“The plot is what it is,” said Rowling according to The Canadian Press news agency. Dumbledore “did have as I say this rather tragic infatuation but that was a key part of the ending of the story so there it is. Why would I put the key part of my ending of my story in Book 1?” There’s not much relationship to imagine lasting only two months (over 100 years ago–remember how old Dumbledore really was) and Grindelwald fleeing after Ariana’s death vanished and then taken down in the infamous duel. It wasn’t the relationship that consumed Dumbledore but his grief over Ariana the bad politics they (D & G) hatched together and Dumbledore’s obsession with the Hallows. Remember it wasn’t the love affair with G that caused D pain by drinking the potion in the cave but his love for Ariana and family. That’s the point of the lesson of Harry seeing his family in the mirror of Erised. And the point of “where your treasure is there shall your heart be also.” Well thank you so much. John and Hog Pros for good insights and helps!! I’m not ready to take Dumbledore off the chocolate frog cards yet! In New York a legally adult woman asked her in a moment steeped in personal honesty and self-exposure if Dumbledore had ever had a true love. Lady Rowling obviously felt she could not give less than an honest and mutually self-exposing reply. That is all that she did. In the answers given in Toronto she specifically states that she did *not* write Dumbledore’s sexuality into the canon of the story. By extension she implies that it does not belong there. She merely reiterates that in order to create a character whose actions would be those of Dumbledore at that critical point in the derivation of the final plot–she was forced to think of him privately as an homosexual. Will you grant me (and by extension Lady Joanne) the supposition that no ethical author can write a major character into a story unless that character fully lives and breathes in the author’s mind? All Lady Rowling has said is that in her mind. Dumbledore could not have done what he did without being gay. No other explanation would suffice in her mind to allow her to visualize this great moral ethical genius of a person doing what he does at that point in the story without becoming aware of what was happening before it was too late. But once the character was formed–once the dog had found his bark–Lady Rowling saw no need to interject this facet into the story itself. In fact the story gains because she allows the reader to explore the Dumbledore living in the reader’s mind to see if they can find another motivation sufficiently likely to account for Dumbledore’s actions. A set of actions described in the very sparsely narrated but highly critical episode occurring in Godric’s Hollow. Frankly at the time I first read that passage. I said to my inner muse. “…by the way he is acting you would think Dumbledore was gay….” then I dismissed the thought and simply went on to evaluate all the other “unnatural relationships” that prevailed at that era (which I speculate on here: ). Lady Rowling has never in any interview asked anyone to modify their vision of the story based on this non-canonic fact. It is we the public who seem to think these interviews make a great deal of difference or have in some way altered the value or nature of the printed text. I concur with you Prof. John the interviews don’t and shouldn’t affect that which has been written…but I must demure at your sub-text that seems to imply that the author is trying in some way to modify what has been published. So far as I can see she has not done so in any fashion. JAB. I didn’t say she cannot have ideas about her characters that she doesn’t share and I haven’t told her to put a lid on it. Ms. Rowling — and calling her Lady Rowling is not complimentary when she hasn’t been knighted or married nobility or use the title herself — is a free woman. This forum though is about Harry Potter as literature and cultural phenomenon. How we read the text consequently is an important issue which includes setting the limits of what constitutes the text. Is it the published Bloomsbury and Scholastic English books themselves? And interviews? And author’s web site notes? And movies? And translations into languages other than the Queen’s English and American equivalents? And author’s back-story piece by piece or in published collection? And uncorrected manuscripts published after her death? Professor Reynolds draws his line as a teacher of Western Canon not the lines drawn by Harry Potter Fandom (canon = texts plus interviews and author’s website). I think we’re seeing why Prof. Reynold’s standard is better than Fandom’s; as evident in Ms. Rowling’s comments in Toronto (if true) we’re being taken a looong way from text and its meaning. We’re not learning more; just the opposite is true. We know for a fact that no one fell in love with these stories and re-read them because of their homosexual content. But that is what we’re talking about something that doesn’t exist in text or throw light on the story’s meaning (if you assert that it does you are obliged to explain why it doesn’t occur in the books). Your argument is that she is not changing the meaning of the books by revealing back story. My point is only that by expanding canon she is intentionally or not modifying the meaning and focus she created by choosing what she would include in text and what she would leave out. That is not creating Too bad the mass media won’t pick this up and run with it:Question: How did you decide Molly would be the one to kill Bellatrix?Answer: Of course Neville had good reasons to want revenge on Bellatrix for his parents’ torture but Rowling always knew it would be Molly who finally disposed of her. She said there were two reasons for this.1) She wanted to show that Molly was a very good witch in her own right who had by necessity been something of a “light under a bushel.” Her skills are considerable but always in the background - magical cooking for example is not easy - and Rowling wanted to communicate the fact that “because a woman dedicated her life to her family” doesn’t mean she lacks impressive abilities and powerful talents.2) She wanted to contrast two kinds of love: Molly’s maternal love for her children which is the core of her life and Bellatrix’s obsessive love for Voldemort. The showdown between these women is a meeting of a battle between these two kinds of love. In this case. Molly’s is the more powerful. In the abstract. I tend to agree with the original post and the tone of most comments in this thread. My personal frustration comes from having just read the first 4 books with my 7 year-old daughter one of the warmest and best experiences we have shared together. JKR’s recent revelation does nothing to affect that experience one way or the other. But it does make me wonder how soon my daughter will hear the news from friends at school and return to me asking questions about topics which I would not have chosen for her to explore at this age or in this context. Such is life and as a parent I know I’ll have to face many such issues and conversations. But I still wish JKR had kept this part of the backstory to herself. I wonder how many kids’ introduction to the topic of homosexuality will be forever connected in their minds with Albus Dumbledore. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe not. I’m still processing it. I’m not on a rampage like some conservative Christians but I’m not able to shrug it off easily as “no big deal” quite yet either. I like hearing all kinds of trivia associated with movie making. I also love to watch deleted scenes - I watch them free of commentary and also with director’s commentaries. Why? Because it helps me to understand how other people’s creative minds work. There are a few questions I have for Jo that I don’t know that she will ever be asked but I would like answered. I would like to know whatever happened to Barty Crouch. Jr.’s soul less body at the end of Goblet of Fire. Did he get put in some long term care wing at St. Mungo’s? I mean what happens to you once your soul is removed from your body? Thank you (all of you) for your illuminating posts. As I suspected now that she has revealed it. Rowling is being pressed with additional queries about Dumbledore’s homosexuality. Each new statement she makes will either clarify or further confuse the issue. But on the literary issue of interpreting the text as it stands (the final form of the text) as opposed to the text’s “afterlife”: CHRYSTYAN has urged in a couple of posts that we reread the actual sections of HPDH that cover the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship to see what that material in fact says about that relationship. I must agree with CHRYSTYAN that the text itself yields nothing to support directly the idea that Dumbledore was sexually or romantically attracted to Grindelwald. Put briefly in the story the two characters both young and precociously brilliant are drawn to one another owing to a shared passion for magical learning. Dumbledore who is lonely discontented and resentful because of the tragic circumstances that compelled him to give up his vocation to care for his sister is seduced by Grindelwald’s revolutionary ideas and his own youthful hubris and lust for power. Nothing here suggests a love relationship. Particularly in the King’s Cross sequence. Rowling who has Dumbledore say there shall no longer be any secrets between himself and Harry had opportunity to reveal how Dumbledore’s romantic love (or as she recently declared his “infatuation”) for Grindelwald was the real reason he deceived himself about Grindelwald’s motives in his youth and for his reluctance to confront him in battle in later life. But Rowling chose not to include this information or develop that aspect of Dumbledore’s character. In effect then in the story itself that aspect does not exist since Rowling never specifically surfaced it. Rowling claimed that she had “always” viewed Dumbledore as gay. In her recent comments she clarifies this by saying that she decided this about the character “early on,” and says of Dumbledore’s “tragic infatuation” with Grindelwald. “Why would I put a key part of my ending in book 1?” Again she here implies that Dumbledore’s homosexuality figured as a resource for developing the character and plotting her story as early as during her writing of the first book in the series. But is Dumbledore’s “infatuation” or love for Grindelwald really a “key part of her ending” when the work itself tells us nothing at all of how this “infatuation” motivated his actions? I find her comments very strange. Given the actual final form of the narrative. I fail to see how in the story itself. Dumbledore’s actions were motivated by romantic love for Grindelwald. On the face of it this new aspect of Dumbledore’s character and how it figures into the story almost seems to be an ex post facto revising or retconning of the actual story of Dumbledore and Grindelwald as told in book seven. But her public statement about Dumbledore’s sexual orientation is overwhelming the actual story as written. The text in short is being lost in the hubbub. That’s understandable. Her statement was so shocking and deals with such a contentious social issue that it is being manipulated by cultural forces for its political value. She might as well have said that Hermione spent her post-Hogwarts career as a pro-life advocate. I have always wondered when in time Dumbledore had acquired Fawkes the phoenix. Dumbledore lived a long life made a lot of mistakes and because he was clever made even huger including admitted selfishness seeking power and glory through wrong choices the wrong sort and pursuit of Hallows. He suffered severe consequences heartache and loss of family. But I believe the phoenix took up residence with Dumbledore when he expressed remorse received forgiveness and comfort for the guilt and shame of his past How do I know this? Because the Phoenix carries immensely heavy loads his tears have healing powers and when he is about to die bursts into flame and rises from the ashes. To me Fawkes represents a visible sign of the Holy Spirit assisting and comforting the believer. “Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.” When we come to Christ we find forgiveness strength and protection through his sacrificial death burial and resurrection. We have to die daily to the old nature–the invisible horcrux the scar we carry as the Adversary brings temptation and doubts to our mind. JKR gave Dumbledore serious flaws very serious perhaps to show that he definitely changed and sought forgiveness–especially and significantly in the King’s Cross chapter with Harry. Sifting through the ashes of his Headmaster’s life coupled with the gossip and lies of the media in Book 7 brought Harry disillusionment; but Hermione insisted—he changed. Harry he changed! I know that’s true. We know Dumbledore by the fruits of the spirit: love joy meekness long-suffering gentleness goodness faith self-control and ultimately peace. (Harry in heaven had never seen him so content!) Dumbledore gave people second chances fought evil advocated for the oppressed exhibited humility gained respect and sacrificed his life. We know others saw the new man in Dumbledore and we saw it too and loved him for it–through the loyalty of the OOTP. Dumbledore’s Army. Neville’s Gran phoenix song and by Lily Potter’s letter: “I don’t see how Dumbledore ever could have been friends with Gellert Grindelwald.” RM: Absolutely spot on. Rowling’s comments in Toronto are utterly baffling. What does she means. Why would she reveals something in Book 1 that was so crucial to the end? At what point in the actual text of Book 7 apart from Ms. Rowling’s recent interpretive comments did Dumbledore’s being gay factor heavily into the plot? Who the hell came away from Book 7 saying. “Oh now we know what Dumbledore’s failure was…he had been in love with Grindewald!” ? This information was never crucial to the plot from book 1 to book 7. She seems now to be defending herself from all sides by saying. “This was the plot it’s written now deal with it.” But it was never the plot at all. I just wrote this over at SoG which is talking about the same thing at the moment under Dave’s essay: Considering that Prof. Jacobs teaches at Wheaton College. I am shocked and dumbfounded that he is dumbfounded that people have been shocked by Ms. Rowling’s announcement. At least half the jollies of culture war bickering is being shocked and dumbfounded by the Right’s crimes and the Left’s immorality right? What would be shocking is no one renting their garments in the Public Square over the revealed sexual preferences of a fictional character…. As Wheaton exists to shape students to be leaders in this contest for hearts and minds as well as for their salvation. Prof. Jacobs’ comment has the effect of the Vichy officer in Casablanca played by Claude Reins who was “shocked simply shocked” to discover there was gambling going on at Rick’s. Being shocked and dumbfounded is a culture war reflex that the MSM plays to. Thank you for that link! Not many surprises or revelations from context but I did enjoy seeing the environment of the Q&A (an award presentation for her insisting on Ancient Forest friendly paper) and the sequence and tenor of the exchanges with the reporters. She makes the one comment about “brave and brilliant men” and follows it with what seems to be a blushing mention of how she knew it was a positive thing. I wondered if she wasn’t blushing because if she was joking she seems to have realized mid-joke that she was going to be misunderstood. The most interesting bit was the end. The carefully organized event which featured reporters (and were they reporters or fans?) being called by name to stand and ask questions closed with rather a testy exchange between a woman that seemed annoyed and disappointed that Dumbledore hadn’t been outed earlier in text and Ms. Rowling who looked as if she were talking to Rita Skeeter live. Anyone who believes that Ms. Rowling is a publicity hound and Gilderoy Lockhart hasn’t seen this tape. She looks pained uncomfortable and as if she is doing all she can to smile and be polite. Her dismissal of one Dumbledore question as one she had already answered showed the crack and the walk off after saying. “if you were an author you’d know you save the ending for the end” revealed what looked like impatience just a step short of disdain. First. I’m annoyed at Rowling for her revelation. It wasn’t necessary (other answers as previously stated could have done) and it only served to stir up a lot of people over basically a nonimportant plot point not even dealt with in the books. The gay factor is now the primary focus when so many other things are so much more important. Everyone is getting lathered up over a minor detail because that’s what we do and relishing embracing or decrying Rowling and the books according to belief or agenda. What a waste of time when it’s the books that hold so much richness to explore. Second. I find it interesting that Rowling “thought” DD was gay. This reminds me of interviews in which novelists discuss how their characters become so real to them and actually get rather bossy i e.. “I can’t do a thing with her she simply wants to do/be/say this.” So could it be Jo percieved DD was gay because it fit his behavior? I know this sounds like splitting hairs but still… Third. Jo never said D/G had an actual consumated affair. She said D’s love was unrequited. This sounds like a one-sided infatuation the kind experienced by a lot of teens who become infatuated with others of either sex due to admiration desire to be like/with them identified with them catch some of their star power etc. I must say that I’m glad this discussion has moved in the direction of literary criticism rather than accepting the premise that the Harry Potter books must now be viewed through the prism of the Culture Wars. It’s rather surprising to hear a postmodern author such as J. K. Rowling claim that a character is “hers” to define and explain after the fact. Perhaps she should reread a little piece by Roland Barthes entitled “Death of the Author.” No doubt she studied this essay during her French Lit days at Exeter. Barthes’ goal is to “do away with” the author and “give birth” to the reader as the final arbiter of the meaning of the text. Literary meaning for Barthes exists in the unique relationship between each individual reader and the text. The political and cultural views of the author as well as details about the author’s creative process are not relevant; in fact they do not exist unless they are perceived by the reader. I was never a big fan of Barthes when I was in college but lately I seem to be growing in my appreciation of his theories. . First of all. I cannot believe that I have not seen a single reference to the fact that as a classicist. Rowling would have been more than familiar with the Greek ideal of mentor-tutor (the lover and the beloved) relationship. This relationship was not always sexual though it still carries the term “pederasty,” a word which only holds negative connotations for us today–though it was not always so clear cut. Harry and Dumbledore’s relationship have all the traits of a Platonic relationship: chaste educational protective transformative. We forget that Socrates himself was a pederast (in the chaste sense of the word– remember his spurning of Alcibiades’ advances spoken of in “The Symposium”?). There is no one so like Socrates to me than Dumbledore. And Socrates lest we forget was “gay” (though we can’t really use that word because according to Foucault the concept of homo- and hetero- sexualities were not birthed until much later–there was simply “sexuality”). For a quick though not necessarily authoritative portrait into the complexities of this issue please see: I would most particularly point out the section on “Religious aspects,” especially this quote: “Mythographic material suggests that the initiate experienced ecstatic states of spirit journey leading to mystic death and transfiguration analogous to practices still reported today in shamanic work.” [e g. alchemical work] But it is apparent that it is causing other controversies. I would also like to say that the revelation that Dumbledore is “gay” is totally revealing not of the character in a book but of the character of our Christianity. I was a bit hesitant at first when my school sponsored a free t-shirt giveaway for the “Gay? Fine by Me” campaign. I was afraid not only being a Southern Baptist preacher’s son of some note in my small city but as a now-regularly-practicing Catholic. I was also afraid of taking sides which may cause any of my students in the university to stumble in their faith beliefs. However. I went to the photo shoot and was amazed to see how many of the Christian leaders of our university young and old were there with their shirts on. I was ministered to by their courage to stick up for what they believed. Since then I have on occasion worn the shirt with the very large Benedictine crucifix that I received after some time in a monastery. So here the post-modern young Christian: “Gay? Fine by Me.” and the broken body of Our Lord. On these occasions I have received multiple comments on “how cool” it is to have such a witness–to be supportive of homosexuality and Christian witnessing by not being bigoted. Imagine that. I think this is because the young people in their struggle with sexual mores but in great social concern sense something profoundly different in the Christian message. Please see this article: Specifically: “Bolduc said the young Catholic students he studied are steeped in a national culture that often regards the Catholic sexual prohibitions against premarital sex artificial birth control abortion divorce women priests and homosexual behavior as anachronistic. ‘They live their lives squarely in the midst of the tension between individualism and the common good and sometimes feel the tensions between the two extremes. It’s difficult to get them to be critical of the individualism that seems as natural as the air they breathe,’ Bolduc said.” But here is a great summary of the positives and negatives: “Reported in the March 9. 2007 issue of the National Catholic Reporter two longitudinal studies of U. S. Catholics ’show differences among Catholics that are not merely reflective of age and stage in the life cycle but mirror changes in both the societal culture and the Church itself.’ The study. “The Bookend Generations,” was co-authored by William D’Antonio and Vincent Bolduc. They express concern that the younger generations do not give the church and sacraments a central place and fear that this is a trend that is likely to continue through their lives. They are also more likely than previous generations to find the moral good in living the church’s social teachings. According to Bolduc. ‘Without a major transformation in the relationship between laity and church leaders there is little in these studies to lead grandparents to expect their grandchildren to be joining them at Mass every Sunday.’” from As to Harry Potter having many gay friends and mentors it seemed quite clear to me that Dumbledore’s infatuation with Grindelwald was not only apparent but written very well and that everyone is finding themselves caught in a huge blind spot a blind spot that some people are examining others are denying and others are confused about. I myself suspected something very strongly in Book 7 but again one has to be aware of such things. The question really seems to be: How can I as Christian still look up to a beloved character who is not what we took him to be? And subsequently how do I as Christian treat other real life situations this way. I think the inability to deal with the former reveals a terrible inability to deal with the latter (and vice-versa). It seems to me that so many of the Christian apologists are trying to digest some sort of argument while the rest of us post-modern young folk are simply saying. “What’s the big deal?” As you always say. John we should be asking why these stories effect us? Now should we not truly be examining the prejudices of the metanarrative that Christianity presents: that to be gay is not to be Christian and that to be Christian is not to allow homosexuality? For a post-modern understanding this problem presupposes 1,500 years of dualism–and as post-moderns are returning to a holistic understanding of the body as a piece ofGod’s immanence the metanarrative of anti-homosexuality is one of the main targets because many simply feel in our intuitive bodily knowledge that this is simply wrong. For many the Bible’s language has been translated incorrectly or is no longer valid (like the majority of Levitical law). For many others raised in a more modern framework the struggle simply is whether being homosexual is inherently right or wrong a presupposition which then paints the rest of the “can Dumbledore be gay?” confusion. And it is a confusion–I sense it in many posts here and elsewhere. To me as many the phrase “Neither male nor female. Greek nor Jew” also means “gay or straight”. If you read the plethora posts on Mugglenet one gets the sense that the hoo-hah is being propagated by those over the age of 30. Homosexuality is both a target for the poor state of our theology of the body (hetero- or homo-) and the gay community a Samaritan pariah created as a projection for our inability to deal with our own Puritanical upbringing. American Christianity as a whole has a terrible outlook on the body in general. No one ever asks the question. “Why is homosexuality wrong?” The Taoists who I think have undertaken one of the most comprehensive studies of sexuality and sexual energies have a great alchemical answer but without the moralization which leads to judgment something which Our Lord warned about on countless occasions. But no one seems to look into that–they rely on Biblical literalism when convenient. Though I am not yet married. I do sympathize with those having to explain to their children what this is all about. There is an appropriate time for everything. But I think we should be reticent to confuse our own cultural embarrassment and shame about sexuality and explaining it to our children with homosexuality in the world. If my niece ever asks me. I will have to consult my sister. But I would ask simply to say: “God loves everyone and if you understand that you will not live your life presumptuously doing what you want nor will you live in constant fear.” Thank goodness for Brennan Manning and others for pointing this out to us. Sexual issues are all part of a piece but for some one of those pieces is something terrible. I personally think it should be more awkward explaining why mommy and daddy have such a nice house while little boys and girls around the world don’t have clothes to wear or food to eat or houses to live in. But I am inculcated into the post-modern world… and feel successful in navigating in it which is obviously very difficult for very many people otherwise there would not be major news stories about a fictional character. It is the collision of the Classical. Modern and Post-Modern realities. So to many it’s pretty simple: they can still be Christian allegories with a gay character. Anyone that cannot be “sold” this is already stuck in a frame of mind and so we need to focus our energy away from an “apologetic” and stop wasting our time. In giving people like Fred Phelps a counter-argument we are only giving him more power. I thought that Harry taught us to die from our agendas especially ones that were so superficial like Rita Skeeter; strangely. Jesus said the same thing but I guess they killed him for it. For ourselves simultaneously whining about the “gay character” agenda in the media is a far cry from being tortured and beaten like the early Christians–it presupposes as all of this does a freedom to take ourselves way to seriously and too much leisure time as a society: you know there are people who still die from starvation everyday and we are worrying about a FAKE person’s outing and how that effects our argument for a “Christian allegory”. To be caught in the political (in the full sense of the word) game is to give power to it. The rest of us should simply read the stories and be transformed by them and allow them to transform others. And ministers like Jay Bakker are doing just that and claiming that everyone is a participant in the transformation–not from queerdom but in humandom and humandom alone. God loves our bodies our sexualities. It is a love which transforms them. I thought Harry taught us to embrace trials and taunts and become the Philosopher’s Stone; oh right. Jesus did too. As to the article about “Dumbledore is NOT gay”–this is preposterous. The author who creates the world reveals it. She can even change them in reprints of the books as far as I am concerned. Tolkien did it with “The Hobbit” and no one complained about it–because we weren’t quite so selfish then so needy for story that we cling to “our” version of it. Our “the story is MY story” revealed itself in Lucas’ decision to change “Star Wars” and now in Ms. Rowling’s revelations about her world. This “my right to read” which is far and beyond the Christian way of selfless behavior. And since the story came from the infinite well-spring of eternal myth and infinite grace (or we wouldn’t be connecting to it so strongly; evil is never a connector) it belongs to that space in which we are a part. This “my story” attitude speaks more about how little spiritual reality we as a race currently have that we need to cling to our fictions so strongly–this sort of secular infiltration is much more egregious than loving gay people for who they even in their sexual practices. It also speaks as to how thoroughly our religions are failing us — because as Nietzsche pointed out we hold to the veracity of myth without the ability to let them continue to change and develop to fit the times. This for him and for me is the symptom of the death of a religion. Arguing that there is a “canon” for Harry Potter is the same mindset as a fundamentalist reading of the Bible. We have failed to make the stories alive again–or have let our institutions squash them down to rubrics–and so we are all missing the connecting point; Rowling’s success around the world proves this: we need connection. And so as a post-modern. I use one of the world’s greatest atheists to defend what I consider to be the world’s greatest message the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the myths that are written after His example of which Harry Potter is the post-modern exemplar. I echo the aforementioned study: yes. Christianity is dying but not because we don’t go to Mass every Sunday–the young are seeing a new and different way: how to love literally and again and to seek connection (there is a reason that Facebook and MySpace are thriving). The fact is is that Rowling speaks “our” language and the adults need to learn to be receptive to it–or we wouldn’t be so blind-sided by this. And we really need to hear the message and really deep down want to or we wouldn’t be arguing about a story so veraciously or love Harry Potter so much. For us it is simply “sexuality”–which is powerful and transformative if undertaken with wisdom–but never shameful or dirty and that is difficult for many raised under a different meta-narrative to understand. To not allow Dumbledore’s pederastic life is to be caught in the same literalism as Phelps the same literalism that we would criticize and even fight against in claiming Harry to be our literary ALLEGORY (NOT CANON). To claim that is “now our story” is to be trapped in the same literalism which heralds the death toll of our faith instead of letting it have its own room to change and grow without secular selfishness–especially as the Author would deem it. I agree that Jo was asked questions and tried to answer them but she did not have to answer them the way she did where she did when she did. She’s trying to micromanage how readers interpret her work which is ridiculous. Should I be sorry that not everyone who read her books is not seeing things the way she saw them in her head? No! because that’s her fault. It’s the fault of the execution not the interpretation. Incidentally the “DD is gay” thing has now now only turned the Lexicon a previously respectful site into a convoluted mess it’s causing HarryPotterforGrownUps to start issuing warnings to fans about how they may or may not discuss this information too. They are saying: and since there isn’t that much canon to discuss it is practically a forbidden topic. And not talking about this is not going to help any list get past it. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Thank you all here for having enough sense to see that. I’m immensely proud of you all! This is one of very few sites that hasn’t had to shut down at least once to issue a new edition of the rules to suit the situation. One other interesting comment about his relationship to his work that does seem to relate to how we now view Rowling and HP (the difference being of course that Tolkien did not change details about the characters but added to the infomation about Middle Earth and the way things worked there): “I hope that those who have read “The Lord of the Rings” with pleasure will not think me ungrateful: to please readers was my main object and to be assured of this has been a great reward. Nonetheless for all its defects of omission and inclusion it was the product of long labour and like a simple-minded hobbit I feel that it is while I am still alive my property in justice unaffected by copyright laws.” That last bit gets close to the heart of what we are discussing. The difference is that he didn’t have the inundation from the internet or the media events that Rowling has had to handle. Perhaps if he had he would have succumbed to the same temptation which she has–that of actually answering all those questions that readers say they want answered. Getting a question face to face is different than getting the same question in a letter. It is rare that I post online but I have been following the commentary on the subject of Dumbledore’s coming out and I would like to add my take on the whole thing. Please be kind as this is not something I do and will likely err in procedure but hope the gist of my thinking prevails. I appreciate this site and the work that Mr. Granger has done very much. What I learned from reading Mr. Granger’s book Looking for God in Harry Potter and other books on literature analysis is that good literature written primarily for children is rarely exclusively “children’s” literature. However there are books that many would consider exclusively adult because of there content. The Harry Potter Books are primarily “children’s” books which are written well enough and are rich enough with the familiar hero’s journey to fascinate and entertain adults as well. They do not contain content that most parents would consider inappropriate for their young children (this might not be said of the film versions). They are children’s books but not exclusively children’s books. This is obvious from their popularity amongst all ages. So the question of why didn’t the author include certain details about the sexual orientation she envisioned for a particular character in a book she meant to be read by children seems obvious. As this was to be a children’s book the subject of sexuality hetero- or homo- really had no place and would have certainly been a big issue with responsible parents. I was troubled when I heard from a coworker (who was very amused by the story) that J. K. Rowling declared that Dumbledore was gay. I value the books firstly as children’s books. So now they have brought sex into the books. A real let down! I do not think however that Ms. Rowling intended to reveal this news or any other specific detail unless she was asked about that detail. To her the idea of a person with a same sex attraction to another person was not such a big deal so envisioning a character she created with that particular characteristic was natural and to be expected. It is simply how she saw the character to get him where he needed to be at the end of the story. Although she considered him so she did not present Dumbledore as obviously gay throughout the book because his sexual orientation was not important throughout the book nor was it appropriate in a book she meant to be read by children. There were other characters in the series that became attracted to each other and love and falling in love was important to the message presented but sex and sexuality was not. My impression of her statements concerning the development of the character and plot ending is that in order for Dumbledore a brilliant young wizard to be caught up in an obviously questionable friendship\relationship with Grindelwald he would need to be blinded to his dark side. To be that oblivious to the dark path he was traveling Rowling felt that Dumbledore would need to be in love (Eros) with Grindelwald. In his book. The Four Loves. Lewis writes: “Now Eros makes a man really want not a woman but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself not the pleasure she can give.” Also. Pulled from It must be noted states Lewis that just as Lucifer—a former archangel—perverted himself by pride and fell into depravity so too can love—commonly held to be the arch-emotion—become corrupt by presuming itself to be what it is not (”love begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god”). Eros is not about the desire for sexual pleasure but the desire for one particular individual. If we can allow for Lewis’ description of Eros to be non-gender specific I can see a situation where two potentially great and extreamly intellegent young men (Dumbledore and Grindelwald) seeing themselves as intellecual equals become friends. Dumbledore capable of great love and devotion as we know is thrilled at finding an intellectual equal and someone to share ideas becomes infactuated with Grindelwald. This infactuation leads to a true desire for the individual (Eros) and ultimatly leading to his blind devotion of Grindelwald. This blind devotion is the elevation of the love to a god status and ultamately the demon that ends the relationship. The tragedy is the dark road traveled loosing focus of the really important things (Dumbledore’s brother and sister) and ultamately the death of Ariana. as far as Lord of the Rings. I think the appendices included in Return of the King were there at the start to tie up loose ends– there were so many parts of the story that simply couldn’t make it into the volume that really belonged there. Rowling managed to fill in the information better throughout the series so she didn’t need an appendices. The Silmarillion is the result of folks wanting to know more of the Middle Earth backstory and it’s really… I had to translate Cicero’s Pro Caelio in 11th grade and even with that experience I put Silmarillion down on page 2. In short the results of pressure for more info were not pretty. Even the mult-volume History of Middle Earth was never intended to be published– it was JRRT’s personal notes on backstory and the whole history of that world and it’s only that his son is editing it into something readable that it’s being published but it’s hardly something of joy to read like LotR. I have to say. I think it’s a bit silly to try to separate author and work. Without an author there is no work and without the work that person is not an author. We can and should engage the work critically (JKR supports this– the theme is all over the series) and we can agree with some things and not with others. Looking back my shock was that she announced it more than that it was true (Josh is right– the evidence is rather clear though thankfully understated). I don’t have to agree with her on everything to love the books still. One of my favorite plays is Our Town by Thornton Wilder. He was a homosexual and he wrote a truly beautiful meaningful play. Does the fact that he’s gay make it any less beautiful or meaningful? Of course not. Just as the fact that Jo Rowling and I don’t agree on everything (likely many things- human beings differ from each other) doesn’t change that she has something worth saying. Josh and I chatted a bit yesterday about the whole thing and I’d really like to raise up again something he mentioned in a beautiful post about story in the other topic. We’ve read these books and taken these stories into us– I don’t know if anyone else feels like this but I feel like everything I’ve read has become part of who I am. I catch a few moments of a sitcom where someone’s trying to cover something up and I don’t laugh that much because well shouldn’t they have known better? I learned all those little sticky issues people try to cover up are better handled honestly from literature– what if Desdemona had simply said. “Yes. I did lose the hankerchief. I haven’t seen it since I tried to bind your forehead,” or Othello. “Iago says you have been unfaithful to me. Is this true?” Othello was only a tragedy because they didn’t say those things. Literature can teach us if we let it. Dumbledore being gay has ultimately nothing to do with Rowling’s powerful message about good and evil moral courage and truth. Ultimately her personal opinions whether I agree with them or not can’t really add or detract from the books. I love the books and their message. A difference of opinion? I’m okay with that. I’d just like to comment on Josh’s (Knuckles) youthful post-modern. Nietzscheism thread since no one has so far. As someone who is 45. I guess you can lump me in with the over 30 crowd you mentioned but I don’t think most of us who have commented have too big a problem with Dumbledore being gay. Our concerns lie with media spinning this revelation into far more than it really is. But first Josh you had stated that no one asks why homosexuality is wrong. If you look to the faith you have adopted you will find that your church has both asked and answered this question. Pope Jean Paul II has explained beautifully in his talks on the theology of the body why homosexual acts contraception masturbation and pre and extramarital sex among other behaviors are contrary to God’s plan regarding our relationships with each other and with God. Despite the condemnation of homosexual acts however the church does not condemn those with homosexual orientation. As I mentioned previously we are all members of the body of Christ but are called to be chaste according to our station in life (e g single persons married ordained etc.). Even within marriage expressions of physical sexuality can be sinfull if rooted primarily in lust rather than the unifying and procreative functions of marriage. That young people should consider that the church has lost relevance for them because of these ideals says more about the problem with the ideas of young people than it does about problems with the church. What relevance could any church possibly have if it simply drifted with society’s mores? Upside-down is the notion that the church should be a reflection of society. Our job as Christians is to make society a reflection of the church! I’ll paraphrase some of Chesterton’s criticism of Nietzsche’s idea that the church should adapt its ideals to fit the times. He said “that progress should be evidence that we are nearing the New Jerusalem. What we find in our modern world though is that the New Jerusalem is continually walking away from us! We are not making progress toward our ideals we’re simply changing our ideals. Its easier!” What did Dumbledore say about choosing between what is right and what is easy? I don’t think why many of us here have expressed disappointment with Rowling’s revelation about Dumbledore’s sexuality is because we have a problem with homosexuality. The books as written are just as edifying now as they were before this revelation. The disappointment lies in the fact that in a secular world of drifting ideals a remarkably written story that dares to realign with some fundamental unshifting Christian ideals is dragged back into misalignment by the media hijacking of character backstory that has little relevance to the story itself. We’re upset because a story we love is tainted by the use of “facts” that are not even in the story to drive an agenda. Whether the author has an agenda or not is not at the moment as relevant as how an agenda has been created by the media. If we saw analyses like Dave G.’s above in the the papers and on TV there would be little to be upset over. But alas that is far from what it is we do see in the papers and on TV. You make an important point. Nzie with “I feel like everything I’ve read has become part of who I am. I catch a few moments of a sitcom where someone’s trying to cover something up and I don’t laugh that much because well shouldn’t they have known better? I learned all those little sticky issues people try to cover up are better handled honestly from literature …Literature can teach us if we let it.” Literature forms our views of life and the world takes us intimately to other places and times in a way film cannot. Children who learn to negotiate the world through TV and movies are more likely to be handicapped when it comes to ploughing through deep issues. TV/films take shortcuts excising the introspection of characters that help them learn make decisions develop interpersonal skills and work through consequences and thorny issues. TV mostly jumps from from A-M-T-Z. In books we find the whole alphabet. Not what he pleases but what he can. If he be a true man he will imagine true things; what matter whether I meant the or not? They are there none the less that I cannot claim putting them there.”–Professor John Mark Reynolds from “Taking Stories More Seriously Than the Author”; (The quote is from author George MacDonald) I loved reading this paragraph from Professor Reynolds’ interview and the fact that he chose this particular quote of Macdonald’s. It’s reassuring to know that there are members of the Educational Establishment who recognize the right and responsibility of any reader to interact with the writer according to his/her personal milieu (as opposed to uncritically accepting a professor’s or other “expert’s” opinion). The idea cross-references very neatly to the art world as well and I always enjoy recognizing ties between areas of learning. Finding out “not what he pleases but what he can” is an idea that pops up again and again during my tours with schoolchildren at the Orlando Museum of Art particularly with regard to contemporary art. “But what did the artist MEAN?” (or as the middle and high schoolers moan. “Does every piece of art have to MEAN something?”) And my reply is along the lines of “What does it mean to you?” or “It may mean something to the artist but it can mean something entirely different to you. Why do you think that might be?” And that of course opens the door to a lot of discussion about the “world of experience” each child brings to the museum with her/him that a work of art will trigger a response from each of them and that each response will be DIFFERENT. Best of all each response is valid whether the artist “meant” it or not. This individual validity of personal response is the wonder of both great art and great writing.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

homosexual orientation bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

homosexual orientation 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

While researching the issue of gay marriage I undergo read many interesting articles. Some of the articles were written by people who are for gay marriage and some were written by people who are against gay marriage. While arguing my position of being for gay marriage I have also taken into be the positions of others. This communicate was in fact a project for my current English class and throughout this project my opinion about gay marriage has been influenced by many articles that I have read. At the beginning of this project I was for gay marriage and wanted to discover all the different binary issues associated with gay marriage. I have open a few articles that I would like to share. These articles helped me end my fate and caused me to feel very strong about the legalization of gay marriage! Many Americans undergo "traditional" views about realtionships families and sexuality or are just plain ignorant about those with different views. America considers itself a "melting pot" and "the land of the free..." but yet still has laws against homosexual marriage. With this blog I intend to communicate readers that homosexuals are PEOPLE that live work and are productive citizens but yet are refused a marriage. In this communicate I will express my strong opinions of the rights that homosexuals should have! Being that it is 2007 and there are still laws against same sex marriage shows that America does not put the wellbeing and concerns of their citizens first. I would greatly acknowledge if you would connect me for this wonderful experience of revealing the "TRUTH" about your America your "land of the free.." your "land of opportunity" but yet arrive of "unequal marriage rights". Throughout this journey I ordain reveal and express my MANY opinions on what I believe should be and will greatly evaluate any opinions comments or concerns. convey you for your intrest and enjoy the blogs. And again. HOMOSEXUALS MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED!

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

While researching the issue of gay marriage I have read many interesting articles. Some of the articles were written by people who are for gay marriage and some were written by people who are against gay marriage. While arguing my position of being for gay marriage I have also taken into account the positions of others. This blog was in fact a project for my current English class and throughout this project my opinion about gay marriage has been influenced by many articles that I have read. At the beginning of this project I was for gay marriage and wanted to sight all the different binary issues associated with gay marriage. I have open a few articles that I would like to share. These articles helped me decide my ordain and caused me to feel very strong about the legalization of gay marriage! Many Americans undergo "traditional" views about realtionships families and sexuality or are just plain ignorant about those with different views. America considers itself a "melting pot" and "the land of the remove..." but yet still has laws against homosexual marriage. With this blog I plan to inform readers that homosexuals are PEOPLE that be bring home the bacon and are productive citizens but yet are refused a marriage. In this communicate I will express my strong opinions of the rights that homosexuals should have! Being that it is 2007 and there are still laws against same sex marriage shows that America does not put the wellbeing and concerns of their citizens first. I would greatly appreciate if you would join me for this wonderful experience of revealing the "TRUTH" about your America your "arrive of the free.." your "land of opportunity" but yet land of "unequal marriage rights". Throughout this jaunt I will reveal and tell my MANY opinions on what I believe should be and will greatly accept any opinions comments or concerns. Thank you for your intrest and enjoy the blogs. And again. HOMOSEXUALS MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED!

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Supporters of the homosexual movement undergo long attempted to tie themselves to the civil rights movement. It's a strong argument to associate sexual orientation with gender or alter. The argument is that a person can't choose his or her sexual orientation just like they can't choose their go or gender. They bring home the bacon this angle with great energy. If homosexuality is a genetic compulsion that individuals cannot elude then how can we ask anyone with this "gene" to act in any other behavior? The problem with this thinking is that it reduces humanity to the aim of animals. It's the gay equivelant of a husband saying to his wife. "Babe. I slept with my secretary because she's a good-looking woman. As a man. I just couldn't resist the urge. Get over it." As a husband. I understand that I'll sometimes sight women other than my wife attractive. But this attraction ingrained deep into me at creation does not confirm any adulterous behavior. Why? Because as a thinking human being. I'm more responsible for my behavior choices than the animals with nothing but instinct to rely upon. Is it possible for someone to dress his or her sexual orientation – for a heterosexual to become homosexual or a homosexual to become heterosexual?No published scientific bear witness supports the effectiveness or viability of programs designed to change the sexual orientation of a person (called “reparative therapy” or “conversion” therapy). Reparative therapy attempts to dress behavior not sexual orientation. It is agreed by all even reparative programs that it has not been possible to change the direction of a persons sexual and emotional attractions. The only thing that can be changed is one’s behavior. The American Psychiatric Association strictly opposes any psychiatric treatment such as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disturb and that he or she should dress his/her homosexual orientation. O'Mara is half alter. change surface Focus on the Family's own ministry agrees that some homosexual urges may never dress. Do you accept homosexuality is a choice?We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions. We concur with the American Psychological Association’s lay that homosexuality is likely developmental in nature and caused by a “complex interaction of environmental cognitive and biological factors” (). We would also agree with the American Psychiatric Association when it states “some populate believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” If you ever hear us use the evince “choice,” it is in relation to men and women who assay with unwanted same-sex attractions choosing to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions. In the end. Love Won Out is alter to argue that humans undergo a choice. Despite our urges and imperfections we can choose to make alter decisions. As humans we are accountable for our choices despite emotional and/or physical compulsions that may lead us down do by paths. Ironically it also undermines the dignity of these human persons-- by implicitly asserting that they cannot exercise choice. Like evolution/creation (another hot button which is hotter than it need be) we're better off with slightly more complex but far clearer language. We all have tendencies to do X. Y and Z. But we then alter choices within those contexts. You know folks for starters you ought to stop once and for all stop making consistent grammatical/logical errors when you keep saying "homosexuality" as in "the sin of homosexuality" instead of differentiating between "homosexuality" and "homosexual activity" or "homosexual behavior". When you disappoint to distinguish the two you come across as believing that the "tendency" itself is sinful and an evil unto itself. Doesn't that work against your "love the sinner but dislike the sin" approach? Wow. Its really cut and dried for some of you huh? Lets act "urges" and "impulses" out of the equation for a minute and talk about love. Kurt what if Kristin had been married before you met her but you fell in love with her and married her. The bible says that would be considered adultry since she was married before. Would you seek counseling to prevent the advise to be with her? Does Focus on the Family undergo a assort that reaches out to divorcees to prevent them from engaging in behavior (re-marrying) that is sinful? To clarify things a bit: the Bible allows for break in certain circumstances and then does not redefine remarriage as adultery in those circumstances. But to get to the nut of your challenge: churches and para-church ministries focused on marriage (especially in the public arena) should broach (appropriately and aggressively) with the divorce/remarriage air. Kevin and Friendly Critic: I am sorry but I am not a beat measure blogger nor an employee of IFI. So I don't always get to say every challenge. Kevin: The say is that sex is not simply something an individual does because of feelings of love. There are boundaries set by God. If Kristen was in fact married before she met me she should stay married and I should be away. I am to recognise the commitment of marriage- despite my feelings. That's why Kristen and I drop in our marriage. Because over measure like "feelings" can divide. It's easy to get focused on work or other matters and drop to grade our marriage. Your sentiments are largely responsible for the high divorce rates in this country. When we no longer determine the marriage commitment and instead determine only love "feelings" we've reduced marriage only to a temporary arrangement. An arrangement that lasts only as desire as I'm no longer bored.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The nation's largest gay rights group joined in criticism of Barack Obama for a campaign concert series that will include a gospel singer who has made controversial statements about homosexuality. Joe Solmonese president of the Human Rights Campaign said in that he spoke with Obama on Wednesday to ask Obama to drop the Rev. Donnie McClurkin from the concert journey and express "our community's disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with" the singer who argues that homosexuality is a choice. The Obama race sought to defuse the controversy by announcing late Wednesday that it had added an openly gay pastor to the lineup on Sunday the same concert that features McClurkin. McClurkin a Pentecostal minister has said he has "overcome" a homosexual orientation by turning to God. He has attributed his orientation to sexual abuse by two male relatives during his childhood. In this week. McClurkin said that gay activists who have campaigned against his appearance are distorting his views. " There’s no advertise for curing it or to convert everyone. This is just for those who come to me and ask for change," McClurkin said in the interview. Solmonese said he thanked Obama for adding an openly gay minister to the contrive program. But Solmonese said in his statement that "There is no gospel in Donnie McClurkin's message for gay lesbian bisexual and transgender populate and their allies. That's a communicate that certainly doesn't belong on any Presidential candidate's stage." I'm gay. I'm not the president of a human rights assort and I support Barack. I think these groups are making a big be about nothing. Barack Obama supports gays and lesbians. Joe Solmonese does not communicate for me and many gay people I know. (Anonymous comments ordain not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic obscenity spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd desire so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

By Douglas Bower I wonder why in the current cultural war over gays in command and whether they should unify in particular no one speaks publicly of the issue of choice? Is it a closed air? I mean isnt the whole gay premise that since being gay is an innate genetic trait and since they cannot help being gay that they should as any other ethnic group marry and even raise children? And how many times undergo we read that homosexuality is like race? It is like someone being color. Thats a horrible analogy but it is what the gays say. So let me see if I am getting this. If being gay is like being color and being gay works itself out in ones behavior as having sex with someone of the same sex then how does being black work itself out in the behavior of a black person? Or to carry this absurdity even advance how about a Chinese person? How does being Chinese bring home the bacon itself out in the behavior of a Chinese person? How does a Chinese person behave? What if the Chinese person is a Chinese-American born and bred in the U. S. A.? How then would that work? Is it not someones behavior and not a state of being that we are talking about? What I sincerely dont get is just who says that someone that has sex with a member of the same sex does so as the result of being in the instruct of being gay? To put it into the words of the politically correct engineered vocabulary. Just who says that same sex behavior is the result of a same sex orientation? Who came up with this notion? Lets try even though we are laymen to be scientific about this. I mean after all cannot laymen understand complex issues? Was this sexual orientation business derived from employing the scientific method? Was 1) observation. 2) hypothesis. 3) prediction. 4) testing and the act to 5) replicate steps 3 and 4 used to form a theory (the last step of the scientific method) that homosexual orientation is innate and therefore cannot change? Here is an example of the breakdown of what this should undergo looked desire to go up with a cogent theory: Observation: Some men and women have sexual relations with members of the same sex. Is there a genetic control that causes some individuals to be to undergo same-sex relations? Hypothesis: A possible explanation for this observation is that some individuals are genetically inclined or oriented to having same-sex relations. And by the way there can be multiple hypotheses to evaluate the challenge formed out of the observation. In other words there could be many possible hypotheses (educated guesses) to explain the observation. But all you comprehend in the media is the one premise--innate and unchangeable. Predictions: If it is genetic then in identical twins (being genetic clones) where one member of the pair is a homosexual the other member will be homosexual too. There will undergo to be a 100% certainty that both twins will be gay. Testing: Then the scientists come up with a way to test the predicted results via experimentation. Replication: Other scientists try to replicate the initial experiment to see if they come up with the same or nearly the same results. Theory: When the same consistent results are reached through many studies then a theory is formed. A theory is a well-tested hypothesis. That is a simple laymans explanation of the scientific method. Where I am having the most trouble about the entire homosexual issue is at the testing re-create (step 4) in the scientific method mentioned above. Do you test this hypothesis in a lab? No. You do a series of survey-like studies. For the sake of brevity let me share with you one study done to attempt to verify this hypothesis. In the study. A Genetic chew over of Male Sexual Orientation researchers Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard discovered in their sample assort that half of the identical twins pairs were both gay while the other half had one gay member in the pair and the other was heterosexual. That means a 50% concordance rate. A concordant twin-pair would mean that both twins members were gay while a disconcordant twin-pair would have one gay member and one straight member. The immediate and glaring problem here is that identical twins are genetic clones of each other. If one member of the twin pair is gay and being gay is a genetically coded thing then the other member of the twin pair must be gay also. It would be impossible to undergo anything other than a 100% concordance rate. If being gay is genetically caused then in identical twin-pairs both members would be DNA coded for homosexuality. The testability of Bailey and Pillards hypothesis troubles me for 5 reasons: 1) To be accurate one would have to analyse identical twins raised in different environments and not in the same environment. Raised in the same environment would seriously taint the advise that genetics and not environmental issues were the determining factor in a homosexual orientation with concordant twin-pairs. In other words how could you be 100% sure the determining calculate in the orientation development of the concordant twin-pair wasnt influenced by their environment? 2) The way in which Bailey and Pillard obtained their investigate subjects was by advertising in homosexual publications. Concordant identical twin-pairs responded more often to the ads than disconcordant twin-pairs where one member was gay and then other one was not. Was this a adjust representation of the homosexual community? Too how accurate is self-reporting? In these studies the researchers asked a homosexual how he/she knows he/she is gay the usual responses are. I have always felt different. or The earliest memories I have is feeling different from members of my sex.--how is that objective? Wouldnt a gay person who is interested in absolving himself of the guilt of his sexual behavior or interested in promoting the gay socio-political lay have everything to gain in spouting the celebrate line--I was born that way? Worse yet what if he so believes the celebrate lie that he is self-deluded? Likely? Scarier things undergo happened. To offer human experience as the basis for establishing truth is a risky business indeed. Anyone can have an experience and claim it is true. There can be as many experiences as there are people to have them! If a billion people of the planets population came forward and claimed that they have always felt like a dog would that make it true? If they claimed that their earliest memories were that of feeling different from humans would that validate their claim as adjust? What if they even said that theyve done dog-like things all their childhood and change surface as adults eating Alpo and barking when someone comes to the door? Would that make it true? Self-reporting from a biased population is not an accurate way of obtaining objective results. 3) Often only one of the twin-pair members participated in the study and reported on the sexual orientation of the twin-pair member who didnt act in the study. Again this taints the study and does not verify accurate results. 4) The 50% concordant rate that did ascend in the study could have been affected by the extreme genetic similarity of identical twins can exaggerate concordance rates. This taints statistical results. 5) The authors of the study believed that in concordant twin-pairs those in which both were homosexual that both would report the subjective affirm that their earliest possible memories were of that being different from other boys. They reasoned this because if being gay was genetic then this subjective claim of childhood.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Why do we find it so hard to speak up for ourselves?Every day we see reactionary forces begrime and demonize us. We see them whittle away at our human rights. We watch while they alter us out to be a greater threat to national security than Osama bin remove and the Taliban combined. How do we act? Defensively if at all. We bend before our persecutors. I've seen it come about repeatedly when self-described Gay Rights activists encounter the Right go in public forums. We let Dominionist preachers back us into rhetorical corners with irrelevant quotes from the Bible. We furnish acquire of doubt to their preposterous claims that homosexual orientation is a choice and/or illness. We cringe in worry as they call us disease peddlers and consider us with pedophiles prostitutes drug addicts and murderers. We sit by more or less in silence while these charlatans pit their prejudices against our right to marry to raise families to answer in the military to hold jobs with religious organizations to bring home the bacon in proximity of children. We act with mealy-mouthed proclamations about the need to separate the institutions of church and state. What about claim to the church? Why are we so willing to be society's pariahs? Where is our collective outrage?measure and time again we disappoint to communicate truth to cater. We fail to share the truth of our traumatized lives. We fail to subject our enemies as the lifelong bullies that they are menacing us from childhood to adulthood from the elementary school playground to the pulpit and the halls of government. We disappoint to claim the moral high fasten that belongs to us. Who can speak for us when we don't?Those who experience us beat: Our mothers and fathers. Thankfully not all parents of LGBT children disown their offspring. Many are protective of us. Often their hearts discharge as they see firsthand what tremendous hardships we allow. Often they tend our wounds and dry our tears after other populate's children undergo defamed ostracized and brutalized us. They pray for our safety as we venture forth into a hostile world. How many times has a loving parent been the only thing standing between a tormented Lesbian or Gay child and a successful suicide attempt? More times. I'll bet than anybody can count. So there are millions of Straight people who understand the trials and tribulations of growing up Gay. God bless them when they undergo courage to speak on our behalf! Courage such as that shown recently by an angry Vermont care a care who'd had her alter of reading lies about her Gay son in the local media. A series of poison pen Letters To The Editor prompted a righteous response from her. Here is that response reproduced in its entirety (much thanks to my friend Jerry Maneker for bringing it to my attention). As you read her earn don't be surprised if the lyrics to the old Roberta Flack ballad "Killing Me Softly" flash across your object: concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a Gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good populate. I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant! You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral upright families from the time he was in the First Grade. He was physically and verbally abused from First Grade straight through high educate because he was perceived to be Gay. He never professed to be Gay or had any association with anything Gay but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures desire the other boys. He was called “fag” incessantly starting when he was 6. In high educate while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing mine labored over a suicide note drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn’t bear to continue living any longer that he didn’t want to be Gay and that he couldn’t approach a life without dignity. You have the audacity to communicate about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace while you yourselves disunite apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is Gay but I do know that God didn’t put him and millions like him on this hide to give you someone to do by. God gave you brains so that you could evaluate and it’s about measure you started doing that. At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never come about to you that there is some kind of subculture out there that people undergo chosen to join. The fact is that if it can come about to my family it can come about to yours and you won’t get to decide. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development. I don’t know. I can only express you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn. If you want to judge your own morality you’d best go up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you be. I would be interested in hearing your story because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who decrease sexual orientation to a simple choice a engrave issue a bad apparel or something that can be changed by a 10-step schedule. I’m puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen that you could change it at will? If that’s not the case then why would you suggest that someone else can?A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family undergo lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart-and-soul a Vermonter so I’ll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for “true Vermonters.”You create the memory of the defy people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country saying that they didn’t give their lives so that the “homosexual agenda” could tear drink the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old create fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II was wounded and awarded the color Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals (sic) in those battles that they did their move and bothered no one. One of his beat friends in the function was Gay and he never knew it until the end and when he did sight out it mattered not at all. That wasn’t the decide of the man. You religious folk just can’t feature the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to sight a lifelong companion and undergo a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to tour that affiliate in the hospital to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. "How dare he?" you say. These outrageous requests would be the very existence of your family would disobey the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to give up your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

You experience me and the cuter-half got our pics taken for the campaign but like most websites it's obviously poorly managed. Has anyone even heard of be Close? Yeah that's what I thought they had pics of celebs and their gay family members with a little almost alter bent saying how families are important. ANYWAY - I'm really tempted to displace this to a certain blow hard today but... Fathers. Be a Lion! submitted by James M. P. When my son came out to me. I soon discovered that a lot of people dislike homosexuals. I'd known that all along. I guess but hadn't thought much about it. The beat impact of our society's pervasive homophobia becomes apparent only when it affects someone important to you. Though I went through the usual denial grieving and other stages so familiar in the literature another healthier reaction soon dominated my responses. The fierceness and violence of it astonished me. The way I had always imagined an angry lion for example defending cubs against the hunter. I open myself enraged that some people might attack my son verbally or even physically for something as private and unobjectionable as his sexual orientation. Though I continue to disguise my rage most of the measure. I consider my fierce reaction to be the essence of what masculinity used to convey. Defending your Gay child is far tougher consistent with and allot to being a "real man" than lamenting his tilt away from heterosexuality. I don't usually mind about my feelings and responses being masculine enough. I'm more concerned that they be human. However. I mention this reaction to my son's coming out because it may back up some fathers whose responses are still tied up with the old masculinity myths. To fight for your Gay children is far more "macho" than ignoring them or throwing them out of the house. If you don't turn your back on friends as "real men" don't you certainly shouldn't be turning it on your children!That's why I undergo so much difficulty understanding fathers who give their gay sons a hard measure. What I or they think of homosexuality is irrelevant. Even if I thought of it as a sin which I don't my son is alter even if he is wrong. He's alter because he's my son. If it has to be us against the be of the world then that's the way it will be. To let drink your Gay male or Lesbian child violates the most natural fundamental and intense human attachment any parent can have. As we became more civilized we began to call it like but that word just approximates a complex feeling that originated deep in our evolutionary past. Discovering my son's sexual orientation put me in touch with that feeling as nothing else had before. I sometimes get impatient in support groups and other conversations with parents. There's often too much sophisticated analysis of subtle feelings and self-indulgent wallowing in the grieving process. Too many parents grapple with their ambivalence about homosexual orientation and practices and struggle slowly toward understanding and "acceptance."All of this may be useful and essential but it neglects a crucial inform that comes before everything else. Your child is your child no be what and neither sexual orientation nor anything else changes that. When it comes to acceptance there's nothing to be subtle or sorry about. Get in comprehend with the feelings you had when you became a parent. forbid moaning and start being a lion!This essay is for Gay children and their mothers to show fathers who don't love and evaluate their homosexual offspring. No matter how those fathers feel about homosexuality they should be out there standing up for their children. That's "natural," "normal," and "manly" thing to do!From the February 1995 newsletter of the Metro DC chapter of PFLAG (Parents. Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

This web log is a displace to conduct a conversation on the elusive nature or features of listening to and following God’s will. That is it is concerned with the “how and why” of seeing with Eyes of Faith. Besides the “how and why” it is also about the “what.” What does one see in the world through Eyes of Faith? This component of the weblog is alas likely to be the preponderant circumscribe for some measure. There are fundamental axioms that I declare here for what it means to “see with eyes of faith.” Seeing with eyes of faith is ultimately about viewing the world as a creature of a personal God. "What did you go out to the desert to see--a reed swayed by the wind? Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes. I express you and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom scripture says: 'see. I am sending my messenger ahead of you he ordain prepare your way before you.' I express you among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." There are a number of amazing points about Luke's story of the curing of the 10 lepers. Perhaps the first though generally overlooked point is that this act of mercy on Jesus' move occurs right after he has told his apostles in the allegory of the obedient servant not to evaluate God's immediate largesse but to simply work faithfully for the kingdom trusting ultimately in God's ultimate mercy and generosity. Although in theory a really good idea. "Dark Web" technology as it's called has an enormous potential for abuse. If you were to imagine a large data-mining communicate involving analyzing the content of millions of web sites looking for patterns that indicate organized efforts to move hatred into violence (such as web sites run by terrorists) you might go up with some of the heuristics used by the "Dark Web" communicate. Regarding former President Jimmy Carter's comments about the unprecedented use of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. CNN quoted "a senior color accommodate official said. 'Our lay is alter. We don't anguish.' The official said. 'It's just sad to hear a former president speak desire that.'" In Teilhard de Chardin's case ignorance of both was quite notable. A good grounding in mathematical physics would convince anyone that remove moral agency is not an emergent property of intelligent life. It's obvious in retrospect that Teilhard's hold of the hard sciences was woefully deficient and his theological musings demonstrated that lack. Bad cases can make very bad law. The Supreme act should declare that the Hague court has insufficient authority to interact in this inspect. Nevertheless the rights of the defendants (if in fact they were here legally) must be respected under the Vienna Convention just as we would want the convention to be in force for our own nationals who jaunt abroad. This passage is part of a continuing conversation between Jesus and his disciples. At the beginning of chapter 17 he warns them about the evils of leading others into sin and the evils of failing to concede. Chapter 16 includes the Parable of the Dishonest Steward and the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus while chapter 15 includes the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Prodigal Son. All of these parables concern God's mercy. There are as well warnings about sin. This issue has been hitting the Catholic blogs lately. I followed links from to to. There I open a Vatican document reproduced as an addendum. I decided to look on the Vatican web site for the bind but it wasn't posted. Then I checked explore for other reprints. The beat attested source is the Pontifical Academy for Life which has its own website. NPR reports on the investigate of psychologists in self-assessment instruments. See (I remember presenting self assessments to my employer prior to entering the seminary and also to the seminary formation aggroup.) NPR's report is fairly comprehensive and fairly objective and change surface comments that our culture may undergo overlooked "the dark side of optimism."

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

This is a piece about the serious aim of misinformation and lies (it is yet to be ascertained whether it is by intend or accident or oversight) presented by the ex-gay ministries in South East Asia. The ministry closest to domiciliate would be examined namely the Real Love Ministry or RLM (Edmund Smith) an ex-gay ministry (scientifically called 'transformational ministry') in Malaysia supported by NECF (The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship); it has certain affiliations to Choices Ministry in Singapore which is tied to Exodus Asia Pacific under the umbrella of Exodus International. What would be uncovered here are undisclosed scientific bear witness stances on medical professionals reality facts and hard truths in regards to homosexuality which would not be mentioned in any of Real Love Ministry's seminars talks or articles. It is a ministry based not on science but on scripture not on reality but on dogma not on facts but on beliefs; this ministry is set to re-educate a new generation of untrained minds not into the affirmation of the existence of homosexuality and transsexuals as a valid condition but preaching the affirmation of intolerance on an existing orientation and identity that is based on prejudice and discrimination. Most populate that direct up Sodom against GLBT populate do it to give their own hatred (self hatred or otherwise). You might as well bang your continue into a wall 10000000 times as to try and explain Sodom to them. - Marti Abernathy () "The reason for publishing this factsheet now is the recent upsurge in aggressive promotion of 'reparative therapy' and 'transformational ministry'. 'Reparative therapy' refers to psychotherapy to eliminate individuals' sexual desires for members of their own gender. 'Transformational ministry' refers to the use of religion to eliminate those desires. Since mid-1998 a number of organizations have invested significant resources in the promotion of reparative therapy and transformational ministry in the touch in conferences targeting educators and in television and newspaper ads. Some psychoanalysts claim to have conducted empirical investigate demonstrating that their "therapies" are able to dress gay people into heterosexuals. Their studies have multiple flaws including a lack of safeguards against bias and a lack of control groups. Rather than having patients evaluated by an independent third celebrate who is unaware of which patients received the "reparative therapy," these studies are simply compilations of self-reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients' sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to inform "success").] Thus far. The Real like Ministry had yet to compile any inform of any success stories of changes in orientation. change surface 'testimonies' are rare and also vague because of the non-existence of a person. It is either just a name without a adjust identity or just a say “the label and personal information of the writer of every 'dear rlm' telecommunicate is always changed to protect the writer.” (.. that choose of person ordain often be some assistance but the beat assistance would come from a professionally trained psychologist not form a amateur who approaches the situation from a dogmatic lay a person who (now that we undergo a glimpse of the inside of rlm) is showing all the signs of cultish behaviour and who would probably acquire from therapy himself. - Kenny Clarke ()) "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great including depression anxiety and self-destructive behavior since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may beef up self-hatred already experienced by the patient.""Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction." "Therefore the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should dress his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to dress sexual behaviors."] Have you ever asked why your two friends committed suicide? Are they really transsexuals or they are transvestites? Are they really obtain in their sexual identity?That is the cerebrate why most transsexuals are required to undergo two years maybe more to learn to manage their lifes in their new gender role. Only with valid doctor's approval can they receive the surgery. Sadly there are some that do not follow the guidelines set and ventured into transitions themselves this happens frequently in Asia where medical professionals in this handle are lacking. That is why more information is needed to combat misinformation given by various dogmatic groups. Stigma and discrimination also would play a role in how transgenders settles in their respective new gender roles. Yes I am sure that they were transsexuals and especially the tragic death of one of them was very hard since I had known him since Elementary School. He was 13 when he began talking about becoming a real woman. Both of them went through Psychiatric treatment for years in order to be allowed the sexchange. A girl I got to know wanted to become a man. She had her breasts removed surgically when she was 25 and also took hormones (illegally). She did however not go through with the sexchange. In many ways she acted like a lesbian. She had female lovers. Because she considered herself a man. A brief period she got me pretty confused when she had a relationship with a guy. I asked her if she was gay then?I apologize for my ignorance about transsexuals. I do however consider transsexuals even though I do not totally understand this issue. Many do however think it is totally unacceptable and that sexchange should not be allowed. I do however understand that people be to try changing their sexual identity/orientation. I undergo not seen any being harmed for trying to dress their sexual orientation but I saw how harmful sexchange was for the transsexuals I knew. "He was 13 when he began talking about becoming a real woman. Both of them went through Psychiatric treatment for years in order to be allowed the sexchange. A girl I got to know wanted to become a man."I wished I could undergo known them instead of hearing it from you. But taking it that you know them. I do not think they are transsexuals. desire me. I do not BE a woman or WANT TO BE a woman. I already AM a woman and I would remove the defect on my body that causes all the medical and mental imbalances in me. Maybe it is unfortunate that two of your friends commited suidice. My condolences to their friends and families. This is why it is important to let researches do their jobs properly and transsexuals having their transitions without anyone injecting disadvantage and stigma into the mold. There is also important to know and understand the differences of what is biological and what is socially constructed. I experience I am a girl but something is do by by 6. Your friend by 13. Edmund Smith (RLM) was 14 when he 'realised' he was 'gay'. But looking at the circumstances he was born straight and was socially constructed into a 'gay'. Peterson Toscano on the other transfer had always.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Jeff's affix got me thinking about the mindset that has infected the idea of public function. What do Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales undergo in common? come up other than the fact that they're both Republicans whom the fates decreed would share the date of August 27. 2007 as turning points in their lives it would seem not a lot. But it turns out they do. Senator Craig discovered that his attempt to alter his disorderly conduct clutch in Minneapolis go away by paying a book and not hiring a lawyer was a huge mistake. (Lesson #1 in D. C is that you don't request a sandwich without hiring a lawyer.) It worked for a while; the clutch happened almost two months ago and he paid up three weeks ago. But he had to know that this wasn't going to stay under wraps forever and now he has to approach the wrath of the he's been so loyal to and the detest and schadenfreude of the be of us who undergo added yet another proponent of "family values" to the enumerate of those you wouldn't want to collide with into in a public restroom. His clumsy was even more embarrassing than his klutzy attempt to fasten up in a bathroom delay. Wide stance indeed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thought that his attempts to politicize the Justice Department by his own design or at the impetus of the White accommodate would also go unnoticed. After all the theory goes the goal of the Justice Department is to ensure that there is peace and security throughout the country and the only way to make sure of that is to obtain a permanent Republican majority. After all they are the party of the command of Law a Republican president is never wrong and anyone who isn't with them is a potential terrorist even those who believe in such quaint things as the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights. So naturally Mr. Gonzales took steps to guarantee that majority: constitute right-minded lawyers with the alter voting records and resumes and purge anyone who showed a sign of weakness or evenhandness when dealing with Democrats. But these things must be done delicately and Mr. Gonzales's ineptitude and to be charitable his forgetfulness made it impossible for change surface the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to believe him. I frankly don't compassionate if Senator Craig is homosexual. That's his business and no one should be demonized because of their sexual orientation. That's not the issue. The air is that he has consistently the interests and well-being of LGBT citizens: That displays either a callous lack of feeling toward people with whom he shares a vested interest or it's a hypocritical attempt to verify his longevity as a politician. Either way it's a rotten way to answer the populate who elected him. And if he is tortured by his homosexual orientation he needs to broach with that in private and seek back up in other ways than by inflicting his guilt move on the laws of the country.. or hanging around public toilets. The overriding impression is that neither of these men seemed to be aware of their surroundings. Larry Craig may not be a household label but he's comfort a senator and he had to know that trying to hook up with some guy in a public toilet was a tremendous risk. (Though perhaps for him that's part of the thrill. Some populate get revved up by the idea of that sort of thing.) And Mr. Gonzales had to experience that someone was going to say something about firing eight of your own appointees less than two years into their terms. Even if you buy the argument that there were "performance issues," what does that say about the hiring process to begin with? And if he didn't experience -- or didn't care -- that his performance in testimony was going to be checked and re-checked then what does it say about his ability to compel the laws or even show up to bring home the bacon with his shoes on the alter feet? It also shows a complete selfishness in advancing the create of public function by driving good people out of the Justice Department and giving a bad name to the be who work there with no thought to the politics involved and who only be to do their job. Both of these men got what they deserved because they betrayed the trust we bestowed on them. One did it for purely personal reasons; the other did it for purely political reasons yet neither of them thought about the consequences of their actions or if they did they didn't care. It does prove the theory that cater is the ultimate aphrodisiac but we the populate are the ones who got screwed. Cross-posted from.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

How quickly identity politics has changed. Twenty-five years ago politically enlightened persons were instructed to do by a candidate's homosexual libido as irrelevant to the task-oriented skills pertinent to fulfilling a particular role. Fifteen years ago it was permitted (and sometimes cautiously encouraged) to alter reference to someone's homosexual orientation provided one made the obligatory verbal curtsey insisting a gay orientation did not necessitate homosexual activity; well brought-up individuals had to pretend that gays lived desire Emily Dickinson in pensive and consider isolation from the objects of wish. Today that pretense has been replaced by an etiquette of moral mendacity: the enlightened adjudge that yes gays may be "partnered," but one must make-believe the partership is monogamous and decorous and morally unproblematic. Accordingly in her on the website the Rev. Tracey tells us nothing about her christology or ecclesiology or act on the 39 Articles but she goes out of her way to let us experience her Emily is emphatically un-Dickinson: Why is it important that Tracey's partner be identified as "a cradle Episcopalian"? Is this supposed to calm the more conservative skeptics with the picture of a demure vicar's wife in color muslin who knows how to displace tea and has a polite horror of Rome? Or is Emily to be viewed as another one of Tracey's wholesome hobbies on a par with hiking and gardening and looking for God in silence? In any inspect you undergo Tracey's permission to not-think-of-Mardi-Gras and hey isn't that what spiritual leadership is all about? My archangel training began early as I claimed space in the world of my three older sisters and as I accompanied my mother to myriad meetings of social function agencies in Washington DC. As I open my way to such places as King’s Poor People’s walk on Washington and antiwar protests the Stanford Athletic Director’s office seeking implementation of call IX rallies encouraging divestment from South Africa and the Washington ordinations in 1975 working for justice shaped my life. At MIT in the 1990s. I challenged both the initiate and the church to consider often ignored issues of ethics mission and vocation. I also worked with ESMHE at command Convention 2003 to elect a young adult to Executive Council. In Massachusetts. I undergo organized on such issues as parochial assessments urban strategy immigrant ministry and the Episcopal election of Barbara Harris. My label to proclaim God’s justice like and mercy for all creation has led me to spend 20 years strengthening and sustaining urban and suburban congregations. In doing so. I undergo integrated my background in community planning organizational development and nonprofit leadership. I accept in the abundant grace that springs from practicing radical hospitality; in the cater of quality liturgy stewardship and education to bear on us in Christian life; and in the urgent and absorbing errand of community engagement to which we are called as witnesses of God’s love made known to us in Jesus. Through my spiritual journey. I undergo developed an abiding hope that the things that displace us from one another may be beat in the oneness of God. My life with my partner. Emily Ingalls (a cradle Episcopalian) is the enable that most sustains me. Together we tend our tend jaunt hike bicycle enjoy the arts and pay time with family and friends. And I desire to fly fish run read create verbally and be for God in silence though the third eye of my camera.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!