another one.. accept that one
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
damn i reloaded and it was taken
Posted by BlueGalaxy 7 years ago
When do you plan on posting your argument?
No votes have been placed for this debate.