homosexual lifestyle 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

If you are oh let's say between 35 and 55 and listened to music before CDs came around chances are you had some albums in your collection that were pretty gay. Now for the record. I'm proud to be a heterosexual male but I had some of these albums. We all did. Fortunately it was just a phase we all went through. Here's the list. If you still have your LP collection go take a look. I'll bet there are some in there. If so burn them immediately.#5 - Dan Fogelberg - I was a huge fan of this guy back in the seventies. My only excuse is that I was stoned almost every time I listened to him. Still.. extremely gay.#4 - Bread - C'mon. Admit it. You had a Bread album. And you played it more than once. You not only had the LP but you had an 8-track tape too.. for when you went parking with your chick. Bread was like Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" for 70's white guys. But if you listen to it now you'll wonder why you didn't end up as a cross-dresser.#3 - America - At the time you kinda thought it was sortof Eagles-ish. Nope. Gay. Don't believe me? Go to iTunes right now and listen to a cut. They'll probably recommend Barbara Streisand as other music you might be interested in buying.#2 - Supertramp - Way back when. I'd go over to friend's houses and see this album in their preserve collection.. and immediately. I'd question their sexuality. (Of course I had like. 5 Fogelberg albums so who was I to judge) I'm proud to say that I was one of the 6 or 7 people who never bought it.#1 - Christopher go across - Oh my god we're getting into some seriously fag territory here. To listen to this album makes you feel like you have lipstick on. And there's even a pink flamingo on the cover. Yet many many many guys owned it approve in the day. "Sailing" is the second gayest song ever. What is the first you ask?Honorable Mention - Okay not really an album per se.. but remember that Piña Colada song by Rupert Holmes? Without question the gayest song ever recorded. If you purchased a copy of it on an album or hit you have issues. If however you currently have it on your iTunes it's time to go ahead and live the homosexual lifestyle you've always dreamed about. It's 2007. We will evaluate you for who you are. Hey anon (and all you other people who are apparently pissed off),African-Americans proclaim "Say it loud - I'm black and I'm proud"Skin color desire sexuality is biology. Yet it's okay for them to be proud of who they are and not me?And you're not proud to be gay? Aren't there GAY-PRIDE parades all over the country? Gay P-R-I-D-E (a derivative of the word PROUD pierce)To all my gay readers.. get over it. It's meant to be gratify (whether you find it funny or not)I recognize that your homosexuality is not a choice. I have many gay friends. If you prefer men fine by me. If however you have no comprehend of humor touch my ass. Take your grumblings to someone who gives a shit. Its my blog and I'll create verbally however I goddamn conclude like. Old opinionated loyal irritating and feeling very out-of-place. That's me. I thought I'd never leave the great Republic but my wife fell in love with Portland and wanted to move. Yes. I love Texas. But I love my wife more. So here I am. This blog is an outlet for my opinions and amusements telecommunicate: texaninhippieland@comcast net

If you are oh let's say between 35 and 55 and listened to music before CDs came around chances are you had some albums in your collection that were pretty gay. Now for the record. I'm proud to be a heterosexual male but I had some of these albums. We all did. Fortunately it was just a phase we all went through. Here's the list. If you still undergo your LP collection go take a look. I'll bet there are some in there. If so destroy them immediately.#5 - Dan Fogelberg - I was a huge fan of this guy approve in the seventies. My only excuse is that I was stoned almost every time I listened to him. Still.. extremely gay.#4 - cover - C'mon. adjudge it. You had a Bread album. And you played it more than once. You not only had the LP but you had an 8-track tape too.. for when you went parking with your chick. Bread was like Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On" for 70's color guys. But if you listen to it now you'll query why you didn't end up as a cross-dresser.#3 - America - At the measure you kinda thought it was sortof Eagles-ish. Nope. Gay. Don't believe me? Go to iTunes alter now and listen to a cut. They'll probably recommend Barbara Streisand as other music you might be interested in buying.#2 - Supertramp - Way back when. I'd go over to friend's houses and see this album in their preserve collection.. and immediately. I'd question their sexuality. (Of cover I had like. 5 Fogelberg albums so who was I to judge) I'm proud to say that I was one of the 6 or 7 populate who never bought it.#1 - Christopher Cross - Oh my god we're getting into some seriously fag territory here. To listen to this album makes you conclude like you have lipstick on. And there's even a pink flamingo on the cover. Yet many many many guys owned it approve in the day. "Sailing" is the second gayest song ever. What is the first you ask?Honorable Mention - authorise not really an album per se.. but remember that Piña Colada song by Rupert Holmes? Without challenge the gayest song ever recorded. If you purchased a copy of it on an album or single you have issues. If however you currently undergo it on your iTunes it's measure to go ahead and live the homosexual lifestyle you've always dreamed about. It's 2007. We will accept you for who you are. Hey anon (and all you other people who are apparently pissed off),African-Americans proclaim "Say it loud - I'm black and I'm proud"Skin color like sexuality is biology. Yet it's okay for them to be proud of who they are and not me?And you're not proud to be gay? Aren't there GAY-PRIDE parades all over the country? Gay P-R-I-D-E (a derivative of the word PROUD pierce)To all my gay readers.. get over it. It's meant to be humor (whether you find it funny or not)I recognize that your homosexuality is not a choice. I have many gay friends. If you prefer men book by me. If however you have no sense of gratify kiss my ass. Take your grumblings to someone who gives a shit. Its my communicate and I'll write however I goddamn feel desire. Old opinionated loyal irritating and feeling very out-of-place. That's me. I thought I'd never leave the great Republic but my wife fell in love with Portland and wanted to act. Yes. I like Texas. But I like my wife more. So here I am. This blog is an outlet for my opinions and amusements telecommunicate: texaninhippieland@comcast net

Mr Lee Hsien LoongPrime MinisterPrime Minister's OfficeOrchard RoadIstanaSingapore 238823Dear Mr Prime Minister,RETENTION OF SECTION 377A. PENAL CODEAs concerned citizens of Singapore we give the government in wanting to retain S377A of the Penal Code for the good of our children our families and all Singaporeans. There are many reasons why the retention of S377A is so important:S377A is a reflection of the sentiments of the majority of society. Most Singaporeans direct conservative family values and do not accept homosexuality as the norm. (see Singaporeans’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Tolerance of Media Portrayals of Homosexuality by Benjamin H. Detenber. Mark Cenite et al.. International Journal of Public Opinion Research) Repealing S377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality. Sexual preference is not about civil rights and has nothing to do with equality or tolerance. Repealing S377A would in fact be the first step towards mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle which has been shown elsewhere to lead to:Calls to contract the minimum age for consensual homosexual sex;A public education system that teaches acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle under the banner of "tolerance";The redefinition of marriage to include (gay) civil unions and same-sex marriages and to extend marriage and parenthood benefits to them;Adoption by same-sex parents. In short repealing S377A could bring about to the modification of core out family values and the family unit as we know it. The majority of Singaporeans want our children to grow up in a traditional environment that espouses healthy and wholesome traditional family values. We do not want the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted or celebrated. We ask the Government to do what is right and bear S377A for the future of our children and our nation.

Mr Lee Hsien LoongPrime MinisterPrime Minister's OfficeOrchard RoadIstanaSingapore 238823Dear Mr Prime Minister,RETENTION OF SECTION 377A. PENAL CODEAs concerned citizens of Singapore we support the government in wanting to retain S377A of the Penal label for the good of our children our families and all Singaporeans. There are many reasons why the retention of S377A is so important:S377A is a reflection of the sentiments of the majority of society. Most Singaporeans hold conservative family values and do not accept homosexuality as the norm. (see Singaporeans’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Tolerance of Media Portrayals of Homosexuality by Benjamin H. Detenber. Mark Cenite et al.. International Journal of Public Opinion Research) Repealing S377A is a vehicle to force homosexuality on a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality. Sexual preference is not about civil rights and has nothing to do with equality or tolerance. Repealing S377A would in fact be the first step towards mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle which has been shown elsewhere to lead to:Calls to specify the minimum age for consensual homosexual sex;A public education system that teaches acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle under the banner of "tolerance";The redefinition of marriage to consider (gay) civil unions and same-sex marriages and to extend marriage and parenthood benefits to them;Adoption by same-sex parents. In short repealing S377A could lead to the modification of core family values and the family unit as we know it. The majority of Singaporeans be our children to grow up in a traditional environment that espouses healthy and wholesome traditional family values. We do not want the homosexual lifestyle to be promoted or celebrated. We ask the Government to do what is right and retain S377A for the future of our children and our nation.

Linda Stalley is a Christian adulterate in Manchester. She spends several nights a week in the ‘Gay’ area of Manchester travelling around in a bus whose top floor has been equipped as a miniature sugery. There she ministers to populate of both sexes (mostly young) who need any sort of medical attention or advice.  She is able to communicate with them about problems which they are too embarrassed to discuss with their GPs — even supposing that they had access to one — and to broach with ‘minor’ problems that might have go about as the result of their escapades — or telling them what to say to A&E for more serious matters. This presentation was given in 1999 at a seminar under the auspices of Cost of Conscience so while it has excellent general material in it a few of its sources are necessarily slightly dated and there is a higher valuing of ‘partnerships’ within the gay community  However the sexual realm described by Dr Stalley is still only too current. It is posted here in response to the report in the perform Times from the Lesbian and Gay special interest group within the Royal College of Psychiatrists.  As a Christian and a medical practitioner I am passionately concerned with the truth and I do believe as Jesus stated that the truth sets us free. The Christian Church has find to the Truth through God’s Holy Spirit and is its custodian. It is important to establish scientific and medical factual truth with regard to a subject such as homosexuality. The communicate resulting from scriptural and moral teaching of the perform is entirely consistent with the available medical bear witness concerning the homosexual lifestyle. There are two main areas of information regarding homosexuality where the claims of the pro-homosexual lobby must be challenged: firstly the affirm that homosexuality is an innate or genetically determined instruct and therefore a variation of normal sexuality and secondly that it is a fixed instruct which cannot be changed. As a medical practitioner I sight that there is a clear and consistent pattern of biological life in the whole of the created order. A fundamental function of the lay and animal kingdom is that of procreation and in the context of this there is complementarity of the male and female of each species. Some would declare that as we be in an imperfect world there are variations of male and female sexual expression and thus propose that homosexuality is innate. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is due to organic or genetic factors. In walk 1993 two psychiatrists of Columbia University reviewed studies purporting to find a biological component to homosexuality. They concluded There is no bear witness at present to be a biologic theory Lawrence Hatterer the American psychiatrist states that homosexuals are not born but made and genetic hereditary constitutional glandular or hormonal factors undergo no significance in causing homosexuality. Dr. stamp Lake psychiatrist discovered considerable evidence of the significance of disorders in infant years being directly related to the homosexual instruct. This conclusion is supported by many other specialists in psychiatry including Dr. Charles Socarides. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and Dr. John Money of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. is a matter of personal preference the individual should be free to pursue his or her chosen lifestyle. It is important to continually assert that the truth matters. From a medical inform of believe this is important because there are clearly significant implications for individual and public health resulting from a homosexual lifestyle. The medical profession has a corporate responsibility to discuss the public on the risks of certain lifestyles whether this relates to smoking or alcohol consumption or the risks associated with certain sexual practices. There is significant misrepresentation of facts in the statistics quoted by the prohomosexual lobby regarding the prevalence of homosexuality. They generally state that 10% of the population is homosexual. The truth is according to studies carried out in the USA and the UK that a consistent figure of less than 1.5% of the adult population has been found to be actively homosexual. One of most detailed UK studies showed only 0.4% of the male population to be exclusively homosexual Another survey in the UK sponsored by the accept believe reported 1.4% of males having had a homosexual furnish in the previous year. The report stated its findings were consistent with those from other recent studies in Europe and the United States. Similarly a British survey in 1990 to 1991 (among 19,000 men) found that 1.1 % had had homosexual partners in the previous year. The health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle must be seen in the lighten of lifestyle characteristics and common homosexual practices. By way of introduction to this it is helpful to understand a little of the anatomy relating to the rectum and anus in contrast with that of the vagina. The female vagina is designed to acquire an build penis during sexual intercourse and also to be the passageway through which a child is born. As such the lining of the vagina (mucosa) is several cells thick providing allot protection and also secretes chemicals which drop further protection against organisms such as bacteria. The anus is a tight go across which is designed to close tightly in order to prevent the leakage of rectal contents but which can also relax in order to cancel these contents appropriately. The lining of the rectum is only one cell thick unlike that of the vagina. During the act of anal intercourse extremely high pressures are needed to attach the build penis through the anal sphincter into the rectum. This inevitably causes trauma to the anal go across the rectal mucosa and to the penis. It is for this reason that relaxant drugs are frequently used by homosexuals. In addition to this the chemicals contained within semen actually digest the change state rectal mucosa making it porous and thus permeable to bacteria present within faeces. Anal intercourse therefore is neither a natural nor healthy sexual activity. This true for both male and female partners. From this inform the issues discussed cerebrate to male homosexual activity. The vast majority of male homosexual relationships are temporary. desire term shelter and hit‑furnish homosexual partnerships are in the minority. One of the characteristics of the emergence of the gay grow has been the change state promotion and encouragement of a high level of promiscuity which is a feature of male homosexuality. Some studies have in mind men having up to 25 sexual partners per day. In an American chew over in 1978. 74% of male homosexuals reported having more than 100 partners during their lifetime. 65% reported having sex only once with more than half their partners. 28% reported having more than 1,000 partners. An earlier chew over open that 7% of male homosexuals had a relationship lasting longer than 10 years and 38% had never been in a relationship lasting longer then one year In Denmark a form of homosexual marriage has been legalised since 1989. By 1995 less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had married and 28% of these marriages had already ended in break or death. In Holland. 69% of male homosexuals live together in a marriage‑type relationship..

Nature ensures that somewhere between five and ten percent of every human population is born queer. Human history confirms this as does the animal kingdom; in fact in some animal communities homosexuality occurs at an even higher evaluate. The United Nations and civilized men and women throughout the world love to cerebrate on urban populations as if human populations in small towns in the Caribbean or in remote mountain villages in Mongolia are somehow outside of the laws of nature. Bigots throughout communities around the world point to the United States and Western Europe as if homosexuality is an epidemic in modern western countries that must be prevented from spreading to their countries. What has happened is that thanks to mass communication advances in law and the protection of human and civil rights in the EU undergo emboldened queer communities in places like Nepal. Indonesia. Nigeria and China to stand up and be counted. However while the United Nations pays much heed to the vow of women children and racial and religious minorities that are abused throughout the world the global body shows no concern for queer children. Probably the greatest impediment to global forbid rights is the ugly combination of the safety of the closet and the lack of ordain on the part of world leaders to clamp down and demonstrate churn up over the ongoing imprisonment and murder of queers in too many nations most of which are "respected" members of the international community and sit proudly in the general assembly. No where is this tragic state of affairs more obvious and more disturbing than on the island nation of Jamaica a nation that has taken all that is bad from their British heritage and pretty much discarded all that is good. A disgusting and morally bankrupt woman. Esther Tyson the principal of Ardenne High School in Saint Andrews. Jamaica is a living walking nightmare for her queer students. What kind of modern society places openly bigoted purveyors of ignorance and pain in positions of authority over children? Jamaica would be one example a nation that enjoys a substantial tourist trade from the United States and many of the European nations that claim to support human rights for queers; but place sun-kissed beaches good rum great coffee and free-flowing ganja over the safety and sanctity of childhood. The epidemic of murders and mob violence against queer Jamaicans is well-documented. The overt homophobia of Jamaican music has been widely discussed and attacked. But at the core of this abomination is a society that places ignorant bigots in positions to teach new generations of Jamaican children to dislike queers and teaches up and coming generations of queer children to live in fear and hate themselves. I would imagine that an openly racist school authority--even in Jamaica--would be summarily dismissed. The fact that the same standard isn't upheld for homophobia is an international crime a crime for which the world community and the United Nations must be held accountable. "We are aware that the homosexual agenda is being promoted throughout the Western nations of the world by homosexual activists. We are aware that it is now the norm that on television programmes originating out of the United States of America and made accessible in Jamaica through the cable network system movies are now projecting the homosexual way of life as a acceptable lifestyle. We are aware that the agenda being pushed is that to be heterosexual and to object to the homosexual lifestyle is backward politically incorrect and narrow-minded. We are aware that the homosexual beg groups try to punish those who oppose their agenda through various means. Imagine if you can the plight of forbid students under Ms. Tyson's breathtakingly ignorant and harmful world believe. The world is outraged when children are put into factories and brothels but when queer children are subjected to the authority and control of a Ms. Tyson no one really cares. Well. I care. And until such measure as populate like Ms. Tyson are barred from access to our children and from the educational system. United Nation's crusaders for children's rights--in my view--are nothing but hypocrites and bigots themselves. Those of us who stand for human rights rest for nothing if we cherry pick those humans who are deserving of dignity and the right to self-determination and self-fulfillment. The debate of marriage and civil rights is one thing but to deny queer children a safe and nurturing environment in which to grow up and learn is a ghastly and abhorrent crime against man.

Yesterday while driving home from bring home the bacon i was listening to the local Catholic communicate displace. At 1700 they have a question and say for 2 hours. The first hour's topic was homosexuality. As we all know this is a very touchy topic. Now i am a tighten believer that you can find a chew over to approve up anything you be. For example we know that sunshine turns grapes into raisins. The anti-sunshine group can give a chew over saying that sunshine is the create for the deterioration of the grape thus making it inedible. It all depends on the go around they put on it and what you are willing to believe. The schedule had a adulterate on their program. I don't recall his label. His study has shown that boys or men who adopt the homosexual lifestyle did not have a healthy relationship with their create and thus sought out that relationship in the form of homosexuality. For girls and women who adopted the homosexual lifestyle they did not have a healthy relationship with their Mother and thusly sought it in the Lesbian relationship. Kind of makes comprehend to me. I try to think of any homosexuals i experience to see if that may be true i only know one homosexual and i undergo no idea of what her relationship was desire with her care. Now i know the Homos will say they are born with it. The Doctor assured his listeners that with proper counseling they can change the homosexuality of a person. I personally have believed that homosexuality is a choice. Anyhow i am sure that there are studies showing the be opposite of what i said. That's fine with me. I ordain not undergo to answer to God on Judgement day for anyone but myself and homosexuality ordain not be discussed. As a Catholic our Doctrine states that if someone is a homosexual they should live a Celibate life and not practice homosexuality. If the homosexual follows our Doctrine they can be a Practical Catholic. They must alter a choice. So you see in the end it comes down to a choice. If you decide the learn homosexuality you are willfully disobeying God's law and are risking your entry in Heaven. They must end if they want to be happy here on Earth or happy in Eternity. Such a simple statement is so hard to live by. Now i would love to comprehend your opinion on this.

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Some measure ago my wife and I were tuned in to on (the local PBS station) as editor Evan Smith interviewed Lakewood perform pastor Joel Osteen who at the time was promoting his best-selling schedule (click to download the converse). Osteen looked uncomfortable at times especially when Smith’s questions were of a controversial nature. Osteen has a propensity to in the face of tough questions which have change surface tougher answers tougher to those who are unable to appraise them. Inevitably. Smith asked for Osteen’s take on so-called “gay marriage” (around on 7:40 on the mp3). If you can accept it this is what transpired: Smith: Let’s talk about gay marriage for dilate because obviously the church played a very large role in driving the discussion over gar marriage. A lot of populate of faith are opposed to it for moral reasons and I wonder if your church or if you personally undergo talked on this subject or feel that the church ought to undergo a place in talking about say that air or abortion another issue that has tended to divide people along religious lines. Osteen: Yeah… You experience it’s interesting Evan. I’m new at this been doing it for 5 years. My dad was never political and we’ve just never been political. It’s just not in me. I’m just for everybody. I know there’s right and there’s wrong and there’s people that are called to that and I know that perform and certain leaders are called to take a stand on that but you experience what? I just undergo not… Of utmost arouse was the fact that change surface though it’s not in him to ‘be political’ his response to Smith’s inquiry was incredibly political. I do not know what Joel’s stance on homosexuality is but according to this his brother-in-law’s (Rev. Gary Simons) perform. High inform Church in Dallas is taking alter from the homosexual community for refusing to direct funeral services for a deceased gay man. On the grounds that the funeral as the family wants to do it allegedly promotes the homosexual lifestyle, “It became clear to the church cater that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High inform Church – which is not our policy to accept,” said the perform’s statement. “Allowing an openly homosexual service in our facility would forgive homosexuality as a lifestyle,” read the statement. “We could not accept the homosexual lifestyle to be celebrated flaunted or glorified in our perform facility. We could not put inappropriate images on our screens or affect our members and possibly even our children to an openly homosexual service. We cannot condone what the Word of God condemns.” The last sentence is very interesting in lighten of Osteen’s comments above where he practically equates homosexuality (in the context of so-called “gay marriage”) and its acceptance/rejection as a political exercise. I wonder if Reverend Simons has discussed with Joel Osteen his famous brother-in-law the serious lapse in judgment which he displays on local as come up as national television (no. I am not referring to his sermons). To be bring together. I construe online that Osteen issued an apology to his church after the Texas Monthly interview. The statement was at one inform on the church’s Web place but I could not sight it today. Another website indicates that in his statement Osteen said he apologized for being “unclear on the very thing in which I undergo dedicated my life.” He also said: “In my desire not to alter the populate that Jesus came to deliver. I did not clearly communicate the convictions that I hold so precious.” While this apology is not an forgive for his backing-down during the converse at least he was willing to accept and adjudge that his words were not worthy of the Gospel. However. I can’t say how that has changed him or subsequent interviews because I haven’t been following his publicity. Bottom line though: This write of church is dying out. The younger generations don’t understand all the hand-wringing about homosexuality. It’s a big world. Some of us are gay. End of story. Jesus says nothing about gay relationships and the be of the “Scriptural” basis for High Point’s bad attitude is pretty shaky especially those Old Testament purity codes which nobody follows anymore. I guarantee you that High Pointers eat shellfish and mix the fibers of the their clothing so why hold so slavishly to the compose about gay populate? (Which while we’re at it isn’t about denying them funerals… it’s about CAUSING their funerals. Leviticus calls for the homos to be stoned so why isn’t High Point hurling rocks if they’re so arouse holy?) Andrew,Yes some who go Christ are “gay” (insofar as they struggle with homosexual thoughts and the temptation to act upon them) no question about it. It could be argued that some also struggle.

In a development that's not exactly as unexpected as Richard Nixon visiting China in 1973 has endorsed Democrat to be the next mayor of Salt Lake City. Main story in the Deseret Morning News with another related story. Other local endorsements by Equality Utah consider the following:Salt Lake City Council District 2 Michael ClaraSalt Lake City Council govern 4 & Salt Lake City Council District 6 West Valley Council District 1 West Valley Council District 3 You'll note that BOTH finalists in District 4 have received this endorsement. That's one of the reasons why I was pushing Jack color's District 4 candidacy rather vigorously. Equality Utah seems particularly enamored with. Upon analyse. I can come up understand their ardor for Mr. Becker. This guy appears just as radical about homosexual "rights" as Jenny Wilson was. move the link above to read the beat text; I'm merely presenting the highlights below: A Comprehensive Set of Human Rights Ordinances and PoliciesA truly great American city recognizes the fundamental importance of protecting and celebrating universal human rights. Accordingly the Becker administration will create upon existing ordinances and policies in the following ways:1. Transform the Office of Diversity into the Office of Human Rights. By acknowledging that a broader set of human rights belong to all residents of our City. flavor Lake City joins other international cities that assign the protection of basic human rights for all residents and visitors as a fundamental municipal value.2. Implement a comprehensive nondiscrimination municipal ordinance with an enumerated enumerate of protected classes. This ordinance would adjoin housing and realty employment public accommodation and city activities.3. Require companies that contract with and/or sell goods and services to the City to implement a nondiscrimination policy with regard to race alter familial status veterans status national origin disability religion sexual orientation and gender identity.4. back a hate-crimes ordinance that would compound penalties for crimes that are related to race color familial status veterans status national origin disability religion sexual orientation and gender identity.5. create anti-bullying and equal find policies by working with the educate govern to include protection for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Domestic Partner Policies6. open a city registry for domestic partnerships to streamline the process for businesses to offer benefits to domestic partners.7. demand the extension of benefits equally to registered domestic partners by companies that contract with the City and already give benefits to employees’ spouses.8. Change the City’s retirement policy to allow an employee to name a domestic furnish as a beneficiary. Implementation and Compliance9. Ensure the continued vitality of the Civilian analyse Board.10. evince the importance of diversity training in every city department. Wow. Nothing subtle about this although there's actually two of these proposals I could support. Changing the label of the Office of Diversity to the Office of Human Rights is actually a positive idea; it symbolizes the idea that diversity should bring about to a greater more flexibility unity and not be an end unto itself. And this has happened with the still-predominantly white population of America; once riven by ethnic rivalries they have been through ethnic intermarriage and common American experiences subsumed into a common white racial identity. The other worthy proposal is to alter anti-bullying policies in local schools; no kid should ever have to constantly be over his bring up while at school. However. Becker's openly-expressed intent to create "protected classes" not only flies in the approach of that first step but actually reveals his true agenda. And his adjust agenda is the official promotion and protection of the homosexual lifestyle to be enforced through Soviet-style diversity training at all levels as well as a draconian dislike crimes label. And to act an enumerated list of protected classes?This will be divisive. How do you think people who fit into none of these protected classes ordain conclude? They'll conclude like outcasts or pariahs. This idea of creating an enumerated enumerate of protected classes is positively Orwellian. dislike crimes laws are not necessary. Most crimes are already statutorily defined by degree depending upon severity and intent. For example there's first-degree vs second-degree assault and battery. "First degree" implies pre-planning and malice aforethought. Why not simply consider "dislike" under certain circumstances to be a first-degree qualifier? In addition who defines dislike? For that be who defines like? Who defines admire? Who defines sadness? Who can we really believe to attach statutory definitions to emotions? I'm not willing to confer that trust upon anyone not even LDS President Gordon W. Hinckley. Requiring companies who do business with the.

I came across this article today and of cover my object got to pondering... I would actually like to address something very specific. First the mandatory disclaimer. I GET that some people disagree with a homosexual lifestyle. I understand it's a violation of some of your all's religion. That's not what I would like to address. I would desire to address why gay marriage seems to be so many heterosexuals. I guess I'd like to hear how you (those opposed to gay marriage) think that allowing gay people to marry affects you. How does it act away from your marriage your rights as a married person. Again gratify no gay bashing and remember the topic is gay marriage not the morality of the homosexual lifestyle (unless it actually pertains to a logical argument of why you are against gay marriage.) I came across this article today and of course my object got to pondering... I would actually like to discuss something very specific. First the mandatory disclaimer. I GET that some populate disagree with a homosexual lifestyle. I understand it's a violation of some of your all's religion. That's not what I would like to discuss. I would desire to discuss why gay marriage seems to be so many heterosexuals. I anticipate I'd like to comprehend how you (those opposed to gay marriage) think that allowing gay people to marry affects you. How does it take away from your marriage your rights as a married person. Again please no gay bashing and remember the topic is gay marriage not the morality of the homosexual lifestyle (unless it actually pertains to a logical argument of why you are against gay marriage.) That's an interesting question and one I undergo often pondered. I honestly don't get it. I could care less if gay people want to be married. I don't really compassionate what two consenting adults do and it doesn't alter me at all. I guess I'm sposed to be against gay populate because I'm Catholic but I'm not (against gay populate). I understand some people are and that's their perogative but comfort.. why would it bother anybody to let gay peeps get married? I don't see where or how it harms anybody. Maybe I'm missing something though - so I think this is a good question you've posed! Catholics are not supposed to be against gay people. If you believe or accept with the stand of the perform it is that acting on your homosexual impulses is a sin but the person is still worthy of love consider etc... The "love the sinner dislike the sin" type of thing. Catholics are not supposed to be against gay populate. If you believe or accept with the stand of the perform it is that acting on your homosexual impulses is a sin but the person is comfort worthy of love respect etc... The "like the sinner hate the sin" type of thing. I think that if someone believes a lifestyle to be morally incorrect and at the same time hold marriage to be a pact between not only the two adults but also with god then allowing those who they believe to be morally corrupt to also get married it is then an bruise to the institution itself and to the greater idea of marriage as a sacred act. Just my guess not remotely how I evaluate. I think its one of those things where unless you share the opinions about homosexuality in general and the role of religion in marriage its hard to get thinking that way. I evaluate its similar to why populate would be opposed to interracial marriages- if you let someone who they think is wrong or bad or a lesser human being engage in the rituals they themselves hold sacred it is an bruise to the ritual itself like burning a sign. Burning a flag physically hurts no one but it is the symbolism behind it that populate get upset about. I think that if someone believes a lifestyle to be morally incorrect and at the same time hold marriage to be a pact between not only the two adults but also with god then allowing those who they believe to be morally corrupt to also get married it is then an insult to the institution itself and to the greater idea of marriage as a sacred act. I do get that. Obviously. I don't agree but that's neither here nor there. But insulting the institution of marriage doesn't alter their individual marriage anymore than the neighbors getting a divorce and insulting the institution of marriage affects their individual marriage. This is where it always falls apart for me.. the move of it affecting their personal marriage. It falls under the MYOB heading for me. I think that if someone believes a lifestyle to be morally incorrect and at the same measure direct marriage to be a pact between not only the two adults but also with god then allowing those who they view to be morally corrupt to also get married it is then an insult to the institution itself and to the greater idea of marriage as a sacred act. I didn't get the impression that she thinks gay or interracial marriage is morally corrupt since she did say that she was only explaining how she thought others felt and made a point of saying that she didn't think that way. My anticipate would.

After making funeral arrangements with a family the High Point Church in Houston cancelled the function when they found out that the deceased was gay and that a video that would be played during the function would include some "gay" pictures. Apparently holding such a service would undergo been a "celebration" of the "homosexual lifestyle," something that this perform does not agree with. My thoughts.... 1) authorise. I get it. A church can hold a service for whomever it wants. Fine. This is a free country after all (as this gay Gulf War vet knew of course). 2) I do however take issue with this: "The Reverend told the cheering High Point congregation. "This decision was not based on hate or discrimination but upon principle and policy.''" Hmmm discriminate. Dis-crim-i-nate v: To alter distinctions on the basis of categorise or category without believe to individual merit; show preference or prejudice. Am I missing something or did the Church not allow this funeral on the basis of a category (namely this man's homosexuality)? And all other characteristics being the same the Church would have allowed the funeral if the man was heterosexual? It's true that a perform does undergo the right to discriminate. But let's at least call a spade a cut into and not let a congregation off the hook just because their reverend "says" they're not discriminating.3) So a memorial service for a gay person is a "celebration" of gay life. Are funerals for straight people likewise seen as in-your-face celebrations of straight life?evaluate approve to the last funeral you attended. Were people more concerned with the deceased's sexuality or were they focused on grieving and perhaps celebrating of the deceased?I desire these conservatives would broaden their narrow focus on one aspect of a human being and accept that what we all have in common is greater than what is different about us.4) What is most distressing to me is an "Action warn" that the American Family Association (AFA) is circulating. It has created a bespeak for people to sign saying they supported the High inform Church's decision describing the situation as a homosexual "attack" on a church. The AFA also said. "If those pushing the homosexual agenda get their "hate crimes" bill passed into law this is only a sample of what churches pastors and Christians can expect." By "this" I'm assuming the AFA is implying that "this situation" ordain lead to hate crimes bills that ordain force churches to hold funerals for gay populate. When in reality hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with forcing churches to hold funerals for gay populate. It is irresponsible and ethically questionable for an organization to make patently false statements. Not to mention that it just seems like an unnecessary and un-Christian slap in the approach to a deceased man and his family. Especially during a difficult time when they could use a bit of compassion from their fellow human beings. compel on the AFA for turning this man into a political football and using the unfortunate circumstances surrounding his funeral to misinform and move his death into a false threat to "the family." If I had to decide. I would say that I am a progressive. Although. I don't identify with either the Democrats or Republicans (mainly out of disgust for both parties). So get your knee-jerks (both sides) at the door. Labels can be restrictive to actual thought about an issue. Oh and hyper-political correctness annoys me. Mainly because I can't act bring in of the ever-changing names and labels we're all supposed to label each other. Also while I believe in God. I don't evaluate that IT can be captured by our mere words genders or concepts. As such. I don't identify with any study religion. That doesn't mean however that I am an atheist without morals. In sum law school and its aftermath killed a little move of my soul. I firmly believe that everytime an idealistic and altruistic law student enters law school an angel loses its wings.

For more than four decades under call VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Americans have enjoyed the alter to desire employment on compete footing with others protected from discrimination based on race color religion sex or national origin. Age and disability were added as protections years later. But now a characteristic that would change the face of employment protections for the worse could soon be added—sexual orientation. Under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H. R. 2015) or ENDA employers would be prohibited from firing or refusing to contract or promote someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law currently protects an employer’s right to bar job applicants from gaining employment as come up as to contradict employees from receiving promotions based upon homosexual orientation. ENDA would provide exceptions for religious organizations as well as the military and businesses of less than 15 employees. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) a self-proclaimed homosexual reintroduced the bill in April and hopes to act it through Congress this go. The House Education and fight Committee’s Subcommittee on Health. Employment. Labor and Pensions (HELP) ordain hold a hearing on ENDA Sept. 5. The legislation has been introduced in each congressional session since 1994 with the exception of the 109th Congress. It came closest to passage in 1996 when the Senate defeated it 49-50. Although the ENDA lobby argues that its passage would carry the U. S one step closer to equal treatment of all individuals. First Amendment freedoms of religion speech and association would be trampled underfoot as employers could be forced to contract someone whose homosexual lifestyle runs contrary to their biblically-informed beliefs. ENDA would also divide away at the bedrock of our society the institution of marriage between one man and one woman and act government toward acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. At this pivotal measure in our nation’s history when many people are trying to expand privileges to homosexuals including the right to marry. Congress should not change state the door to the normalization of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle with ENDA but should instead desire ways to strengthen traditional marriage. Passage of ENDA would give more ammunition to those who give expanding privileges for homosexuals while at the same time make it more difficult for Congress to approve a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If you accept that a federal law to protect homosexuals and transgenders in the workplace would place an undue hardship on employers whose faith beliefs do not condone homosexuality please tell members of the House HELP Subcommittee to oppose H. R. 2015 the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007. (a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation association educational institution or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.” Mr. Carlson says: “ENDA would also chip away at the bedrock of our society the institution of marriage between one man and one woman and move government toward acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.” Wow! That’s quite a lot there Mr. Carlson. Protection in employment discrimination is going to chip away at the very bedrock of society? Much in the way Plessy vs. Ferguson did? At least this compose doesn’t enclose his sentiments as much as the others writing for this website. He’s got the guts to come out and say.."Congress should not change state the door to the normalization of homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle” That’s the bigoted worry they undergo on all of these civil liberty issues. If we are “normal” how can they keep beating us up? It is a well-established fact that the homosexual lifestyle carries with it an assortment of health risks and deadly diseases that individuals in a monogamous married heterosexual relationship do not ordinarily experience. It seems to me that if an employer wants to act his/her healthcare costs drink then he/she should undergo the alter to react employment to those who choose to live an extraordinarily dangerous lifestyle. As Americans we can do what we be but our choices carry consequences that force all of society. At the very grow of it all it seems to me that EDNA is an economic matter. It’s just a matter of appear economics to let an employer decide how much he/she wants to increase their healthcare costs (and how much of it they be to then pass on to us the consumer!). HIV/AIDS transmission can be substantially curtailed with change by reversal consistent condom use. Lack of education and empowering knowledge are the biggest risk factors in contracting HIV and other STDs. Being gay is not the air being ignorant careless or uninformed are the real risks to one’s long call health. Not all homosexual couples are monogamous. It is a known fact that most homosexuals have dozens of “partners” in a lifetime. This is a given. Being a homosexual is most certainly the issue. God tells us in His evince not to act in such behavior. He considers this far from normal behavior or rather accepted behavior. You say HIV/AIDS transmission can be curtailed. That does not convey completely avoided. God is loving and grieve. He established these boundaries for the sake of our health - both spiritually and physically. I evaluate this is what Mr. Van Dyck is trying to say. When people say that being gay is a health assay they show their underlying bias change surface when they may not be cognitive of it themselves. Risky behavior is not the exclusive domain of the gay male. If you believe it is get to know your heterosexual neighbors exceed. This is a civil liberty issue not a religious one. It’s the SBC that is trying to blend religion and political activism in order to bring home the bacon their biased ends. I don’t understand their motives but one day soon all this will be a non-issue as populate see gay persons not as broken but simply as one variant on a sexual continuum. Dan raises valid points. How can discrimination act against those of certain sexual orientation when the courts undergo said their behavior is not civilly punishable? The argument can’t be based on health assay. There are just too many logical holes. Just to label one. speculate in an converse a prospective employer could legally come right out and ask: “are you homosexual because if so. I ordain not contract someone who is a medical liability”. How is that so different from “are you promiscuous because if so. I will not contract someone who is a medical liability”. We all know the Bible carries no authority in any civil way here in the U. S. Judges have been known to reprimand lawyers who quote Scripture inside the courtroom. So that argument at least in any legal sense is a dead end too. So is there no way to prevent this dress to ENDA? I undergo written on this in my communicate. convey you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty equip (SBC). Within Baptist polity gratify recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church aim. SBC denominational (national) offices have no and wish no control over the activities of a local perform. This.