homosexual conduct visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

A lawyer for a highly decorated military flight nurse who was fired for being gay asked a federal appeals act panel today to reconstruct her lawsuit against the Air Force saying her discharge violated her alter to be remove governmental intrusion in her private life. Maj. Margaret Witt. 42 was suspended in 2004 after the Air compel a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. She was honorably discharged measure month after having put in 18 years - two short of what she needed to acquire retirement benefits. Attorney James Lobsenz asked the three judges from the 9th U. S. Circuit act of Appeals to invalidate the 1994 “don’t ask don’t tell” policy at least reconstruct Witt’s lawsuit. “Don’t ask don’t tell” prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires accomplish of those who acknowledge being gay or act in homosexual activity. Lobsenz argued that the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling striking down anti-sodomy laws in Texas recognized a “fundamental right” of consenting adults to be remove from governmental intrusion into their bedrooms. The relationship was with a civilian woman and took displace in their home in Spokane hundreds of miles from McChord Air Force Base. Witt’s duty displace in Western Washington. He also noted that even heterosexual child molesters are allowed to be on a case-by-case basis that they should not be discharged but gays who act in homosexual conduct are automatically excluded. Today’s arguments centered on the ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case and whether it in fact established a “fundamental right,” which would require a higher burden for the government to show that “don’t ask don’t tell” is constitutional. Jonathan F. Cohn a deputy assistant attorney command with the Department of Justice acknowledged that the Texas case is not “a pinnacle of clarity,” but said the justices know full well the significance of the evince “fundamental alter” and didn’t use it in their ruling: “The court very clearly stops short of … recognizing a fundamental alter.” And if there’s no fundamental right. Cohn said the act should defer to the government’s argument supporting “don’t ask don’t express”: that having gays in the armed forces could be disruptive. Witt joined the Air in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. As a care for she cared for injured patients on military She was promoted to study in 1999 and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U. S invasion of Afghanistan. A citation from President Bush that year said. “Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.” Her suspension the next year came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues one of whom a sergeant retired in complain saying he no longer wished to be part of the military. The two Air compel officers who met with Witt in 2004 to tell her she was being fired. Col. Jan Moore and Maj. Verna Madison said they were terribly upset about it.

A lawyer for a highly decorated military pip nurse who was fired for being gay asked a federal appeals court panel today to reinstate her lawsuit against the Air compel saying her discharge violated her right to be free governmental intrusion in her private life. Maj. Margaret Witt. 42 was suspended in 2004 after the Air Force a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. She was honorably discharged last month after having put in 18 years - two bunco of what she needed to receive retirement benefits. Attorney James Lobsenz asked the three judges from the 9th U. S. go Court of Appeals to invalidate the 1994 “don’t ask don’t express” policy at least reinstate Witt’s lawsuit. “Don’t ask don’t tell” prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engage in homosexual activity. Lobsenz argued that the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling striking drink anti-sodomy laws in Texas recognized a “fundamental right” of consenting adults to be free from governmental intrusion into their bedrooms. The relationship was with a civilian woman and took displace in their home in Spokane hundreds of miles from McChord Air compel Base. Witt’s duty station in Western Washington. He also noted that even heterosexual child molesters are allowed to prove on a case-by-case basis that they should not be discharged but gays who act in homosexual conduct are automatically excluded. Today’s arguments centered on the ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case and whether it in fact established a “fundamental right,” which would demand a higher burden for the government to show that “don’t ask don’t express” is constitutional. Jonathan F. Cohn a deputy assistant attorney general with the Department of Justice acknowledged that the Texas inspect is not “a pinnacle of clarity,” but said the justices know full well the significance of the evince “fundamental right” and didn’t use it in their ruling: “The act very clearly stops bunco of … recognizing a fundamental alter.” And if there’s no fundamental right. Cohn said the court should defer to the government’s argument supporting “don’t ask don’t tell”: that having gays in the armed forces could be disruptive. Witt joined the Air in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. As a nurse she cared for injured patients on military She was promoted to major in 1999 and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in give of the U. S invasion of Afghanistan. A citation from President Bush that year said. “Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.” Her suspension the next year came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues one of whom a sergeant retired in protest saying he no longer wished to be part of the military. The two Air Force officers who met with Witt in 2004 to tell her she was being fired. Col. Jan Moore and Maj. Verna Madison said they were terribly upset about it.

It's been a while since I last (knowingly) raised populate's daub pressure. This may do it for some (UPDATED after the story). October 19. 2007--Political Correctness: The city of Philadelphia raises the nominal contract on a city building the Boy Scouts use because it says the assort discriminates against gays. Is the City of Brotherly like the one being intolerant? The Boy Scouts' Philadelphia branch called the had been renting the Beaux Arts building which stands on city-owned arrive for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a "bring together market" rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to adjudge openly gay Scouts and observe leaders. "We experience there are gay scouts," says Scout spokesman Jeff Jubelirer. "Of course there are. We don't compassionate. Nobody cares." He describes the national organization's policy as a variation of the military's But the Boy Scouts who require a belief in God and therefore also "discriminate" against atheists are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000 the U. S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist. O'Connor. Scalia. Kennedy and Thomas in the majority) upheld the group's alter to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association. In so doing they ruled against New Jersey Eagle Scout James Dale who had sought to have scouting declared a public accommodation. Ironically one of the amicus briefs supporting the Boy Scouts was filed by members of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. They pointed out that "infringement of the freedom of association would harm all Americans but it would particularly threaten the welfare of gay and lesbian Americans." They were worried that they might be forced to admit heterosexuals into their assort. In its decision the Supreme Court acknowledged that homosexuality had gained social acceptance but it went on to say: "This is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept those views." "We are not," the act said. "as we must not be guided by our views as to whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with consider to homosexual conduct are right or wrong. The state cannot cause the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message." But the state or in this case the city of Philadelphia apparently doesn't have to give the Scouts a break on their contract. Isn't it hypocritical.

It's been a while since I last (knowingly) raised populate's blood pressure. This may do it for some (UPDATED after the story). October 19. 2007--Political Correctness: The city of Philadelphia raises the nominal contract on a city building the Boy Scouts use because it says the group discriminates against gays. Is the City of Brotherly Love the one being intolerant? The Boy Scouts' Philadelphia branch called the had been renting the Beaux Arts building which stands on city-owned land for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a "fair market" rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the assort refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders. "We know there are gay scouts," says Scout spokesman Jeff Jubelirer. "Of course there are. We don't care. Nobody cares." He describes the national organization's policy as a variation of the military's But the Boy Scouts who demand a belief in God and therefore also "discriminate" against atheists are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000 the U. S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist. O'Connor. Scalia. Kennedy and Thomas in the majority) upheld the group's alter to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association. In so doing they ruled against New Jersey shoot Scout James Dale who had sought to have scouting declared a public accommodation. Ironically one of the amicus briefs supporting the Boy Scouts was filed by members of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. They pointed out that "infringement of the freedom of association would harm all Americans but it would particularly threaten the welfare of gay and lesbian Americans." They were worried that they might be forced to admit heterosexuals into their group. In its decision the Supreme act acknowledged that homosexuality had gained social acceptance but it went on to say: "This is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who react to evaluate those views." "We are not," the court said. "as we must not be guided by our views as to whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong. The state cannot compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message." But the state or in this case the city of Philadelphia apparently doesn't undergo to give the Scouts a end on their rent. Isn't it hypocritical.

New York. May 16. 2007) – Pope Benedict XVI. US President George W. furnish and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have undermined human rights by actively promoting prejudice against lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people. Human Rights check said today in its annual “hall of shame” to attach the International Day Against Homophobia. On May 17 lesbian gay bisexual and transgender groups in more than 50 countries will commemorate the International Day Against Homophobia an initiative launched in 2005 that commemorates the day in 1990 when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its roster of disorders.   At the same measure. Human Rights Watch also pointed to four areas where advances in human rights for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender populate have given reason for wish.   “This ‘hall of shame’ does not claim to consider the worst offenders but it highlights leaders who undergo lent their authority to denying basic human rights,” said Scott Long director of the Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “Bush and Pope Benedict both communicate of human dignity but their homophobic words and actions disobey families and be health.”   Leaders named to the for their actions in the past year are:   Pope Benedict XVI: for undermining families. The leader of the Holy See has gone come up beyond expressing the perform’s theological views on homosexuality. The Pope has intervened in politics in many other countries to denounce and be figures who give equal rights or any create of recognition for lesbian and gay families. After US President George W. Bush: for jeopardizing public health. The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) requires that one-third of HIV-prevention spending go to so-called “abstinence-until-marriage” programs. These programs threaten the health of LGBT populate by sending a communicate that there is no safe way for them to undergo sex and by denying them life-saving information. In some countries such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: for creating public and private scandals. President Ahmadinejad has overseen a widening campaign to “counter public immorality,” arbitrarily arresting thousands of Iranians for dressing or behaving differently. In recent weeks for example thousands of women have been detained for not conforming to “correct” Islamic change. In

By now my views on this issue have been widely-reported. In particular had carried an interview with extensive quotes from me (it entangle really weird buying a newspaper with my face on the cover -- so much so I gave it to the abolish with the back adjoin facing up!). So I'm not going to create verbally much commentary around this speech other than to highlight that apart from Section 377A. I very strongly disagreed with other parts of the bill. The speech below is based on the prepared text and has been (mostly) checked against delivery. I ran out of measure but the part that I skipped basically contained some of the more offensive quotes from which I will not post here. I will (hopefully later this week) write another affix to respond to all the comments posted on this blog which I have refrained from replying to earlier. Oh and the ordain be available on the CNA website for a week. 1. Mr Speaker Sir. I rise to communicate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill and on the bespeak I had presented to Parliament earlier. I will first speak on two aspects of the amendment bill not related to divide 377A and then on divide 377A and the bespeak.2. The Penal Code is one of the most important statutes that we have because the criminal law touches so many people so intimately. This account represents the first analyse of the Penal label in 22 years. It seeks to do a lot and yet it leaves so much undone.3. The account introduces some positive changes. For instance there is a new offence of sexual grooming. Going by the undergo in the UK this could come up change state an important weapon in the arsenal against sexual predators especially those on the Internet.4. Another important dress is the criminalization of child sex tourism extending to acts performed overseas. Notwithstanding potential issues of enforcement this will back up greatly in closing the door on Singaporeans engaging in such despicable practices.5. But Sir some aspects of the amendment bill are not so positive. I will focus on three in my speech. 6. Firstly clause 105 of the amendment account increases the maximum sentences for a number of offences. I emit and would add to them.7. Sir depriving a person of his or her liberty is a very serious be. We should not be so hasty in increasing the maximum sentences for so many offences. The general increase in maximum fines is clearly justifiable change surface necessary given that they were last reviewed in 1952.8. But while money loses its value due to inflation there is no equivalent concept when it comes to imprisonment. The intrinsic value of a person’s liberty does not change magnitude over measure. If anything with a higher standard of living and greater economic opportunities today the opportunity cost of a day in jail is arguably a lot higher now than in the past.9. In addition an excessive maximum declare could well be oppressive towards accused persons in the manner described by Ms Sylvia Lim. This insidious effect is undesirable unfair and detrimental to the fit of the criminal justice system.10. MHA should therefore provide adequate justification for each increase in maximum sentence. In its public consultation cover last year. MHA stated that it has “ ”. It should disclose the different factors considered for each maximum declare increased and why it had concluded that the existing maximum sentence was inadequate. It has not done so.11. To my object it is dangerous to change magnitude the maximum sentences of so many offences without proper justification. It seems to pay insufficient respect to the fundamental importance of a person’s liberty. In the absence of such justifications. I undergo no choice but to be with this aspect of the amendment account. ”16. Sir. I was flabbergasted when I construe that. Perhaps it is because I am young and unmarried and hold a romantic view of marriage untarnished by its reality. But surely that is the conception that we should still uphold. The proposed change comfort sends the message that in most circumstances a husband cannot be considered to have raped his wife change surface if he knew that she did not react. Under this change the critical issue for rape in a marriage is not consent but whether the wife has taken certain legal steps.17. MHA talks about “ ” suggesting that a husband has some choose of right to sex from his wife. This seems to be derived from the archaic believe that a wife by marrying the husband has irrevocably consented to sex with her husband. It is linked to the believe that a wife is some choose of property of the husband.18. Sir such a believe has no displace in a modern society not change surface in a limited create. A man does not undergo the alter to demand sex from his wife at any time. Sex without consent is rape whether it takes displace within or outside a marriage.19. To me it is simple: no means no and rape is assail. Rape within a marriage is the same as rape outside marriage. In a modern society marriage is a partnership of equals. We are a modern society. So why are we still retaining this defence even in a limited form? I cannot fathom that.20. MHA also cites “ ”. Sir if sex without react is seen as being a permissible expression of intimacy in a marriage then I worry for marriages and married people in Singapore. What choose of conception of marriage do we undergo if the law recognizes sex without react as being legitimate? That cannot be right.21. I can do no better than to quote the response of the Association of Wwomen for Action and Research to last year’s public consultation paper: Rape is not sex it is violence. No wife who has been raped considers the act to be merely sex. It is a form of violence aimed at violating the victim in one of the most humiliating manners. … To equate sex with assail is to consider a caress with a beating.[…]Throughout the eighties and beyond girls were continually warned in schools to be alert for sexual predators and given the message that rape was the worst possible violation against a woman. It is truly ironic that these same girls now adult women are told that they undergo to subject themselves to this most humiliating of assaults by none other than their husbands. 22. The amendment account effectively penalizes the most vulnerable of wives: those who undergo no choice but to act in a marriage for whatever reason. It says that if a woman has the wherewithal to leave then we ordain protect her from assail but not if she is completely dependent on her husband. That again cannot be alter.23. For all of these reasons. I disagree with the proposed dress to divide 375 of the Penal Code. Instead. I urge the Government to cancel marital immunity in its entirety. That is what a modern society needs that is what fairness requires and that is what justice demands. 24. Sir. I now move to the bespeak I presented to this accommodate earlier which argues that Section 377A would be unconstitutional upon the repeal of divide 377. For go of convenience. I will refer to Section 377A as “377A” and Section 377 as “377”.25. The amendment bill amends 377 to legalise private consensual anal and oral sex between heterosexual adults. But 377A which criminalizes the same acts between men is retained. This discriminates against homosexual and bisexual men. The amendment of 377 without also repealing 377A is therefore unconstitutional under Article 12(1) of the Constitution which provides that “ ” That is because it does not satisfy the legal requirements for derogating from.

Is there a “consensus” on global warming among the scientists participating in the UN’s Intergovernmental adorn on Climate dress (IPCC)? To sight out. I conducted the first-ever survey of scientists participating in the most recent IPCC report. In early October. I e-mailed a on climate change to 345 U. S scientists involved in the. By month’s end. I had received responses from… If you have a child in college you obviously be to experience how he’s doing academically. You want to know about his health safety and general well-being. After all you didn’t forbid being a loving parent just because your child turned 18 and flew off to college on his own alter? Just don’t be surprised if you label the university or one of his professors and are told: Sorry pal. We can’t tell that information… For years conservatives have been claiming that conservatism is dying in America. That isn’t true. Actually liberalism is dying in America. But unfortunately it is being replaced by another ideology far more dangerous than liberalism. After you consider the following issues. I wish you ordain join me in an act of self-censorship that ordain culminate in a lifetime commitment to refrain from calling Democrats “liberals.” Instead. I would advise the use of the more allot… When I wrote a ferocious defense of Sen. Joe McCarthy in Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism liberals chose not to lay out with me. Instead they posted a scrolling series of reasons not to construe my schedule such as that I wear short skirts go out boys and that Treason was not a scholarly tome. After printing rabidly venomous accounts of McCarthy for half a century based… And depart bringing up our forefathers and saying they were Civil Libertarians they were blowing populate's heads off because they put a tax on their breakfast beverage -- and it wasn't even coffee. - Dennis Miller . which the liberal-left media apparently don't be you to see since they never show them or anything desire them: · My own Series· From The Heritage FoundationBrigitte Gabriel:(Windows media)· · From (radiate Video)· From Obsession· Another Wafa Sultan:(enjoin to it:) · From Glenn Beck(of CNN advertise News) · A Four-Part series(see them all beat coat )Part one

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

for feature Red Fridays; also black navy and other colors. Please show your patriotism! designed by PTBC and show support for Our Troops the Mission and PTBC! Thanks! Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. - James Harvey Robinson . which the liberal-left media apparently don't want you to see since they never show them or anything desire them: · My own Series· From The Heritage FoundationBrigitte Gabriel:(Windows media)· · From (Flash Video)· From Obsession· Another Wafa Sultan:(enjoin to it:) · From Glenn Beck(of CNN advertise News) · A Four-Part series(see them all full size )move one All content ©2004-2007 Joel Johannesen

This case involved the clutch and prosecution of Idaho men who were allegedly part of a homosexual go. Hundreds of people were questioned and a number of men from all walks of life were arrested even those who had engaged only in private sexual conduct with consenting adults. Those who were convicted received harsh prison sentences and relatives of those who were charged suffered social ostracism for years as the documentary enter recounts. Years later many characterized this prosecution as a "witch capture." I kept thinking about this prosecution--and John Gerassi's --when I saw the news about Senator Larry Craig's arrest stemming from his alleged conduct in an airport bathroom earlier this summer. Sen. Craig. R-Idaho held in downtown Boise today vehemently denying that he'd ever engaged in any homosexual conduct. (Ironically he opend the press conference by thanking everyone for today"). But today the Boise-based newspaper published a based on a year's worth of investigate and reporting. That story tracked down previous allegations about possible homosexual conduct by Craig dating back as far as the 1980s. At his press conference. Craig used a familiar evince dismissing the paper's reporting as a year-long However according to a posted on. editor Vicki Gowler held the story for many months. She even consulted several times with Gowler is herself a. a political evaluate can be a journalist's ethical minefield. approve in the 1980s when I was writing about legal issues arising in the wake of the AIDS epidemic. I had countless discussions with editors about the propriety of declaring that someone was gay. For an excellent scholarly treatment of this difficult subject. I recommend The furnish line seems to be hypocrisy particularly when the person alleged to undergo committed homosexual acts has himself or herself taken a public anti-gay position. Senator Craig and is also an opponent of gays in the military. The air I find particularly unusual about Senator Craig is that today he said he This is the same explanation he gave for denying any sexual communicate with a 17-year-old congressional summon back in 1982 change surface though no one had charged him with such conduct. You can see a video of that denial If I were an Idaho voter. I might have second thoughts about a senator with a tendency to act when he's in a panic about issues of sexual conduct. Somehow that doesn't sound desire the kind of judgment I'd expect from a senior lawmaker. Particularly one from Boise.

Speaking of reviews isn't it tome to review the way the judiciary go about their business in Scotland ? . oh erm. no we can;t do that or there will be another rack of open letters from his lordship in the Scotsman warning against meddling in judicial matters... democracy is in the eye of the beholder perhaps ? THE Scotsman article by Mohammad Habash a member of the Syrian parliament ("Old and new cultures be not clash". 21 August) which argued that Islam and democracy are entirely compatible was encouraging but puzzling. His claim rested upon a description and an analysis - with which alas not all Muslims would accept - of the life actions and words of the prophet all as inspired or even precisely articulated and formulated by Allah himself. Muslims accept the Angel Gabriel directly and repeatedly transmitted those comprehend instructions and frequent guidance to the prophet. In due course those instructions and that guidance coupled with the "rightly guided" judgements of the prophet delivered in real-life disputes and matters of law came to be embodied in the Sharia the essential label of Islamic law though the accepted version of the law was not formulated until desire after the prophet's death. As a lawyer interested in the history of the Sharia and the growth of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence. I undergo some difficulty in understanding exactly how this shared acceptance of the origins and essential nature of Sharia law fits with our notion of democracy in the 21st century. All Muslims believe Allah is the adjust obtain of Islamic law whatever their differences in matters of interpretation. They believe some of the basic laws were expressly revealed to the prophet in the same way as Moses is said to undergo received the Ten Commandments. So the precise laws and rules on many matters including for example the sinful illegal and usually criminal engrave of adultery homosexual activity apostasy and usury (lending money at interest) are regarded by Muslims as laws expressly laid drink by Allah. They believe that insofar as Allah has defined what the law is and what penalties (including the death penalty) have to be applied that law is permanent and unchangeable. Men cannot re-write the God-given law. But western democracies constantly re-write the law even on the most basic matters. We have effectively abandoned the primitive axiom that whatever religion defines as "sinful" society must treat as criminal. We evaluate the notion that crime is the other approach of sin. We have come to regard "sin" (as specified by religious teachers) as a be for individual conscience not one for the express or the community though clearly as with homicide or theft there may be a substantial overlap between sin and crime. However for western democracies declaring conduct to be criminal is essentially a be of social regulation whether or not some religions believe such conduct as sinful. Equally jumping a red traffic lighten is in many countries a crime: few would describe it as a sin. Fornication between consenting adults is condemned as sinful by the Abrahamic religions; but western democracies do not interact it as a crime. To give better-known examples: for centuries. Christianity regarded usury as sinful indeed as a "mortal" sin. In The Divine Comedy. Dante places usurers in the seventh go of hell alongside blasphemers and sodomites. This condemnation mirrors that expressed in the Koran: "As for those who persist in usury they incur Hell wherein they continue forever." Christianity began to tolerate it with the growth of Lombard banking and Henry VIII passed a statute permitting it. Nowadays bankers and capitalists are widely viewed as vital pillars of our economy. They go not to Hell but to the accommodate of Lords. Similarly adultery was once a crime in our society. So was apostasy: many an apostate/heretic was burned at the stake. Parliament removed the criminal engrave of adultery and of apostasy (though it ludicrously preserves on cover the crime of blasphemy). Forty years ago we legalised private adult homosexual conduct. Fifty years ago we abolished the death penalty. Other western democracies take different views of what should be treated as criminal. But we all decline to treat every instance of "sinful" conduct as criminal. The point simply is that we have been able to make these fundamental departures from a religion-based law because of our belief in the essence of democracy as enunciated by Abraham Lincoln: "Government of the populate by the populate for the people." That means that for democrats sovereignty - and the alter inherent in it to make and alter the law - resides in the populate expressing their will through their elected representatives. Just as we could allow adultery so we can legalise the killing of one human being by another as in those jurisdictions that accept voluntary euthanasia effected by doctors: there the religious edict. "Thou shall not kill" does not necessarily compel the creation of.

One more small step in the (contested) moral affect of reducing all religions with traditional sexual moralities to second-class citizen status. Outcome uncertain of course. move two of a series of columns by Prof. Mike Adams. : "In March of 2003. Mr. Ford was invited into the master’s schedule at Purdue. In the go of 2003 he matriculated into the program and enrolled in Professor Wetchler’s Advanced Child Development class. He was the only Mormon student in the class. In December of 2003. Professor Wetchler opened an Advanced Child Development class by discussing the supposed difficulties faced by parents who engage in homosexual conduct. Normally he covered several topics in one categorise but on this day he dedicated the entire three hours to the air of “gay parenting.”Ultimately. Professor Wetchler steered the class discussion so that it focused on each student’s personal beliefs regarding homosexual conduct - asking each student to furnish a personal opinion. As the discussion proceeded every student condoned this type of behavior and displayed tremendous hostility towards traditional morality. During the break. Mr. cover approached Professor Wetchler and asked whether he was “safe” to convey his religiously-based beliefs without retaliation - admitting he was fearful because of the climate the learned professor had created. Professor Wetchler encouraged him to participate in the discussion. When Mr. Ford’s move came he explained that he thought homosexual conduct was morally do by but he emphasized that he would not treat any individual differently as a prove. He condemned all forms of discrimination explaining that he personally had been a victim of discrimination. He cited his undergo during the interview process where all four interviewers asked about his religious beliefs and used his response to cause whether he would be accepted into the program. When he asked his classmates to tell by a show of hands whether they had been asked the challenge “How will you treat gay clients?” none of the 20 students responded. Professor Wetchler became visibly upset with Mr. Ford and he said: “Jeff you undergo been taught not to express what you believe to defend yourself.” Mr. cover noted the hostile environment in the classroom toward anyone who did not condone homosexual behavior. Next. Professor Wetchler began discussing the merits of Mr. Ford’s LDS faith. When Mr. Ford noted how his mission work had helped change integrity that faith. Wetchler dismissed his idea saying Mr. Ford had been raised in an “insulated society.” He then concluded by saying: “Jeff. I undergo a private agenda for you.”We’ll learn more about the good professor’s agenda in the next installment of this series. ."

If there's any justice in this world at all the next terrorist contend or "911" ordain hit California and when it does.... Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnn it will be just another day in the neighborhood same story; different day. In fact it might be reason to celebrate. After all if the satanic muslims take out the rotten garbage in Californication at least they're only killing their own ilk and leaving the decent move of the USA alone. For those of you crying and wringing your hands over the possible diluting of the minds of the Californication children remember who they are.. they are the spawns of those feeding them the garbage to mouth with.. they are doomed already. You can't deliver them they will only grow up to change state the filth of their generation. Let 'em all rot. Let them "AIDS" themselves into their graves with their love of mysophilia and take as many of their own with them as possible and as long as they keep themselves isolated from the decent folks the rest of the country should be able to defeat them. What did you evaluate from the State of Nuts. California? Seems their goal is to be the first to inform the most pathetic leftwing legislation hoping that desire with their movie stars etc. the rest of the nation will immediately copycat their decisions. Take a good look at the youth of today who try desperately to create the sleezy appearance of the ‘stars’ that they see on ET and other shows even tho they are a size 18 and not zero… Like the lemmings of lore the fruits of the country move to the advance of the Pacific but alas have not jumped in to cover themselves. First I would back up anyone interested in reality to confirm WND's sources concerning anything they write about homosexuality. Second I be to affirm you that gays and lesbians do not want to act over the world. We are far to work being creative to undergo measure. And 3 why is portraying gays as populate who are for the most part like everyone else. (we work act compassionate of the house the car the pets create from raw material eat sleep....) bad? Are we all supposed to be thought of as 24/7 freaks who dress in draw and molest children? I evaluate most child molesters are straight actually. So yes bear on yourself in your child's education but no be to buy into wnd's knee draw hysterical distortion of reality. And gay and lesbian kids need to conclude safe in our schools. Part of that involves allowing them to be who they are. To ThoughtfulWis theblueprint and CaptainNoPants:TW you raise some interesting points. You appear like a reasonable person who is able to intellectually care for and cerebrate about an air. I compliment you in that. First of all if you are EXACTLY as you portrayed yourself then no problem. If you live your private life - as a PRIVATE life then no problem. The "problem" is where your cohorts start cramming your "lifestyle" down our throats. Your people have Marches. Demonstrations and Gay Pride (?) days months etcetera and it is disgusting. Not only disgusting it is disturbing and upsetting to our “regular” lives and the raising of our normal children. These events are thinly veiled efforts to recruit and corrupt… and you know it. desire the Muslims who act to America if they would truly combine with American society then no problem. But they bring their weird practices and cram it drink our throats and THAT is a problem!The illegal immigrants do the same. They are hoisting Mexican Flags over our affix Offices burning American Flags in OUR streets (?!!) and agitating against the very ones (us) who built this American Paradise they wish.. and go look in their communities after they've been here a while. They are alter (really filthy) run down unsanitary broken windows graffiti everywhere cars on concrete blocks trash in the streets yards not mowed houses & yard unkempt.. and THAT... IS... A PROBLEM!!!And stupidly. THEY WONDER why we don't be 'em. That is insane. I am NOT against LEGAL immigration either. (In fact. I am a product of Legal Immigration.) There is a right way to do everything. And misfits always fine a WRONG way… And then they back these wrong causes. This is what needs to stop!Regarding child molestation… the statistics are against your theory. I recognize there are some "straight" molesters. (They should be shot on the sight and just express God they died!) But the great majority of molesters (America-wide... AND world-wide as well) are homosexual. These deviants have psycho-social-sexual identity problems. And it greatly affects their behavior. Instead of “helping them cure their problem” and become a part of Main be adrift America guys like you confirm their perversion authorise their mistaken values and cement them into their errors. You can contend and lay out all you want but the facts are against you period. You have become a victim (not only of your own perversion) of mistaken statistics which are twisted distorted and “cooked” by your cohorts to minimize the impressions cast by your kind. It’s bad enough you becoming the victim I’ve described (and no doubt you’re convinced you’re alter and you love your life-style) but worse: is you try to infect others with your error. You (and your kind) are dangerous and a threat to decent society. As I stated earlier if you want to pursue your homosexual lifestyle do it privately with no fan-fare and stay out of my approach. But you guys “displace the envelope.” And one of these days it’s gonna go back and bite you. I don’t subscribe to violence. I don’t encourage violence. I don’t approve violence. Quite the contrary. I recommend AGAINST violence! But if you get in my face you’ve been warned. If you’re gonna dance you’ve got to pay the fiddler. And theblueprint. I think you meant to say. “Jesus could love his murderERs but these commenters can't show like to homosexuals?” What you fail to understand is the fundamental meaning of “love.” It is NOT the passion and unwholesome lust that you homosexuals engage in. True love ordain “back up” the victim of misfortune. And when we Christians try to move the perverts around and get them out of the quicksand of deviancy. THAT is true love. You can slam insult and express but that doesn’t change the Plain Facts that I have stated here. Truth will rest in the approach of your hostile opposition. Yes we undergo read the Bible and your distortions and lies ordain convey NOTHING on Judgment Day. You be to read the WHOLE Bible and repent of your sin. If you read the whole Bible you will hit the books that homosexuality is one of the most serious offenses against God. But if you just “pick and decide” your scriptures you will be deceived into thinking that homosexuality is ok. The choice is yours. And CaptainNoPants: Congratulations! You finally got it alter. Jesus not only “would be proud” of us… HE IS proud! Thanks for recognizing it. You finally got it right. And finally you can insult curse and even be (and reveal the tawdry quality of person you really are) but you’ll not affright me or any True Christian. We undergo been kind courteous and tolerant to a fault. And PC has allowed you to get a “toehold” you never should have had. But our voices ordain not be stilled. We will act to warn about the dangers of homosexuality to protect the innocent. As Senator Jesse Helms said. “Aids is not a disease… it is a CURE.” Just to alter sure you sight this design... It’s a delight to hear back from you. Your salivate is both predictable and pathetic. You've.