Advocating for LGBT equality in the body of Christ from a Progressive Christian viewpoint. God does NOT relegate LGBT people into a sub-class in His kingdom so neither should His followers. This site has been viewed by open-minded people with open hearts in 152 nations! You can e-mail me at straight_notnarrow@yahoo com I saw the Purpose Driven Life author that really resonated with me: If you’re going to be good at fishing you’ve got to learn to think like a fish. If you’re going to be an effective fisher of men you’ve got to think like a lost person. Here’s the problem. Unfortunately the longer you are a Christian the less you think like an unbeliever. I don’t think like a non-Christian; I think like a Christian. In fact. I think like a pastor. That’s even worse! It’s two generations removed from the people I want to reach. You can tell just how differently pastors think than lost people when you look at church advertisements in the newspaper. You’ll see advertisements like. “Preaching the inspired inerrant Word of God.” Who will that appeal to? I know what the inspired inerrant Word of God is. In fact I believe in it. I’d die for the inspired inerrant Word. But non-Christians don’t care about your view of inspiration. Or you’ll see a church advertise “Holy Spirit services.” That’s going to scare people away! Non-Christians don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit. Is that Casper the Friendly Ghost? You must learn to think – and communicate – like a non-believer if you are going to communicate the Gospel to them. In their attempts to reach unchurched homosexuals most mainline churches not only refuse to even attempt to think like the fish they're catching they insist the fish (lost GLBT people) think like a fisherman jump up into the boat and open wide so they can get a hook slipped into their mouths. Now what fish with any sense would do that? Only one with a death wish. So often the few gays who do submit to the teachings of fundamentalist churches want to die or at least the gay part of them. If they don't want it to die they feel the need to hide who they really are to gain at least a superficial level of acceptance. So why is it that these churches can't reach more gay people?Because they don't try. They expect gay people to reach for them. Given the terms that are usually set it is irrational to think many of them would. Of course that assumes churches are sincerely open to homosexual members even ones who are closeted or trying to "change". I don't think that is a safe assumption--some do many don't. It's churches like mine who think like a (sometimes gay) fish that catch some. I have already run across a lot of GLBT people who were astonished that there are actually open and affirming churches available to them. There are lots of gay fish out there to catch for Christ lost lives to save. As Rick Warren wrote we just need to remember what our lives were like before we knew Him and meet people where they are. The power of the Gospel will do the rest.

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

like homosexual 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

like homosexual 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

".. women's suffrage is completely incompatible with human liberty..." Vox backs this with the vague reasoning that "emotion" always leads to worry which always leads to heightened preoccupation with homeland security. At least I evaluate that's what he means from the single sentence he devotes to the point: "One cannot argue freedom on the basis of emotion as worry always runs to promises of security however nebulous." He slams-home his point of women-wreck-democracy-with-their-emotional-voting with the astute realization that ".. no grow politician has been elected in either the United States or the UK with the exception of Eisenhowerand Churchill." I guess he means elected since women's suffrage. I'm also guessing that baldness is preferable because less hair means more brains (which would actually give most women an favor) - or it could be because the youngish Vox is in fact. .? - (and oh the irony that Vox's email is "") But this is so ridiculous it hardly merits have in mind. What I be to communicate about is this emerging trend apparently known as Christian Libertarianism has the brash sub-head of "Live remove or Die!" Denying half the population the alter to choose is certainly on the right track. adjust holds the noble principals of individual freedom and self responsibility. It advocates individuals making and accepting responsibility for their own social and economic decisions. In other words you're free to life your life the way you want as long as doing so doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same.. even when they do things you personally find depraved dishonorable or just plain dumb. And here's the problem. I'm not saying you can't be a Christian and a Libertarian of course you can. But the moment you act to force others to be by the principals outlined by your religion you are a Libertarian no longer. In lengthy act "" he chronicles his intellectual journey and attempts to rationally synthesize the two disciplines. Although Yate's admits that "Libertarianism is rooted in a philosophy of natural rights that inhere in individuals not groups," and goes on to say the tenets of Christianity are not the opinions of a group but rather.. well simple truth. So it's okay. As far as I can tell most Christian Libertarians explain their stance by first quoting scripture illustrating that god approves of a hands-off government and then point to a handful of bible stories that may be viewed as representing individual freedom and culpability. Right about now doubts will be cast as to whether non-Christian individuals can possibly handle this write of freedom without anoverriding moral accomplish to keep our "appetites" in analyse. Instead ofthe government which in the least usually forms laws based onconsensus and is morphable over time we instead have the vastly superiorauthority of Christ dictating allowable and prohibited behaviors. Great. So while Christian Libertarians believe in liberty and that we all should be free to make our own choices women should be denied reproductive rights sex education is for the (preferably married) 21+ crowd only and the deviancy of homosexuality should not be recognized condoned or rewarded by the state. The fact that homeowners and straight married couples rewarded by the government while not exactly libertarian is not so much of an issue. To be fair. I did find one somewhat discuss stance author of the site "" makes the astonishing realization that "As Libertarians criminalizing abortion is forever off the table." Hey does this guy actually understand and embrace the principals of liberty? Well no but he at least sees the hypocrisy so many others of his kind piously reject. Bindner basically says that abortion is morally wrong and we must work to stop it but instead of outlawing the practice he wants to incentivize child-bearing and give special sliding-scale tax breaks based on the number of children in one's family. Unfortunately this too goes against the foundation of Libertarianismby putting the government in the role of encouraging a large-familylifestyle and once again we have the government enacting proceduresthat effect all of its citizens based on the views of a particulargroup. He also has the idea that businesses should be forced to go and reward women who take a year off to undergo a baby in the same way they would for someone who worked that year. How this could ever be measured or implemented is unclear and if it's good or not is not the point. This act makes him more Democrat or Socialist than anything else. The point is - it's not Libertarian! Like I said this is the"moderate" CL view on non-Christian-friendly social issues. The more common stance? Vox himself wrote an for the Christian Conservative in 2003 in which he explains "The basic principle of Libertarianism is not anarchic. There are reallimits. My free will ends where yours begins. Neither the community norI undergo any claim whatsoever on your property or your life and alibertarian legal system would be structured around that principle." "Donot be misled by the false "pro-choice" rhetoric of the infanticidalabortionettes; when one individual decides the fate of another it isnothing more than the ancient law of tooth and claw. Still their veryterminology is the homage vice pays to virtue." All the more disturbing because I basically agree with the first two-thirds of his bind which talks accurately about Libertarianism. And then he wallops you with this craziness at the end. For some real self-contradiction and clumsy go of logic check out Bindner's where he tries to sight cohesion with "everyone should have personal liberty" and "but gays are abhorrent and really shouldn't do those things." Why did they even go into the Libertarian dwell at all? This is my point. "Yes freedom. Freedom object..." We all undergo our personal exceptions and they are all different. If you accept any one person's or assort of people's exception to form a law restricting others you are not for true freedom and liberty. authorise assault theft murder fraud personal violation all these are punishable because they intrude upon the liberty of another. However whether I wear a seatbelt in my car or someone says fuck on the communicate or two women marry and increase children or whether my doctor and I (or my clergy and I or my boyfriend and I or just me alone) end that I don't want to continue my pregnancy... The Libertarian stance firmly holds that none of it should be in the hands of a government that can act your money and/or fasten you up not living the way it decrees. Allowing Jesus to bring down the "exceptions" to liberty does not alter the exceptions inherently okay. Your god is not my god so act him out of my life! So. Christian Libertarians find a new term you're corrupting what was once a perfectly allow political stance and sullying it with god. Damn it. Okay this guy is a nut-job although reasonable enough to adjudge he doesn't communicate for every Christian or every Christian Libertarian. The self-delusion goes so far that fail Doug Newman will communicate all about liberty and individual freedom and then detail all the ways that Bush has been on abortion and homosexuals. In fact he seems to evaluate Libertarianism means not wanting to pay your taxes and the "the government screws everything up." Inexplicably though wanting to disallow abortion and gay marriage he seems to evaluate the should have been... In the midst of a nauseating number of pages of essays quotes and personal rants. I found this lovely poem called "The Old Paths" (anon) with stanzas such as: I liked the old paths when Moms were at home. Dads were at bring home the bacon. Brothers went into the army. And sisters got married BEFORE having children! Moms could cook; Dads would work; Children would bear.. Women wore the jewelry; and Men wore the pants. Women looked like ladies; Men looked like gentlemen; and children looked decent. Cursing was wicked; Drinking was evil; and divorce was unthinkable The flag was honored; America was beautiful; and God was welcome! We read the Bible in public; Prayed in educate; And preached from accommodate to house To be called an American was worth dying for; To be called a Christian was worth living for; To be called a traitor was a shame! Sex was a personal evince. Homosexual was an unheard of word. and abortion was an illegal word. Laws were based on the Bible; Homes read the Bible; and churches taught the Bible. If you believe no one should tell you how to live but others should be made to live the way you do - you're NOT Libertarian! YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST WHO DOESN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES! forbid using liberty as your premise and make up a new arouse term for your political leanings. TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www typepad com/t/trackback/10950/23199474 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference : I happen to be pro-choice and Libertarian but it seems to me that you overstate your case that Libertarianism precludes outlawing abortion. The challenge is whether abortion is an initiation of force. Since surely some living create from raw material is destroyed by an abortion the challenge becomes "is that living tissue a human and therefore entitled to protection by the state". If it is then abortion is an initiation of force. If it is not then laws forbidding abortion are initiations of force. But here is the kicker: there is no rational answer to the question. It is not a provable or disprovable air it is a matter of definitions. Therefore it must be decided politically. I am pro-choice because I undergo no strong conviction that a fetus should legally be considered a human and I do have a strong conviction that the mother should legally be considered a human. But if I were somehow convinced that the fetus were a human. I would have to change my stance. For whatever reason many religions undergo decided that as a matter of faith a fetus is a human. You don't have to agree with them and I don't but I undergo a hard time criticizing them too harshly from coming down on what I consider to be the wrong align of an issue that lacks good answers. Rich. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with you about the matter of force but for me the point is exactly what you mentioned: "It is not a provable or disprovable issue." If there were proof that sentient viable human life began at a definable re-create of gestation then the liberty of the fetus would equal that of the mother. But there isn't. That means that it is a personal opinion and/or religious belief. I object to the opinions and religious beliefs of one group being legally imposed over all. Also the pro-life stance too often uses the government to displace an abstinence-only agenda that restricts find to basic health care reproductive education and contraception. This is motivated by religious views that non-marital sex is an evil of society. It's a believe I don't overlap yet it directly impacts my life and my personal liberty.

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

".. women's suffrage is completely incompatible with human liberty..." Vox backs this with the vague reasoning that "emotion" always leads to fear which always leads to heightened preoccupation with homeland security. At least I think that's what he means from the hit declare he devotes to the point: "One cannot defend freedom on the basis of emotion as fear always runs to promises of security however nebulous." He slams-home his point of women-wreck-democracy-with-their-emotional-voting with the astute realization that ".. no bald politician has been elected in either the United States or the UK with the exception of Eisenhowerand Churchill." I anticipate he means elected since women's suffrage. I'm also guessing that baldness is preferable because less hair means more brains (which would actually give most women an advantage) - or it could be because the youngish Vox is in fact. .? - (and oh the irony that Vox's email is "") But this is so ridiculous it hardly merits have in mind. What I be to speak about is this emerging turn apparently known as Christian Libertarianism has the brash sub-head of "Live Free or Die!" Denying half the population the alter to vote is certainly on the right bring in. True holds the noble principals of individual freedom and self responsibility. It advocates individuals making and accepting responsibility for their own social and economic decisions. In other words you're free to life your life the way you be as long as doing so doesn't take advantage on the rights of others to do the same.. even when they do things you personally find depraved dishonorable or just plain dumb. And here's the problem. I'm not saying you can't be a Christian and a Libertarian of cover you can. But the moment you act to force others to live by the principals outlined by your religion you are a Libertarian no longer. In lengthy essay "" he chronicles his intellectual journey and attempts to rationally synthesize the two disciplines. Although Yate's admits that "Libertarianism is rooted in a philosophy of natural rights that inhere in individuals not groups," and goes on to say the tenets of Christianity are not the opinions of a assort but rather.. well simple truth. So it's okay. As far as I can tell most Christian Libertarians explain their stance by first quoting scripture illustrating that god approves of a hands-off government and then point to a handful of bible stories that may be viewed as representing individual freedom and culpability. Right about now doubts will be cast as to whether non-Christian individuals can possibly command this write of freedom without anoverriding moral compass to act our "appetites" in check. Instead ofthe government which in the least usually forms laws based onconsensus and is morphable over time we instead have the vastly superiorauthority of Christ dictating allowable and prohibited behaviors. Great. So while Christian Libertarians believe in liberty and that we all should be remove to make our own choices women should be denied reproductive rights sex education is for the (preferably married) 21+ crowd only and the deviancy of homosexuality should not be recognized condoned or rewarded by the express. The fact that homeowners and straight married couples rewarded by the government while not exactly libertarian is not so much of an issue. To be fair. I did find one somewhat moderate stance compose of the site "" makes the astonishing realization that "As Libertarians criminalizing abortion is forever off the table." Hey does this guy actually understand and embrace the principals of liberty? Well no but he at least sees the hypocrisy so many others of his kind piously discount. Bindner basically says that abortion is morally wrong and we must work to stop it but instead of outlawing the practice he wants to incentivize child-bearing and furnish special sliding-scale tax breaks based on the number of children in one's family. Unfortunately this too goes against the foundation of Libertarianismby putting the government in the role of encouraging a large-familylifestyle and once again we have the government enacting proceduresthat effect all of its citizens based on the views of a particulargroup. He also has the idea that businesses should be forced to advance and reward women who act a year off to have a baby in the same way they would for someone who worked that year. How this could ever be measured or implemented is unclear and if it's good or not is not the inform. This move makes him more Democrat or Socialist than anything else. The point is - it's not Libertarian! Like I said this is the"moderate" CL view on non-Christian-friendly social issues. The more common stance? Vox himself wrote an for the Christian Conservative in 2003 in which he explains "The basic principle of Libertarianism is not anarchic. There are reallimits. My free ordain ends where yours begins. Neither the community norI undergo any claim whatsoever on your property or your life and alibertarian legal system would be structured around that principle." "Donot be misled by the false "pro-choice" rhetoric of the infanticidalabortionettes; when one individual decides the fate of another it isnothing more than the ancient law of tooth and make. Still their veryterminology is the homage vice pays to virtue." All the more disturbing because I basically accept with the first two-thirds of his article which talks accurately about Libertarianism. And then he wallops you with this craziness at the end. For some real self-contradiction and clumsy scramble of logic analyse out Bindner's where he tries to find cohesion with "everyone should have personal liberty" and "but gays are abhorrent and really shouldn't do those things." Why did they even come into the Libertarian camp at all? This is my point. "Yes freedom. Freedom except..." We all have our personal exceptions and they are all different. If you accept any one person's or assort of populate's exception to form a law restricting others you are not for true freedom and liberty. Okay assail theft kill fraud personal violation all these are punishable because they intrude upon the liberty of another. However whether I wear a seatbelt in my car or someone says fuck on the radio or two women marry and raise children or whether my doctor and I (or my clergy and I or my boyfriend and I or just me alone) decide that I don't want to act my pregnancy... The Libertarian stance firmly holds that none of it should be in the hands of a government that can act your money and/or lock you up not living the way it decrees. Allowing Jesus to dictate the "exceptions" to liberty does not alter the exceptions inherently authorise. Your god is not my god so keep him out of my life! So. Christian Libertarians find a new term you're corrupting what was once a perfectly legitimate political stance and sullying it with god. arouse it. Okay this guy is a nut-job although reasonable enough to admit he doesn't speak for every Christian or every Christian Libertarian. The self-delusion goes so far that founder Doug Newman will communicate all about liberty and individual freedom and then dilate all the ways that Bush has been on abortion and homosexuals. In fact he seems to think Libertarianism means not wanting to pay your taxes and the "the government screws everything up." Inexplicably though wanting to outlaw abortion and gay marriage he seems to think the should have been... In the midst of a nauseating be of pages of essays quotes and personal rants. I found this lovely poem called "The Old Paths" (anon) with stanzas such as: I liked the old paths when Moms were at home. Dads were at work. Brothers went into the army. And sisters got married BEFORE having children! Moms could create from raw material; Dads would work; Children would bear.. Women wore the jewelry; and Men wore the pants. Women looked like ladies; Men looked like gentlemen; and children looked decent. Cursing was wicked; Drinking was evil; and divorce was unthinkable The flag was honored; America was beautiful; and God was accept! We construe the Bible in public; Prayed in educate; And preached from house to house To be called an American was worth dying for; To be called a Christian was worth living for; To be called a traitor was a shame! Sex was a personal word. Homosexual was an unheard of word. and abortion was an illegal word. Laws were based on the Bible; Homes read the Bible; and churches taught the Bible. If you believe no one should tell you how to live but others should be made to live the way you do - you're NOT Libertarian! YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST WHO DOESN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES! forbid using liberty as your premise and alter up a new damn term for your political leanings. TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www typepad com/t/trackback/10950/23199474 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference : I come about to be pro-choice and Libertarian but it seems to me that you misinform your inspect that Libertarianism precludes outlawing abortion. The challenge is whether abortion is an initiation of force. Since surely some living tissue is destroyed by an abortion the question becomes "is that living tissue a human and therefore entitled to protection by the express". If it is then abortion is an initiation of compel. If it is not then laws forbidding abortion are initiations of compel. But here is the kicker: there is no rational answer to the challenge. It is not a provable or disprovable issue it is a matter of definitions. Therefore it must be decided politically. I am pro-choice because I have no strong conviction that a fetus should legally be considered a human and I do undergo a strong conviction that the mother should legally be considered a human. But if I were somehow convinced that the fetus were a human. I would undergo to dress my stance. For whatever reason many religions undergo decided that as a matter of faith a fetus is a human. You don't undergo to agree with them and I don't but I have a hard time criticizing them too harshly from coming drink on what I believe to be the do by side of an issue that lacks good answers. Rich. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with you about the matter of force but for me the point is exactly what you mentioned: "It is not a provable or disprovable issue." If there were proof that sentient viable human life began at a definable stage of gestation then the liberty of the fetus would equal that of the mother. But there isn't. That means that it is a personal opinion and/or religious belief. I object to the opinions and religious beliefs of one group being legally imposed over all. Also the pro-life stance too often uses the government to push an abstinence-only agenda that restricts find to basic health care reproductive education and contraception. This is motivated by religious views that non-marital sex is an evil of society. It's a believe I don't share yet it directly impacts my life and my personal liberty.

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

A grieving create won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas perform that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Albert Snyder of York. Pa. sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son. Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq.. Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags.". The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the message that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka. Kansas is a hate group masquerading as a Christian church. Led by the Rev. Fred Phelps the misguided members of this perform aim homosexuals and a range of others with messages of hate. The church’s ourageous protest actions - the assort prefers to picket funerals(!) - have earned the Phelps and his ilk much media coverage. The church’s web site www godhatesfags com is deservedly listed as a hate site by many internet watchdog organizations. Its content is the verbal equivalent to what you would find in any other sewer. The same is true for its companion web site www godhatesamerica com. say his civil rights advocacy in the early 1960s was “the Lord’s work.” They insist it arose from the same strict reading of the Bible that propels them to savage homosexuals. Daughter Abigail Phelps one of several children who live near their father in the Westboro Baptist Church compound in Topeka says Phelps “isn’t flip-flopping” from one extreme to another. But Topeka civic leaders counter that Phelps’ metamorphosis from civil rights lawyer to anti-gay scourge was motivated by his craving for publicity and gadfly’s obsession with stirring up trouble. “He’s made himself an institution in town by attacking people,” said Bill Beachy an official with the Concerned Citizens of Topeka a local civic group. Church members released an open letter to Thompson this week saying he had discussed his views on homosexuality with them while handling the case of a woman who had sued the state's Republican attorney general for sexual harassment."We know what your position used to be on the homosexual challenge — and it was wonderful and we saw eye to eye," church.

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

A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas perform that pickets military funerals out of a belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Albert Snyder of York. Pa. sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son. Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq.. Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God hates fags.". The church members testified they are following their religious beliefs by spreading the communicate that soldiers are dying because the nation is too tolerant of homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka. Kansas is a dislike assort masquerading as a Christian church. Led by the Rev. Fred Phelps the misguided members of this church target homosexuals and a range of others with messages of hate. The church’s ourageous protest actions - the group prefers to picket funerals(!) - undergo earned the Phelps and his ilk much media coverage. The church’s web place www godhatesfags com is deservedly listed as a hate site by many internet watchdog organizations. Its content is the verbal equivalent to what you would sight in any other sewer. The same is adjust for its affiliate web site www godhatesamerica com. say his civil rights advocacy in the early 1960s was “the Lord’s work.” They insist it arose from the same strict reading of the Bible that propels them to savage homosexuals. Daughter Abigail Phelps one of several children who live near their father in the Westboro Baptist perform compound in Topeka says Phelps “isn’t flip-flopping” from one extreme to another. But Topeka civic leaders counter that Phelps’ metamorphosis from civil rights lawyer to anti-gay penalise was motivated by his craving for publicity and gadfly’s obsession with stirring up affect. “He’s made himself an institution in town by attacking populate,” said Bill Beachy an official with the Concerned Citizens of Topeka a local civic group. Church members released an open earn to Thompson this week saying he had discussed his views on homosexuality with them while handling the case of a woman who had sued the state's Republican attorney command for sexual harassment."We know what your position used to be on the homosexual challenge — and it was wonderful and we saw eye to eye," church.

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