|
|
|
|
コメント(56)
#8 As mentioned in #11, a number of Justices have publicly stated their intention to retire within this presidential cycle and this is what I was referring to. Sorry for not clarifying that adequately.
My objection has to do with introducing discrimination into the state constitution. In the past, California voters passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and this was recently (within the last year) found to be illegal. That reversal of the previous law is what prompted prop 8.
I saw on the news this morning that the opponent groups of prop 8 have already filed lawsuits with the California courts to have the prop overturned. They are also seeking an injunction which will prevent any change from happening until the matter is resolved in the court system. We'll see what happens, but I think it will be tossed out on the basis that it injects discrimination into the state constitution.
#15, I think the purpose of marriage licenses is to ensure that people are who they say they are and also are of legal age (or have parental consent, if applicable) to marry. Some states also require blood tests to enforce laws that prohibit close relatives from marrying.
One thing that I am surprised about is that the folks pushing for same-sex marriages didn't try starting with an interim step of seeking "civil unions," something like the UK offers. My understanding of the way they work in the UK is that a civil union offers all of the legal protection
and government benefits that traditional marriage does, but without the emotional element of marriage. Historically, the fight for same-sex marriage (in California, anyway,) has been about partners being able to cover each other with health benefits, death benefits and other similar benefits that married couples enjoy. Going the civil union route should be able to at least deal with that part of the issue.
Let's also not forget that this whole issue was stirred up during the 2004 presidential election cycle as a way to divert attention from the real issues that most people were concerned about at that time. They were remarkably successful, as the issue is still at the forefront of American politics.
My objection has to do with introducing discrimination into the state constitution. In the past, California voters passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and this was recently (within the last year) found to be illegal. That reversal of the previous law is what prompted prop 8.
I saw on the news this morning that the opponent groups of prop 8 have already filed lawsuits with the California courts to have the prop overturned. They are also seeking an injunction which will prevent any change from happening until the matter is resolved in the court system. We'll see what happens, but I think it will be tossed out on the basis that it injects discrimination into the state constitution.
#15, I think the purpose of marriage licenses is to ensure that people are who they say they are and also are of legal age (or have parental consent, if applicable) to marry. Some states also require blood tests to enforce laws that prohibit close relatives from marrying.
One thing that I am surprised about is that the folks pushing for same-sex marriages didn't try starting with an interim step of seeking "civil unions," something like the UK offers. My understanding of the way they work in the UK is that a civil union offers all of the legal protection
and government benefits that traditional marriage does, but without the emotional element of marriage. Historically, the fight for same-sex marriage (in California, anyway,) has been about partners being able to cover each other with health benefits, death benefits and other similar benefits that married couples enjoy. Going the civil union route should be able to at least deal with that part of the issue.
Let's also not forget that this whole issue was stirred up during the 2004 presidential election cycle as a way to divert attention from the real issues that most people were concerned about at that time. They were remarkably successful, as the issue is still at the forefront of American politics.
I'm still against marriage licenses. They can verify your age and who you are when you sign the contracts you wish to enter in with your partner just like they check your ID when you buy alcohol - and you don't need a license to drink (although that might actually be a good idea for some people).
As for relatives marrying, who cares? If cousins want to marry each other and have kids with webbed toes, they should be free to do so, as long as they are of age and aren't a burden on society as a result (which means being able to pay for the special ed courses they may need for their inbred children). Sure, I think marrying a close relative is "disgusting", but many people think homosexual relations are equally as disgusting (and then use that way of thinking as a reason to deny gays their rights.)
Honestly, even if given the right to do so, I don't see sibling marriages as something we have to worry much about.
(and now, I have "Dueling Banjos" stuck in my head...)
As for relatives marrying, who cares? If cousins want to marry each other and have kids with webbed toes, they should be free to do so, as long as they are of age and aren't a burden on society as a result (which means being able to pay for the special ed courses they may need for their inbred children). Sure, I think marrying a close relative is "disgusting", but many people think homosexual relations are equally as disgusting (and then use that way of thinking as a reason to deny gays their rights.)
Honestly, even if given the right to do so, I don't see sibling marriages as something we have to worry much about.
(and now, I have "Dueling Banjos" stuck in my head...)
>cohiba #8 wrote about African American's being homophobic. I'm Mexican American and very homophobic. I can't stand the idea of two men fondling each other. Two women, on the other hand, can make for fun entertainment. So we should not try to label generations or races.
That being said, I do not feel it would be fair for me to stop anyone from living happily together. I voted 'NO' on Prop 8 because I want everyone to feel free. I have friends that are homosexuals and they are wonderful people. I almost wish I was gay myself (NOT).
There is a museum in Los Angeles called the Museum of Tolerance that describes several historical events that have lead to severe atrocities such as the Holocaust.
My point is, we need to think clearly about how we treat each other. Just because we disagree with other lifestyles does not mean we have to change.
"Live long and prosper" Spok
"Can't we all just get a long" King
"Your dammed if you do and your dammed if you don't" Bart
That being said, I do not feel it would be fair for me to stop anyone from living happily together. I voted 'NO' on Prop 8 because I want everyone to feel free. I have friends that are homosexuals and they are wonderful people. I almost wish I was gay myself (NOT).
There is a museum in Los Angeles called the Museum of Tolerance that describes several historical events that have lead to severe atrocities such as the Holocaust.
My point is, we need to think clearly about how we treat each other. Just because we disagree with other lifestyles does not mean we have to change.
"Live long and prosper" Spok
"Can't we all just get a long" King
"Your dammed if you do and your dammed if you don't" Bart
11> 7 out of the 9 Justices were appointed by REpublicans. Stevens is old, appointed by Ford so Obama may be able to get one more in there during his first tenure. Ginsburg is a Clinton appointee so we can assume that she is left thinking. I don't know about Stevens, but I would imagine that he si mroe right than left. Ginsburg's replacement won't change the overall composition of the SUpreme Court. Stevens replacement will change it somewhat. However, the Court is still predominantly Republican....
Well I think the reason why prop 8 passed is because of the ads. Every person I talked to who supported 8 talked about how they didn't want their children to be taught it in schools. The funniest part of this whole thing is that most of the funding was from the Mormon Chruch, a religion that was so hated by intolerant Christians that they forced them to leave every state but Utah.
If Stevens is liberal, then Obama's appointees will nto make a huge dent in the composition of the Supreme Court in terms of the swing towards left or right.
The problem is that the Supreme Court cannot say that Prop 8 is un-onstitutional because it isn't. There is no Article or amendment that discusses how marriage should be considered by the government.
17> Many state constitutions have some discriminatory laws in them still. Obviously they are out of date and pretty much ignored, but they remain as a blemish for the government. Remember that the Constituion had to be amended to abolish slavery. State constitutions can easily have discriminatory laws in them, they have to be challenged and unless the laws are deemed un-Constitutional they can actually remain on the books.
The problem is that the Supreme Court cannot say that Prop 8 is un-onstitutional because it isn't. There is no Article or amendment that discusses how marriage should be considered by the government.
17> Many state constitutions have some discriminatory laws in them still. Obviously they are out of date and pretty much ignored, but they remain as a blemish for the government. Remember that the Constituion had to be amended to abolish slavery. State constitutions can easily have discriminatory laws in them, they have to be challenged and unless the laws are deemed un-Constitutional they can actually remain on the books.
27 cohiba
> If Stevens is liberal, then Obama's appointees will nto make a huge dent in the composition of the Supreme Court in terms of the swing towards left or right.
Sure. I was just pointing out that it's quite likely that Obama will appoint one or more justices.
> The problem is that the Supreme Court cannot say that Prop 8 is un-onstitutional because it isn't. There is no Article or amendment that discusses how marriage should be considered by the government.
I agree, and as evidence a number of other states already have similar constitutional measures. There is a legal challenge to the new prop 8 result that sounds like it might be successful, but it's essentially procedural.
> If Stevens is liberal, then Obama's appointees will nto make a huge dent in the composition of the Supreme Court in terms of the swing towards left or right.
Sure. I was just pointing out that it's quite likely that Obama will appoint one or more justices.
> The problem is that the Supreme Court cannot say that Prop 8 is un-onstitutional because it isn't. There is no Article or amendment that discusses how marriage should be considered by the government.
I agree, and as evidence a number of other states already have similar constitutional measures. There is a legal challenge to the new prop 8 result that sounds like it might be successful, but it's essentially procedural.
Even people I know who were against gay marriage being allowed in the first place are utterly confused and mildly pissed at Proposition 8 passing.
In the words of my one friend "Wait... so we give them a right then take it away? Not for anything, I was against it, but howUn-American is it to give it then yank it away?".
I for one thing it's disgusting to do such a thing. Marriage is about love not gender, race orcreed.
In the words of my one friend "Wait... so we give them a right then take it away? Not for anything, I was against it, but howUn-American is it to give it then yank it away?".
I for one thing it's disgusting to do such a thing. Marriage is about love not gender, race orcreed.
The people trying to claim too much judicial power as the reason they
voted for this is full of sh*t, IMO. I'm 100% sure they wouldn't
care if it was another issue.
It's sad that so many people still let religion control their lives,
rather than using its positives to help guide them.
In a practical sense, California really could have used the extra
revenue from gay marriages too. At least we passed some key energy
propositions.
voted for this is full of sh*t, IMO. I'm 100% sure they wouldn't
care if it was another issue.
It's sad that so many people still let religion control their lives,
rather than using its positives to help guide them.
In a practical sense, California really could have used the extra
revenue from gay marriages too. At least we passed some key energy
propositions.
I think that many straight people fear gay couples will start kissing and hugging etc... more often/freely in public and they just don`t want to see that. You can argue that normal couples do this all the time so it is not fair to say that gay couples should not. I can understand that argument but I also understand how some people might not want to see that and or have their kids see that right in front of their faces at Disney land etc... But if a couple is married legally there is no way to justify complaining about affectionate physical contact in a public place. I personally think gay couples should be allowed to do whatever they want. But sorry... the sight to two large hairy men french kissing is still pretty horrible to me. Two girls kissing is not a problem :) I know this is wrong to think this way... but we are just being honest now right? But I also think it`s crazy to make it legal and then pass Proposition 8.
32: TokyoOG
I think there is appropriate and inappropriate affection. When I see
anyone gay, straight, lesbian or whatever swapping spit on the street,
I just want to tell them to get a room.
I don't need to see that. But showing affection, holding hands etc,
is fine by me. As far as gay marriage goes, I wonder why they'd want
to, but if that's what they really want, I'm fine with that too.
I'm also fine with mums breastfeeding wherever the damn hell they
want to, kids using crap sculpture as a launching pad for their
skateboard tricks and graffiti artists defacing billboards.
I think there is appropriate and inappropriate affection. When I see
anyone gay, straight, lesbian or whatever swapping spit on the street,
I just want to tell them to get a room.
I don't need to see that. But showing affection, holding hands etc,
is fine by me. As far as gay marriage goes, I wonder why they'd want
to, but if that's what they really want, I'm fine with that too.
I'm also fine with mums breastfeeding wherever the damn hell they
want to, kids using crap sculpture as a launching pad for their
skateboard tricks and graffiti artists defacing billboards.
It was only 40 years ago when it was illegal for blacks and whites to get married.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm
Why do people think that same-sex marriage is about sex? Do straight people get married just because the sex is so good?
I really doubt the first lesbian couple to get married in California were thinking about how much sex they could have once they were married. They had spent their lives together, and knew they weren't going to live much longer. They wanted the civil rights which allowed them to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Martin_and_Phyllis_Lyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lyonandmartinwedding1.JPG
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-10-loving_N.htm
Why do people think that same-sex marriage is about sex? Do straight people get married just because the sex is so good?
I really doubt the first lesbian couple to get married in California were thinking about how much sex they could have once they were married. They had spent their lives together, and knew they weren't going to live much longer. They wanted the civil rights which allowed them to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_Martin_and_Phyllis_Lyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lyonandmartinwedding1.JPG
Yuki>
Way to go!
What did gays do to mormons? I am shocked to hear that some organization would raise that much amount, for this, when it could have been used for something else... Retarded.....
As for public display of affection... I think they are completely gross, whether it is between a guy and a girl, or a guy and a guy... unless it is between two lipstick lesbians....
Way to go!
What did gays do to mormons? I am shocked to hear that some organization would raise that much amount, for this, when it could have been used for something else... Retarded.....
As for public display of affection... I think they are completely gross, whether it is between a guy and a girl, or a guy and a guy... unless it is between two lipstick lesbians....
Because I and my partner of 15 years got married in L.A. this August, we are naturally devastated by the passage of Prop 8 and by the fact that the majority of the peope who voted think it is all right for them to remove certain civil rights from us lesbians and gays and to impose their own belief system on us as an absolute.
We are wondering (and concerned) how we will be affected by the passage of Prop 8. No matter what will happen, the fact that we got married remains and we will continue to be married even if others try to deny it.
We are wondering (and concerned) how we will be affected by the passage of Prop 8. No matter what will happen, the fact that we got married remains and we will continue to be married even if others try to deny it.
I agree with Davey...#37 "homosexuality is not a natural thing," and should not be promoted as natural. Particularly to children in their formative years growing up. If a child just happens to part of a gay house whole that is just part of that childs life. But it is still not natural.
Once you are old enough you can decide if you want to be normal or not. And whatever path you choose is fine with me. Gays must accept that being Gay is not normal even though it is accepted. If that happens I think a lot of doors will open for them. I have had gay friends and they
where all good people. A persons sexuality is a private matter and should be kept that way.
Once you are old enough you can decide if you want to be normal or not. And whatever path you choose is fine with me. Gays must accept that being Gay is not normal even though it is accepted. If that happens I think a lot of doors will open for them. I have had gay friends and they
where all good people. A persons sexuality is a private matter and should be kept that way.
#42 ... are you sure it's not a natural thing? Other species have homosexuality, too. There are scientists that agree that homosexuality is a mixture of nature and nurture.
Anyways, this idea of natural is absurd in this day and age. Almost all of our life is unnatural -- to when we're in the womb with ultrasounds, to when we're born in a hospital, to just about everything else.
Anyways, this idea of natural is absurd in this day and age. Almost all of our life is unnatural -- to when we're in the womb with ultrasounds, to when we're born in a hospital, to just about everything else.
>> Gay is not normal even though it is accepted. If
>> that happens I think a lot of doors will open for
>> them. I have had gay friends and they where all
>> good people.
A lot of things aren't natural. I like girls with accents,
I'm sure that's not really natural. I don't particularly
like blow jobs but a lot of guys do and I think we could
safely assume that's not really natural. Some people
have argued that being faithful to a single partner
isn't really natural.
You could fill a lot of books with the things we do in
the bedroom that aren't natural. I don't think this
law really relates to the bedroom so much as recognising
in law a relationship between 2 people.
>> that happens I think a lot of doors will open for
>> them. I have had gay friends and they where all
>> good people.
A lot of things aren't natural. I like girls with accents,
I'm sure that's not really natural. I don't particularly
like blow jobs but a lot of guys do and I think we could
safely assume that's not really natural. Some people
have argued that being faithful to a single partner
isn't really natural.
You could fill a lot of books with the things we do in
the bedroom that aren't natural. I don't think this
law really relates to the bedroom so much as recognising
in law a relationship between 2 people.
#42
Yeah.... I think it is a case of difference in politics in diff. countries.
But I am still a bit surprised. They really don't want gays to get marry. Is it such a bad thing? Really.....
I like the fact that you try to be acceptive of people.
As cynthia pointed out, homosexuality has existed among different species.... By gays not being natural, what do you mean? That they are making a conscious choice?
The problem with sexual minority (compared to racial minority) is that it intertwines with "sex", which people would not be comfortable talking about to kids... So I somewhat agree with it not being taught at school.... But I guess a lot of school touches it when sex ed comes up. So I really don't see the problem.
Yeah.... I think it is a case of difference in politics in diff. countries.
But I am still a bit surprised. They really don't want gays to get marry. Is it such a bad thing? Really.....
I like the fact that you try to be acceptive of people.
As cynthia pointed out, homosexuality has existed among different species.... By gays not being natural, what do you mean? That they are making a conscious choice?
The problem with sexual minority (compared to racial minority) is that it intertwines with "sex", which people would not be comfortable talking about to kids... So I somewhat agree with it not being taught at school.... But I guess a lot of school touches it when sex ed comes up. So I really don't see the problem.
42>>
If it's absolutely a choice then why would anyone subject themselves to this kind of treatment? If it's absolutely a choice then why did my friend come out to his parents in 6th grade only to be rejected by his father? When did you consciously decide to be heterosexual?
Just like it was stated earlier, it does happen in other species-- and not only unintelligent animals. Dolphins, an animal with comparable cognitive abilities to humans, actually have a tendency to be bisexual, mating with the opposite sex SOLELY for reproduction. A dolphin's life partner, whom they tend to engage in sexually stimulating acts with, is generally the same gender.
Also, being raised in a homosexual household had no ill effects on a good friend of mine. She has two mothers-- mothers who are in a lesbian relationship. My friend however, is a heterosexual female, aged 21 who goes to a top university (Cornell). Being raised by a lesbian couple didn't "make her gay", nor did it affect her negatively in other ways. So long as the parents do a good job raising their children, explain things, there is no issue.
Besides, just because a couple wants to be married, wants the right to marry-- doesn't mean they want children. Countless heterosexual couples don't want kids. Who's to say homosexual couples would be any different?
If it's absolutely a choice then why would anyone subject themselves to this kind of treatment? If it's absolutely a choice then why did my friend come out to his parents in 6th grade only to be rejected by his father? When did you consciously decide to be heterosexual?
Just like it was stated earlier, it does happen in other species-- and not only unintelligent animals. Dolphins, an animal with comparable cognitive abilities to humans, actually have a tendency to be bisexual, mating with the opposite sex SOLELY for reproduction. A dolphin's life partner, whom they tend to engage in sexually stimulating acts with, is generally the same gender.
Also, being raised in a homosexual household had no ill effects on a good friend of mine. She has two mothers-- mothers who are in a lesbian relationship. My friend however, is a heterosexual female, aged 21 who goes to a top university (Cornell). Being raised by a lesbian couple didn't "make her gay", nor did it affect her negatively in other ways. So long as the parents do a good job raising their children, explain things, there is no issue.
Besides, just because a couple wants to be married, wants the right to marry-- doesn't mean they want children. Countless heterosexual couples don't want kids. Who's to say homosexual couples would be any different?
I know that all the comments arguing against the statement that Homosexuality is not natural makes sense in a way. So lets just say that in "this society" it is not considered natural and if you want to be accepted fully into this society there are some things we can`t do publicly. I agree that there is no conscious choice? in most cases. You either are attracted to a person regardless of their gender or you are not attracted to that person. That being said... if all of a sudden I see some guy and think " Wow he sure is sexy, I think I like him!" I would not think that was natural behaviour. I would than accept the fact that I am outside of what is considered normal and I would not try to convince my friends that what I am feeling is normal. It is not right or wrong. It is just the way it is. Normal refers to a relation ship between opposite sexes. We all know that. Anything other than that is considered abnormal.
Just because Bonobos, Dolphins, humans, etc... deviate from the norm doesn`t mean that we can now call it normal. But yes... I agree that Homosexuality is a natural phenomena. And people that choose this alternative life style should be respected. And if they are willing to sign the proper agreements/contracts etc.. ( which is all marriage is anyway) there is no reason they should not also qualify for all the benefits that are given to "normal" married couples.
Just because Bonobos, Dolphins, humans, etc... deviate from the norm doesn`t mean that we can now call it normal. But yes... I agree that Homosexuality is a natural phenomena. And people that choose this alternative life style should be respected. And if they are willing to sign the proper agreements/contracts etc.. ( which is all marriage is anyway) there is no reason they should not also qualify for all the benefits that are given to "normal" married couples.
#40 Thanks for that link. It seems very obvious to me that the only reason it passed was due tot he age differences among California voters. With the exception of Black Women, the differences where very small in any other comparisons.
Why did black women have such as major difference in opinion? Is it because they feel compelled to protect their children or is it a lack of tolerance for gay people?
Why did black women have such as major difference in opinion? Is it because they feel compelled to protect their children or is it a lack of tolerance for gay people?
Pancho,
If you look at the racial breakdown below the gender breakdown, you'll see that black men voted similarly to black women, though not quite as much. The reason for their large number of "yes" votes is, I would guess, religion. It would be difficult to find a group in the US as religious as african americans.
If you look at the racial breakdown below the gender breakdown, you'll see that black men voted similarly to black women, though not quite as much. The reason for their large number of "yes" votes is, I would guess, religion. It would be difficult to find a group in the US as religious as african americans.
Black communities in the larger cities have always had it`s share of Gays. I can`t speak for all black people but when I was growing up it was not strange at all to see an outwardly gay man. Little Richard was very famous in those days and it was not a big deal to us. But no one seemed to think that marriage was necessary for them to live their lives as they wanted. They just dealt with it. They accepted it as not normal and because of that no one really expected society to understand and allow them to get married like a normal couple. They were not normal and knew it. Times are changing but that same attitude is probably behind the voting results. I don`t know if it`s because of any religious reasons.... but that is probably a minor factor.
Actually, I was listening to a radio commentary from Los Angeles. The women is a political leader in the lower income areas of LA, particularly Jordan Watts area. She is also lesbian, black (African American). She said the "YES ON 8" campaign was heavily funded by white conservatives and lightly protested by a small white gay and lesbian group. This means, the more affluent areas of California received both YES and NO adverts while the less affluent (poor) areas only received a bombardment of "YES" adverts. To add more to the story, she said during this election, lower income African Americans had consumed their time with encouraging people to vote and selecting a leader (for example Maxine Waters) that would help them provide better education and potential employment. The prop 8 issue was not very clear so the tricky "Yes means No" syndrome may have caught some of these voters off guard. AND, furthermore, she stated that the "white" gay&les. community had compared this issue to the civil rights issue which in turn insulted those better educated African Americans who feel there is NO ROOM FOR COMPARISON (the women was shouting). She went on to say that gays are able to go to any restaurant, restroom (toilet) and ride any bus so the simple minded comparison enraged the African American community.
The podcast is a free download from NPR: Talk of the Nation Opinion Page Podcast
the name of the podcast was "Why Black voters didn't fight...." published on Nov 11th.
Sorry for the long notes, hope you feel enlightened.
The podcast is a free download from NPR: Talk of the Nation Opinion Page Podcast
the name of the podcast was "Why Black voters didn't fight...." published on Nov 11th.
Sorry for the long notes, hope you feel enlightened.
Having lived in a heavily gay society as I we do these days, I have
seen my share of leather freaks, transvestites, and lesbian couples
making out around public places.
The question is "why are these things so common?" "Is this a
unique human phenomenon?" "Do our friends the animals ever get
unnatural urges?"
Herewith the contents on kinky monkey habits, actually.
Warning: it ain't pretty. Read at your own risk.
There really are such things as gay monkeys.
Animals usually only engage in homosexual behavior only when crowded,
deprived of normal heterosexual contact, or otherwise subjected
to stress. However, Erwin and Maple (1976) describe two male
rhesus monkeys who lived together for 19 months and engaged in
"reciprocal mounting with anal penetration."
When paired individually with females, the male monkeys would
exhibit conventional heterosexual behavior. However, when the two
were put in a cage together with a female, they would hassle her
and direct all their affections toward each other.
No doubt about it, zoology offers some fascinating career opportunities.
We are humans and have much more advanced mind of study...
so why would we behave like a bunch of monkeys?
seen my share of leather freaks, transvestites, and lesbian couples
making out around public places.
The question is "why are these things so common?" "Is this a
unique human phenomenon?" "Do our friends the animals ever get
unnatural urges?"
Herewith the contents on kinky monkey habits, actually.
Warning: it ain't pretty. Read at your own risk.
There really are such things as gay monkeys.
Animals usually only engage in homosexual behavior only when crowded,
deprived of normal heterosexual contact, or otherwise subjected
to stress. However, Erwin and Maple (1976) describe two male
rhesus monkeys who lived together for 19 months and engaged in
"reciprocal mounting with anal penetration."
When paired individually with females, the male monkeys would
exhibit conventional heterosexual behavior. However, when the two
were put in a cage together with a female, they would hassle her
and direct all their affections toward each other.
No doubt about it, zoology offers some fascinating career opportunities.
We are humans and have much more advanced mind of study...
so why would we behave like a bunch of monkeys?
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
