You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2013.

The homosexual agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, including legally, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, objections of said homosexual agenda.

The homosexual agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).

The homosexual agenda is largely responsible for irresponsible and
corrupt research and academic production regarding homosexuality.

Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity,
problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that
will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a
hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual
orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a
myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics.

From a thread at the American Conservative:


Church Lady says:    “Have you heard nothing of the women’s liberation movement, that hated thing that conservatives always whine about? Well, it told the Sexual Revolution that it’s not okay for guys to abuse girls, at any age, or to treat them as sex objects. “

But the Sexual Revolution was largely deaf and dumb, and quite more powerful and entrenched in the dysfunctional grassroots, so the oppressive and dysfunctional largely won against the respectful and protective. Those millions of men and increasingly women with largely perverse and perverted ideas about sex welcomed with open arms an ideology declaring there was nothing wrong with them, and not only that, but that acting on anything their dysfunctional minds generated was “freedom.” Freedom from the despised “prudes,” who were by then considered the ogres in the story. This is why there is a huge volume of porn being consumed today, along with all the liberal trash in media and entertainment. This is why socons are vilified by liberals, and porn endorsers and people with a homosexuality agenda are not.

I was asking myself which individuals represent the Sexual Revolution in my mind? Offhand, the first image that came up was of Mick Jagger. Mick Jagger respecting women? Sex? On what planet? Then testimonies of older generations of Catholics telling me how much they had been taught to feel guilty about sexual pleasure. And then other associations, along these lines:
As The Daily Telegraph first disclosed in 2009, in the 1970s the extreme end of the sexual liberation movement included groups who openly campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent. The Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation affiliated themselves to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty.

NCCL complained to the press watchdog about their treatment by tabloid newspapers and in one article admitted it had “plenty of contact” with PIE, and argued that children are harmed by having to go to police and courts after a “mutual relationship with an adult”.

In 1976 the NCCL submitted a response to the Government’s plans to reform sex laws that was dubbed a Lolita’s Charter as it claimed “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult result in no identifiable damage”. The organisation said that children as young as 14 should be able to consent to sex, to reduce the “harmful effects of the present laws”. Peter Tatchell continues with the same discourse today. And he gets plenty of praise.

And NAMBLA was created in 1978. There you go, Sexual Revolution.


Church Lady wrote: “What’s going on in this case is not the sexual revolution, which was all about having sex freely and lovingly and without social stigma”

No, the Sexual Revolution was all about having sex freely WITHOUT love, and without social stigma.

Carlo says: The sexual revolution was about the fact that sex can be consumed…. I have children in public schools and I see this every day: sex has become totally de-humanized,

It is impossible not to dehumanize sex when you take it out of marriage (or at least a long-term, committed relationship). Because the basis for sexuality is the type of underlying human interaction.

As one of a thousand  grand examples, it was dismaying to confirm how entrenched the sense that people have a right to be completely perverse and dehumanized in respect to sex is in the liberal mindset. For example, if you ask many liberals if they think it’s all right for a person to have sex with a stranger, they will say yes. And if they are young, they often fly into a rage against any suggestion that there may be a problem with this practice, along with its required dehumanized attitudes.

In an Internet exchange with a few young guys about this, I said that having sex with a stranger meant that you could be having sex with a pedophile or a murderer for all you cared to know. Their response was that no, no stranger would ever be a pedophile or murderer.

By decree, I suppose. And 200 million new cases of STDs in 10 years in the US alone?

There you go, the enlightenment of the Sexual Revolution.


Heather said: “Through the media, entertainment (including porn), the educational system, the legal system, policies, etc – yes, there are a lot of people shoving liberal sexuality ideology down everyone’s throats.”

Church Lady says: “You mean people like Rupert Murdoch? Look, calling everything other than traditional sexuality “liberal” is a red herring.”

And it seems you like to call everything other than your limited and selectively branded “liberal” sexuality as “conservative.”

If we are using “liberal” in opposition to “conservative,” and that’s the only two labels used, which ideology says sex is fine outside marriage (even outside a loving, committed relationship)? It’s liberal, obviously.

Which sexual ideology says it’s fine to hook up with someone? To have sex with strangers? To be promiscuous? To have sex with multiple partners? It’s liberal. Which ideology says that spreading serious/deadly STDs should not warrant any legal punishment? Liberal.

Which sexual ideology says that pornography is OK, that homosexuality is not a problem? It’s liberal.
Which ideology says that abortion on demand is fine? It’s liberal.  Which ideology says that an adulterous marriage is fine – especially if the spouses have agreed on it? It’s liberal ideology.

Heather said: “Through the media, entertainment (including porn), the educational system, the legal system, policies, etc – yes, there are a lot of people shoving liberal sexuality ideology down everyone’s throats.”

“Church Lady says: You mean people like Rupert Murdoch?” +”As I’ve already pointed out, conservatives have played a huge role in the commercialization and de-sensitization of sexuality.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say here about Murdoch, but I’ll take a guess. Are you saying that Republican and “social conservative” are synonyms? You need to realize that they aren’t. There are plenty of right-wing political party members that are liberal (in “culture war sexuality” ways), both in UK and US, for example. Do you know what GOPROUD and Log Cabin Republicans are? So, in the US,  one big problem in the Republican party is how many liberals it has, who almost always work against social conservatives. I don’t know hardly anything about Murdoch’s views regarding what we are discussing to be able to comment further.

Heather: I think, in fact, that liberals keep a lot of their sexuality and problems with relationships hidden from view, because it is quite rotten.

jaybird says: You must mean such noted liberals such as Ted Haggard (gay hookers & meth), etc.

My first set of questions to you is: do you believe prostitution is a crime? Should the person procuring sex go to prison? Do you believe that people should engage in homosexual sex? Do you believe that people should be free to take meth? Where do you position yourself in the sexuality culture wars and the lib v. con debate, and how do you label yourself?

Now, then, about the “liberal/conservative” Ted Haggard question. When is it valid to apply a label of “liberal” or “social conservative” or “conservative” to someone? Should you apply it because of what they believe, because of how they act, or because of what they say they are? What if there are contradictions?

I don’t think any of us can say exactly that the people you cited have in their heads, their honest thoughts – at least I don’t have this information. We can all guess, but it’s nothing more than a guess. We know what they say and we know what they do however. My guess about Ted Haggard is that he believes the things he did are wrong, but he had all kinds of psycho-sexual problems and that’s why he engaged in these things. I would imagine he does not call himself a “liberal.” I would say, then: a social conservative who behaved like a liberal. Then again, if he thinks what he did was right, he is a liberal claiming to be a social conservative.

Compare him to a fictional Ted Libbard, who believes homosexuality is normal, who thinks prostitution is OK, and who thinks that taking drugs is fine – and does all of it. That’s a liberal behaving like a liberal.

How about Mary Haggard, who knows that homosexuality is a psychological problem, that prostitution is exploitation and dehumanization of sex, and that drugs are harmful – and does none of it. That’s a social conservative who behaves like a social conservative.


“I was asking myself which individuals represent the Sexual Revolution in my mind? Offhand, the first image that came up was of Mick Jagger. Mick Jagger respecting women? Sex? On what planet?”

Church lady said: “What era are you living in, my dear? Mick is a senior citizen by now. “

(please do without any “dear” etc. when writing to me).

Sexual revolution emblematic of the 50s?  No, the Sexual Revolution really became something big in the 60s. If you only know about culture after Madonna appeared on TV, then you clearly don’t understand much of 20th cultural and social history.

“Church lady said:  Jagger was a rock’n roll singer, a sexual icon, not some leader of the sexual revolution. I might as well pick Marilyn Monroe. “

They represent completely different ways about thinking and acting in relation to sex. Monroe is very much at the service of (patriarchal) married men. She doesn’t represent people having sex without being married, and being a stupid, voluptuous  sex symbol dwarfs everything else in her persona. This is not the model of the Sexual Revolution woman. Jagger, on the hand, was drugs, sex, and rock and roll. No rules, no limits, no commitment, no marriage (nor adultery), everything is great as long as you can get some cheap and fast kick out of it, life is for seeking one escapist thrill after another. No responsibility, no intimacy, promiscuity, no trust,  no accountability, no gentleman, rebellion, no conformity, using women like throwaway, sex dolls, i.e., free sex – that’s Jagger. He was going against everything the 50s preached about sexuality and relationships, destroying it.

Church lady said: ” If you were living it out through media images, that could be a big part of the problem.”

You are free to ignore that Mick Jagger existed and is highly representative of the changes in the 60s, and that media is a fundamental part of late 20th century culture, but Jagger was nevertheless real  and there were millions of people acting in many of the ways that he did (or thinking the way he behaved was fine). The Sexual Revolution is a lot broader and it includes a whole range of destructive attitudes and behaviors that you don’t like acknowledge are a part of it.

Church lady said: “As for your whole pedaphile connection, why don’t you pedal that nonsense to someone who thinks Obama was a muslim born in Kenya. I mean honestly, you do realize that stuff makes you look like a real nutcase?”

Why don’t I pedal it to someone? Because I’m not riding a bike.

Dehumanizing sex on an adult level will always produce the desire in interested parties to legitimize sexual exploitation and abuse on adolescent and child levels. It’s only natural. It’s society’s green light for all the people who have deformed psychologies to say, “Hey, I don’t have any problems. I’m misunderstood; you’re the ones with taboos, old-fashioned ideas, uptight views about sex, etc. What we need is liberation and acceptance – that’s progress.”

People who are responsible and concerned about destructive attitudes and behaviors regarding sexuality address these issues regarding minors; people who aren’t, dismiss them and sweep them under the carpet.

“I think a lot of your criticism of liberal sexuality isn’t really about liberals, but about the sexual confusions of non-liberals who haven’t really embraced the liberal side of the sexual revolution, but have instead gone off in a different direction entirely. “

I don’t think you can restrict the label “liberal” to such a small ideological group. You could use a  more specific  label, to designate this sub-group, but “liberal” is used to designate a much broader group, which in its entirety is quite destructive.

“If by “grassroots” you mean the lower classes, then you have some points. “

No, I wasn’t just saying grassroots meaning less money. Grassroots in the sense of  the people at large, whose sphere of influence is quite limited to their own little circles. Plenty of people with sexually perverted and perverse minds who are middle-class and upper-class. Not only lower-class. That’s what Americans don’t like to face. And they were all given the message that it was all OK. Not only that,  getting their sexual kicks was established as a primacy.

What’s the psychology of a lot of sexual harassers? Obtaining my sexual kick is what matters. The other person is a non-person, to be objected and subjected as I wish. (aside from issues of domination and control, and aggression). And this is one primary aspect of the ideology of the Sexual Revolution. So much of liberal ideology regarding sexuality is all about the individual getting their sexual kicks above all, or irrespective of any ethics.

EliteCommInc. says:    I am of course dying to hear what a ‘real man’ is.

A “real man” is an engaged social conservative 🙂

He is neither negligent, nor irresponsible regarding all the destruction that occurs in society related to sexuality and relationships, so he would never say “sexuality or what people do in their bedrooms is none of anyone’s business.” And as someone else said, for him, sex is quite “sacred” and has a reason to happen in a caring, committed, faithful relationship, which is marriage. Sex is a part of a whole.

From an American Conservative thread:

Turmarion wrote:
The problem is, as I pointed out several threads ago, is that among the segment of the population that opposes SSM, present company excepted, there seems an unwillingness on the part of an awful lot of them not only to repent, but acknowledge that there’s anything even to repent of. Sharon Astyk wrote eloquently of getting beaten up because her parents were gay, and M_Young immediately said he had a hard time believing that because he had kin in the public schools and they hadn’t seen such a thing. I told the story about the acquaintance who used to go with his buddies who hung around gay bars to beat up gays, specifying that he was from Louisville, and Beyng fell barely short of calling me a liar outright since there are no gay bars in rural Appalachia! Thursday posted links to charts and articles that he misrepresented in order to argue that Southern Fundamentalists were no worse as gay bashers than anyone else. A couple other commenters basically went tu quoque by posting extensive lists of all the evil things gays do.


I was one of them, I suppose. And that is the point to be made again and again. Why aren’t liberals repenting about all the evil things liberals do? Aren’t you against evil? LGBT individuals are mostly a subset of liberals, why aren’t they repenting about all the virulent, perverted, violent attitudes and behaviors they have and endorse?

Why should we talk about some homosexual bar in some boon-dock where some homosexual got beat up, and not the millions of violent LGBT people all over America? Why not talk about how often they batter, insult, demean, harass, murder, rape, and exploit others, both heterosexuals and the rest (conservative or not), including children?

You know why? Because people with a homosexuality agenda could care less about human suffering, injustice, and the horrendous violence so many people suffer. They only care about an issue if they can finger-point a conservative. It’s the “we are good; you’re bad” that they are after. It’s the “we’re enlightened; you’re stupid,” the “we’re nice; you’re haters,” the “I’m the victim of violence; you’re the perpetrator of violence,” the “we aren’t accountable for any of the destruction we cause; you, on the other hand, must be tarred and feathered for any little thing that we don’t like.” That’s the narrative they just love.

This litany is not about any humane concern from liberals, because people with a homosexuality agenda are not concerned about the common good; what they have is a need to vilify conservatives and to posit that their normalization of homosexuality is to be the law and the only acceptable viewpoint in society.

LGBT people suffer much more violence from LGBT people than from any Christian or conservative group; see the stats on IPV and infesting society with HIV and syphilis, for example.

Deal with it.

And none of these people who normalize homosexuality ever goes on a homosexuality agenda blog and starts making speeches to that audience for them to “repent” about being such destructive, uncaring, insensitive people regarding the millions of cases where the perpetrator or person causing harm is a homosexual or bisexual. Why don’t you go convince them to take responsibility for being so psychologically disoriented and dysfunctional that they can’t have a healthy relationship with the opposite sex and at least try to resolve it?

Liberal ideology is not about people dealing with how they are psychologically deformed about sex and relationships; it’s about saying everything is permissible, should be pursued, and the ogres of the world are the people who are concerned about wholesomeness and ethics, because they live by standards and limits, something liberals often hate.


EngineerScotty says:    “There’s a difference between being fired because you are Christian and conservative, and being fired because you are an a**hole who happens to be Christian and conservative.”

Since by liberal definition, anyone who does not normalize homosexuality is an a**hole, then every social conservative is an a**hole and must be persecuted, have all their fundamental rights trampled on, with impunity, because that’s what they justly deserve.

For people who normalize homosexuality, democracy only exists for them. In other words, they favor a dictatorship, where they are free to respect other people rights only when they feel like it. And why? It’s because they are “good,” and anyone who disagrees with their ignorant views on homosexuality are “bad.”

As we all know, bad people shouldn’t have a right not to be discriminated against in employment and education, while good people should. Bad people deserve to be vilified, while good people need to be put on a pedestal. Bad people must be expelled from any influence or participation in the public sphere, while good people should be dominant.

Curiously, this description fits every racist and dictatorial regime that has ever existed, if you substitute “good” for the ones who grabbed power.


EngineerScotty said: “Nowhere is it permitted (ministerial exceptions notwithstanding) to fire someone because you don’t like their religion, in many places it remains perfectly legal to discharge someone solely because they are gay.”

People are refused jobs because of their religious views all the time. I know of several cases. Not only that, in many environments controlled by liberals, and public academia is a prime example, social conservatives need not apply for plenty of jobs.

Just because no university administrator is stupid enough to declare on paper and sign underneath they aren’t hiring someone because they object to their social conservative/religious views, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Similarly, people in work environments know very well how to fire someone they don’t like because of their religion without formally declaring it. Many corporate administrators are nasty, but not stupid.

The Dixon case is simply appalling. What is the claim? An HR woman can be fired because she said that people with a homosexual problem have not experienced anything comparable to what blacks did under slavery. Why should she be fired for doing her own personal, historical analysis of any group in society? Because, say liberals, this means she is not capable of treating people with a homosexuality problem according to the law of employment. But up until she expressed her views, she had proved she was capable. And after she expressed her views, she continued to be capable. Oh, but reality doesn’t matter when you are going on a witch hunt.

The fact that she is capable of treating people with a homosexuality problem according to the law is irrelevant to liberals. Theirs is a false accusation all the way. If she questioned any precept of the homosexuality agenda narrative, she must be punished. Threat of unemployment is a form of speech (and ideological) control, as Hitchens so superbly pointed out. Dixon must be accused of treating people with a homosexual problem unfairly, even though she never has. If she never has, well, let’s accuse her of perhaps, one day, without any proof, of doing it. The important thing is to punish and persecute anyone who questions the homosexuality agenda narrative. This narrative is largely false and morally corrupt, so we just can’t have anyone exposing the fact; they must be shut down.

On a related note, here’s a very interesting article relating to the question of speech  control (noted by Hitchens), and the trampling of the 1st Amendment, in colleges:

Why do several college administrators severely discipline  individuals for constitutionally protected expression?

“One reason is that college administrators don’t fear First Amendment lawsuits very much. If a state university violates the First Amendment, often it pays nothing for the violation. The Eleventh Amendment protects a state university from having to pay any monetary damages for such a violation.

Once upon a time, the Supreme Court spoke of free speech as having a preferred position among legal rights, saying that “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion are in a preferred position,” and that a “preferred place” and “priority” are “given in our” constitutional “scheme to the great, the indispensable democratic freedoms secured by the First Amendment.” (See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943), West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943), and Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 529 -30 (1945).)

Sadly, the legal community no longer feels the same way today. Free speech is the disfavored stepchild of the law.”

by Hans Bader on December 20, 2012


Thursday says: In short, there don’t seem to be a lot of patterns for anti-gay violence that would implicate Evangelical culture.

On the other hand, there is a lot of “gay” culture patterns that result in all sorts of violence.

But the homosexuality agenda narrative loves to lie about this glaring, but very real fact.


Clamdigger: I’ve complimented your readers frequently because whether one agrees with them or not, they are intelligent, write cogent posts, and seem ‘agreeable’. I’m not sure how many folks would consider Heather ‘agreeable”. Provacative, in-your-face, sure of herself and her beliefs, yes. Of course, that could describe all sorts of zealots of many persuasions and religions, and is not a compliment.

Oh my, I’m glad no homosexuality or liberal activist is ever provocative, in-your-face, sure of themselves and their beliefs.

Or are these only bad things when it’s from people question your homosexuality agenda?

The overwhelming majority of people who normalize homosexuality are quite the zealots – especially given how much they are anti-science and fanatically endorse attitudes and behaviors about sexuality because they are self-serving and because it guarantees them with no accountability.

If you come here and talk about how a homosexual was beaten up in Appalachia, I suppose you think that it is not “in everyone’s faces.” But if I talk about the millions of cases where homosexuals and bisexuals beat up others, somehow it is? You talking about some homosexual beat up in Appalachia is a nice thing, but when I depict the real occurrence of millions of violent acts committed by LGBT people, that’s nasty? Excuse me?

Moreover, do you ever criticize anyone with a homosexuality agenda for being provocative? Sure of themselves?

We know you don’t. How much time do you spend on blogs talking about the little homosexual beat up in Appalachia compared to the millions of other victims beat up by LGBT people?

What I want to highlight is how much you are distorting reality. Reality includes both the incident in Appalachia with the millions and millions of victims of LGBT perpetrators.

I can understand why that would not be agreeable to you. Because facing how deformed, dysfunctional, and perverse LGBT people are is a no-no for people who normalize homosexuality.

Clamdigger: You know what? I grew up fairly conservative, voted Republican from Reagan in 1980 through Bush in 2004. But, to Heather, gays aren’t conservative. Gays don’t care —we’re only against conservatives.

Clamdigger – I don’t know if you are incapable of interpreting correctly what I write or if it wasn’t clear to you or if you are purposefully lying about what I think.

Whatever the reason, this is a good opportunity to clarify labels. To me, and in my writing, there are different major groups that can be called “conservative” in contemporary US. There are fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and social conservatives, and maybe that’s not even the full main list. But these three are certainly three key ones. It is not because a person is one type of conservative, that they are conservative in all three ways. Many Republicans are not socially conservative. I believe most people who know a lot of Republicans know this – it’s plain to see.

I usually take care of writing explicitly “social conservative” and not merely “conservative” – because the latter is  a very broad umbrella term, that can include, as I just explained, people who are not socially conservative. Sometimes, when the context is clearly “liberal versus conservative,” I don’t employ “socially conservative” and shorten it to “conservative” because it seems evident what the ideological opposition is.

People who have socially conservative views, in my usage of the term, are in favor of real marriage (one man, one woman), no “homosexual civil unions”; they do not normalize homosexuality, porn, promiscuity, hookups, prostitution, adultery, abortion (especially in the sense of abortion on demand), cohabitation, to name several of the most important positions.

So, yes, according to Heather, if you normalize homosexuality, i.e., you have a “gay” ideology, you cannot be socially conservative. You can be Republican, you can be conservative (depending on how you define the label), but you are not socially conservative.

And most of the time, people like you, meaning those that have your homosexuality agenda, will work against socially conservative people, and attack them (as you are doing on this blog), and undermine every effort to make the Republican party socially conservative and to promote a beautiful, wholesome, violence-free, socially conservative society.


Heather wrote: ” Because people with a homosexuality agenda could care less about human suffering, injustice, and the horrendous violence so many people suffer. They only care about an issue if they can finger-point a conservative.”

Clamdigger wrote: “Rod, this commenter (and others, as pointed out by Turmarion) think the stories (episodes) we have posted are lies, are false, could never happen, or who cares about podunk KY? “

No, this commenter is not saying that the one case of violence you mentioned is false. We don’t know for sure, but I didn’t assume it was a lie in any case.

What I am highlighting is that for every such case you mention, we can mention thousands of cases where the perpetrator is LGBT. You know why? Because there are millions of cases of violence perpetrated by LGBT people in society.

Where is the outpour of outrage due to all violence and harm that LGBT people do in the world? If violence is bad when done in some corner of Appalachia, why isn’t it bad when it’s done all over American and the perpetrators are LGBT people?

Don’t you care enough to talk about it, and rail against it, and denounce all this violence, and make efforts to bring the guilty to justice? The majority of violence and harm perpetrated by LGBT people is granted total impunity.

Isn’t this horrible? Aren’t human rights violations bad when the perpetrator is LGBT? Isn’t harm bad if the person doing it is LGBT?

So, Rod, that’s the kind of homosexuality agenda people we have to put up with. Is Clamdigger railing against all the violent LGBT people in society – confirmed by multiple research studies and testimonies and lawsuits – or is he railing against the commenter who brings the issue to light?

Clamdigger loves to call other people nasty, and I could call him nasty too, but isn’t that descending into a mere exchange of insults? It’s also a way for Clamdigger not to deal with all the issues I’m raising. Thirdly, I can bet his next move will be to continue to avoid addressing the issues I have raised and up the volume on the way he maligns me.


Clamdigger wrote: “My comments were directed to Heather, who metaphorically accused liberals of wishing Catholics dead in the river in Paris, whereas there is indeed a history of gays being killed, just for being gay.”

In case you are quite unaware of world history, there is indeed a history of Catholics being killed, just for being Catholic. In fact persecution, either individual or based on groups, is nothing new in the world or exclusive to people with a homosexuality problem. And, closeted or not, LGBT people have persecuted and murdered others throughout history as well.


Clamdigger says:  we’re “bloodthirsty”, eh? “As bloodthirsty as Matt Barber who claims that homosexuals are worthy of death (and means it)?”

Matt Barber, AFAIK, said, “Homosexual behavior is self-destructive. Ask the CDC.”

This is very different than saying that homosexuals should be put to death, which is what “bloodthirsty” actually means.

Has Matt Barber argued that he should murder all homosexuals? Unless he did, you’re plainly lying and smearing him with the charge.

The CDC, in case you didn’t know, concerns itself with disease. Men who have sex with men infest society with HIV and syphilis in countries where homosexuality has been largely normalized. This means they are criminally responsible for transmitting deadly diseases in large numbers, and in much greater proportions than any other group. But they currently have total impunity to be so destructive and perverted.

That is not only self-destructive, but socially destructive as well.

Lastly, they then extort billions of dollars from the State in health care costs for the respective treatments, hogging resources that could otherwise go to help so many other victims that never did anything criminal or destructive, like abused children.

In other words, these people think that they are not accountable for their perverted sexual attitudes and behaviors, and that they State must pick up the tab for any destruction they cause.

And then, they want to throw every Catholic in the river. Metaphorically, of course.


Beyng wrote: I’m a bit late to this thread–and it seems to have taken a somewhat comical direction (are we really debating which identity-group has committed the most acts of violence against the other?)–


Actually discussing how distorted the homosexuality agenda narrative is about who commits what kind of violence in the world is no humorous subject. And is there some reason why we can’t talk about violence or we can only talk about one type of perpetrator? Isn’t violence something people need to be aware of and to deal with? Or debate?

Contrary to your claim that this is comical a subject, it is an issue that American society fails in bringing sufficient attention to. What we currently have in society is an identity group positing itself as being non-violent and full of victims of social conservatives, while they perpetrate millions of violent acts consistently – including against LGBT people.

It is a glaring fact that the overwhelming majority of violence committed against LGBT individuals is perpetrated by LGBT individuals. When a socially conservative heterosexual bullies an LGBT individual, all social conservatives are accused of being bullies and haters in their hearts – not because of this invidual – but  because they do not normalize homosexuality. But when a LGBT individual bullies, batters, rapes, or exploits another LGBT individual, they are never called out for being a hater, not even a bigot- and certainly not as an identity group.

Where is anyone complaining about how violent LGBT people are? The only complaint I see here is about some redneck profile, who is violent only at times.

But, in reality, if we look at statistics, LGBT people are much more violent to LGBT people than any redneck.

So who is backwards and uncivilized, or full of hate? Why are liberals at liberty to call conservatives such derogatory labels, but not the other way around? Well, the group doing the most violence for sure to LGBT individuals is the group which normalizes homosexuality. And it’s time for society to realize and start talking about how violent LGBT people are.

What I am pointing out is how certain labels like “backwards” and “hater” and “non-evolved” are applied only to social conservatives or “rednecks,” not to LGBT people. If rednecks can be generalized to be violent against “gays,” LGBT folks are profoundly more so. (Not to mention that normalizing homosexuality is quite backwards).

The homosexuality agenda narrative is that if any other group does some acts of violence against LGBT people, this is a hater’s group. But if the very group of LGBT people does millions of acts of violence against LGBT people, more so than anyone else, they are not a hater group. This is nothing but name-calling to malign people who do not normalize homosexuality.

Clamdigger: Heather tells us quite nicely “Deal with it” a several of her posts. … So Heather: we’ve had years of dealing with you and people who believe as you do. Over the years, we’ve advanced in what is ‘allowed’. More and more, we *are* mainstream. Over 50% of America is now ‘with us’. Quite honestly, Heather, it is time for *you to deal with it*.

As you may not be able to see, I am dealing with “it.” At least the “it” I was referring to in my post.  Let me undistort what you are distorting above. This is what I wrote:

“LGBT people suffer much more violence from LGBT people than from any Christian or conservative group; see the stats on IPV and infesting society with HIV and syphilis, for example. Deal with it. ”

What “it” is this? It seems very clear to me, although by your post, you clearly misunderstood or misinterpreted it. This is what I was referring to: “LGBT people suffer much more violence from LGBT people than from any Christian or conservative group.” There is no comparison. LGBT people are much more violent than social conservatives towards LGBT individuals.

I don’t see society questioning this current state of affairs. It is a fact that LGBT people largely have a green light to do violence and harm with impunity.

What we have seen advance in the last 50 years, is quite rightly, the level of violence and harm that LGBT people do in terms of IPV, sexual harassment (to everyone), and spread of serious STDs – and this is not an exhaustive list. The increase is huge and current levels of harm and violence are terrible.

There has been an advancement in what is allowed, a measured increase in serious harm in society done by LGBT people. It is not only allowed, but allowed with almost total impunity. Yet, I would never be aware of this, by listening to people with a homosexuality agenda, who only talk about the comparatively few cases where the perpetrator is a social conservative. I believe that not only you, but everyone needs to deal with how violent and harmful LGBT people are.

And, as you can see, I am quite dealing with it. I don’t lie about it, I don’t minimize it, and I don’t trivialize it.

I think no group in society should have a green light to do harm, simply because they feel the urge to or because they titillate a large group with certain sexual practices. Whether it is a sexual or non-sexual urge, it doesn’t matter. Doing violence in mass numbers, as LGBT people do, is a horrible thing.

It’s time society started to hold LGBT people accountable for the harm they do.

Remember Napoleon, the main vilain pig of Animal Farm? Well, he is alive and well in Spain! And has taken over complete power… 


full article

Spain’s Ministry of Industry fined Intereconomía 100,000 Euros (around £83,000) for airing the advert as part of a broader campaign to protect family values in the nation.

However, the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has warned that such a punishment will have a “chilling” effect on democracy, and expressed concern for the future of free speech in the nation.

Homosexuality – Thought and Speech Crime

The advert, which was aired 273 times, showed footage of homosexuals marching in Gay Pride Day parades, and posed a series of questions for viewers to consider.

These included: “Is this the type of society you want?” and “Are these the examples you want for your children?”.

The socialist Spanish Government claimed that the advert breached the nation’s broadcasting laws which ban discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, nationality, religion and opinion.

Free speech

However, the ECLJ dismissed this accusation, and warned that the punishment was a breach of Intereconomía’s right to free speech.

A press release by the group said: “The ECLJ contends that the decision of the Spanish Government goes directly against international standards protecting freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.”

It added: “Freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or indifferent, but also to expression that may offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of the population.”


Earlier this year Christian street preacher Dale Mcalpine was arrested in the UK for expressing his belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.

Mr Mcalpine shared his belief during a private conversation with two Police Community Support Officers, and his arrest prompted criticism of the police action.

However, after reviewing the evidence against Mr Mcalpine the Crown Prosecution Service decided to drop the case.


Earlier this year the previous Labour Government made a manifesto commitment to abolish a free speech safeguard introduced by Lord Waddington to a sexual orientation ‘hate’ crime law.

The safeguard made clear that criticising homosexual conduct, or encouraging someone to refrain from such conduct, was not in itself a crime.




With the homosexuality agenda thugs in power, it may just be a matter of time.


‘,’Spanish Govt: NO Free Speech concerning homosexuality’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’spanish-govt-no-free-speech-concerning-homosexuality’,”,’’,’2010-07-20 14:26:09′,’2010-07-20 14:26:09′,”,’0′,’’,’0′)

‘,’2010-07-14 23:45:24′,’2010-07-14 23:45:24′,”,’0′,’’,’0′) ***37′,’1′,’2010-07-14 21:56:06′,’2010-07-14 21:56:06′,’

(or basically that’s what’s implied with their sentence)

(from Telegraph)

A transsexual who downloaded child pornography has been spared jail after a judge said that time in prison would be an “appalling experience” for her.

She could have been locked up for nine months after being convicted of 14 counts of downloading indecent images of children.

But Judge Lesley Newton chose to suspend the sentence after saying that she would be at risk of attack in prison. Voyce, from Kirkby in Merseyside, is in the process of having a sex change to become a woman. The court heard a stash of indecent images was found on Voyce’s computer by police investigating another allegation.

Four of the 14 images uncovered were at level 4, the second worst category of child pornography, and depicted youngsters being abused.

Voyce claimed she looked at pictures of partly-naked youngsters in a bid to come to terms with her troubled childhood.

She told the trial jury at Manchester Crown Court that she had downloaded child porn by mistake while looking for music on a file sharing site, but was found guilty after an expert performed the same searches in court and found no illegal pictures.



Perhaps Judge  Newton should look at statistics on how many people are raped and molested in jail. And nobody cares because they are heterosexual.

Not only that, what is the crime here? Level 4 of child porn, some of the worst stuff out there.


‘,’If you’re heterosexual and you are raped in jail, that’s just fine — says Judge’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’if-youre-heterosexual-and-you-are-raped-in-jail-thats-just-fine-says-judge’,”,’ ‘,’2010-07-14 22:00:46′,’2010-07-14 22:00:46′,”,’0′,’’,’0′) ***38′,’1′,’2010-07-20 14:26:09′,’2010-07-20 14:26:09′,’

Found around the Net, as a response to the Jimmy Saville scandal in the UK:

Orwellian, indeed, and a society in which monsters can stalk the land, disguised as benevolent do-gooders. To paraphrase Wordsworth, replacing “Milton” with Orwell:

London, 1802

Orwell! thou shouldst be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
Thy soul was like a star, and dwelt apart:
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life’s common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.

***35′,’1′,’2010-07-14 02:43:44′,’2010-07-14 02:43:44′,’

“The First Amendment protects the ability of faculty to speak freely, especially when the material is of direct relevance to the class,” added French. “Professors’ careers cannot be made to stand or fall based on the emotions of intolerant, anonymous students who do not yet understand that opposing viewpoints exist within a free society.”
Meghan Duke

Here’s the latest development in the ongoing story of Dr. Kenneth Howell, the former adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, who recently lost his job for teaching his students the Catholic Church’s position on homosexual acts in an introductory course on Catholicism.

First Things has obtained a letter sent today by the Alliance Defense Fund to the University of Illinois on Dr. Howell’s behalf. ADF has charged the university with violating Dr. Howell’s First Amendment right, citing numerous cases where the Supreme Court has upheld the right and emphasized the value of university professor’s freedom to debate and share ideas.


It is a beautifully written letter, specially the citations concerning freedom of speech in the academic context. Read it here.

Some of the best comments:


Tom Carty
July 13th, 2010 | 11:07 am

There is no doubt a future president among the small minds at the University of Illinois. The question is whether it is the weak-kneed anti-free-speech crowd that runs the university or the whiny back-stabbing student who had no tolerance for Dr.Howell, the only honest person in this sorry episode.


However, even without holding tenure, there is no way that Howell should have been punished. It is not hate speech to say that Catholics believe that homosexuality violates natural moral law any more than it is hate speech to teach that some Christians believe abortion is murder or that Pat Robertson believes that terrorists are the result of the evils of feminism.

July 13th, 2010 | 4:12 pm

UIUC Student — So you felt Dr. Howell left little room for opposing viewpoints to Catholicism, and yet at the same time you learned very little about it?

(the above comment was in response to another poster who claims he was a student in Howell’s class:

  UIUC Student
July 13th, 2010 | 3:51 pm I can see that people on this site are inclined to agree with Professor Howell’s teaching style. I was unhappy with the course and feel that I learned very little about Catholicism. I do not have an issue with a Catholicism professor expressing the Catholic viewpoint or openly agreeing with that viewpoint. I took issue with the way he expressed himself. He expressed his opinions as facts and left little room for opposing viewpoints.)

See also “Return to Rome,” the “News Gazette,ADF.

‘,’Orwellian liberals strike again – fire anyone who does not endorse homosexuality!’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’orwellian-liberals-strike-again-fire-anyone-who-does-not-endorse-homosexuality’,’ ‘,’′,’2010-07-14 02:43:44′,’2010-07-14 02:43:44′,”,’0′,’’,’0′) ***36′,’1′,’2010-07-14 21:26:23′,’2010-07-14 21:26:23′,’


University of Illinois to review case of fired Catholic professor

posted at 3:35 pm on July 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Not a moment too soon, either.  Professor Kenneth Howell taught religion at the University of Illinois for several years, specifically Catholicism, and well enough to earn plaudits from his students for excellence in 2008 and 2009.  When a student asked Howell in class whether he believed the Catholic teaching that homosexual sex was immoral, Howell said he did.  The university then fired him for engaging in “hate speech,” but an outcry over the case has them reconsidering in terms of Howell’ academic freedom:

A faculty group at the University of Illinois‘ flagship campus will review the decision to fire an adjunct religion professor for saying he agreed with Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

Urbana- Champaign campus Chancellor Robert Easter said Monday he hopes to have a decision on the firing of Kenneth Howell from the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure by the time fall classes start. The review is to determine whether Howell’s academic freedom was violated.

“We want to be able to reassure ourselves there was no infringement on academic freedom here,” new university President Michael Hogan told members of the Faculty Senate on Monday. “This is a very, very important, not to mention a touchy and sensitive, issue. Did this cross the line somehow?”

Only if one believes in academic freedom, free speech, and freedom of religion.  Otherwise, what’s the big deal, right?


Nice comments:

The school is intolerant and bigoted. There is no room for open minds to opposing viewpoints.

All people with different views should be quickly fired till tolerance takes over.

seven on July 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM


We’re getting very close to the Bible as hate speech. Thanks democrats.

Mojave Mark on July 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM



From the Daily Illini:

More than a “heckler’s veto”

So, where are all the professional bleeding hearts that normally crawl out of the woodwork on “academic freedom” controversies? What this incident DOES demonstrate is that is becoming well nigh impossible to say anything non-complimentary about Gays and their lifestyle. If this academic is “purged” for saying what was the core content of the course he was hired to teach, then academic freedom at the U of I is a farce and the campus is no better than Stalin’s societ Union of the 1930’s with the “correct party line.” Then we could also comment on the utter lack of due process here. Since when does a person lose a job because of an anonymous complaint? Why doesn’t the complainant have the intellectual honesty – and the simple “guts” – to identify himself instead ogf hiding behind a friend? Is this another example of how practitioners of minority lifestyles secure “acceptance” – by bludgeoning anyone who doesn’t kiss their ring? This affair makes the Augean Stables smell sweet by comparison.



‘,’More comments on Howell – from Hot Air ‘,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’more-comments-on-howell-from-hot-air’,”,’

***31′,’1′,’2010-07-05 20:45:41′,’2010-07-05 20:45:41′,’

(previous post here)

Ctpost (see link for full article):

Perlitz has pleaded not guilty to 24 international sex charges and is awaiting an October trial in New Haven federal court.

Before that will happen, U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton must rule on a defense motion to dismiss the indictment.

William F. Dow, III and David Grudberg, Perlitz’s New Haven-based defense lawyers, have attacked the indictment on jurisdictional grounds claiming the prosecution can’t link any of the alleged assaults to conduct that took place in Connecticut.

Meanwhile, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Krishna Patel and Stephen Reynolds counter that there are several Connecticut links. They point to the program being funded primarily with money from Fairfield County Catholics, Perlitz’s travel arrangements being made here and he maintained a residence here.

But it’s the plight of the boys who will be brought to New Haven to testify at Perlitz’s trial that is the concern of victim advocates.

“A lot of groups are paying attention to this story and what is happening with these boys in Haiti,” said Paul Kendrick, a founding member of Voice of the Faithful’s Maine chapter which advocates for the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. “These young boys put themselves at risk by coming forward to report the abuse.

“Since then they have seen their school closed and been thrown back onto the streets. Now is not the time to forget them.”

Kendrick said he has talked with medical professionals in the U.S. and was advised how important psychological counseling is at this stage.

“A psychotherapist who travels to a place like Haiti and thinks that all he or she is going to need to do is meet with clients in a private office is mistaken,” said Kendrick. “First, the children who were abused are going to need structure in their lives. They will need food. They will need a safe place to live. They will need to be enrolled in school.”

He said other professionals explained “the same toxic feelings of shame, guilt, self loathing, remorse are evident in all children who have been sexually abused, no matter what culture or country they come from. I guess just meeting some of their basic needs is therapeutic,” Kendrick said. “But what do we tell them when the $2,600 is gone?”

Bags containing rice, beans, spaghetti, tomato paste and a gallon of oil, along with shoes, were distributed to most of the boys this week.

Cyrus Sibert, the Haitian journalist who exposed the abuse, convinced a Puerto Rican doctor doing volunteer work in Haiti to provide medical treatment at no cost.

Some of the money was used to purchase an asthma pump for one boy, dental care for another and needed medicine for two others. The bags were assembled and distributed at Sibert’s Radio Souvenir, an FM station in Cap-Haitien.

‘,’The ugly case of Douglas Perlitz – US homosexual pedophile abusing Haitian boys – update’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’the-ugly-case-of-douglas-perlitz-us-homosexual-pedophile-abusing-haitian-boys-update’,”,’’,’2010-07-05 20:45:41′,’2010-07-05 20:45:41′,”,’0′,’’,’0′) ***32′,’1′,’2010-07-06 08:36:49′,’2010-07-06 08:36:49′,’

Judge Rules Not Guilty in Robert Wone Murder Mystery

Submitted by Alvin Lin on July 1, 2010 – 11:59pm


Yesterday Judge Lynn Leibovitz ruled that Victor Zaborsky, Dylan Ward, and Joseph Price were not guilty on all charges over evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy (it was not a court case charging murder). This is another trial by judge, rather than by jury, that ended disappointingly for murdered Asian Americans. Almost 30 years ago Judge Charles Kaufman let Vincent Chin’s murderers (Michael Nitz and Ronald Ebens) go with a $3000 fine. Somewhere right now Vincent Chin is rolling in his grave.

The case and events are extremely complicated, but here is a quick recap:

– Prominent lawyer Robert Wone, President-elect of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association, as well as general counsel for the Organization of Chinese Americans and for Radio Free Asia, was murdered in 2006 while visiting the home of a “friend”. No charges were filed until 2008, and the charges were only for evidence tampering and obstruction of justice, not any charges of murder. Yesterday, all three defendants were cleared of these charges.

– From the 2008 police  report and  warrant used to charge the defendants, “the evidence demonstrates that Robert Wone was restrained, incapacitated, sexually assaulted and murdered.” The report also suggested a significant time gap between the 9-11 call and Wone’s death. The defendants claimed that an unknown intruder came in while all three were home, killed Wone in his bed, and fled.

– Wone was found on his guest bed (arms neatly folded) with 3 large chest knife wounds, and a bloody kitchen knife on a nearby table. Paramedics who initially arrived reported the body appeared to have been recently washed and wiped. There was almost no blood on the body, and all three defendants were found having just freshly showered (and extremely indifferent to officers). Paramedics arrived within 5 minutes of the 9-11 call and reported the dead body cold.

– There was little blood on Robert Wone’s bed itself, despite the 3 huge chest knife wounds. There were no signs of forced entry on the property, and no signs of disarray within the property. Nothing was stolen. Despite signs of recent cleaning, police still found trace signs of blood on walls, the floor, a sofa, and door frames, but ultimately botched the analysis for court use. Investigators reported that massive amounts of Wone’s blood were unaccounted for.

– A white towel near Wone’s body, which the defendants claimed was used to put pressure on Wone’s wounds per 9-11 dispatcher instructions, had little blood on it. There were no signs on Wone’s body of any defensive struggle, suggesting Wone was drugged or incapacitated somehow. Later analysis discovered 7 needle pricks (possible injection sites) all over his body.

– The needle pricks are interesting, as one of the defendants happens to be an acupuncturist/masseuse. As a side note, one of the other defendants also happens to be a lawyer.

– The biggest flag: the bloody knife found in the crime scene did not match the chest wound cuts. However, a knife missing from one of the defendant’s home cutlery sets, was found to be a match for the cuts created on Wone’s body. The cutting edge of the bloody knife also did not match the cotton fibers of Wone’s shirt. Investigators reported the cuts themselves were very clean and deep, and suggested precise incisions made upon a motionless body. Despite testimony and video interrogation that the knife was physically removed from Wone’s body by a defendant, the judge’s statement said there was no evidence that the defendants touched the knife.

– An odd fact of the case was Wone’s semen was found in his own rectum. After police investigated Wone’s past, his body, and people who knew him, they determined he was definitely sexually straight, and was sexually assaulted while incapacitated. One extremely interesting fact is one of the defendants was found to possess several sadomasochist tools in his room, books on electro-torture and sex slave manuals, as well as an electrocution unit which can produce forced ejaculation of an incapacitated person. This defendant also had a history of narcotics use and a history of trips to Thailand and other Asian countries.

This verdict is eyebrow-raising. The defendants weren’t charged for murder, but for evidence tampering, and still got off not guilty.



This gay “triple” (a long-term relationship of three men, at least one of who is into sadomasochism) is at the heart of it–it’s getting no coverage.  There’s a Wikipedia page  about it–and the more I read, the more concerned that I am that because of the sexual orientation of the three men who either likely committed the murder, or at least covered up who did it–it is taboo for national news coverage.  There’s kinky sex, apparently, probably rape, murder, half of Mr. Wone’s blood is missing–and suspicious puncture marks, a covered up crime–all the aspects of what would ordinarily be a major news story, just for the prurient aspects alone.


I totally agree with Clayton.


‘,’Who Killed Robert Wone? Three homosexual murderers covering up for each other?’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’who-killed-robert-wone-three-homosexual-murderers-covering-up-for-each-other’,’ ‘,’ ‘,’2010-07-06 22:16:01′,’2010-07-06 22:16:01′,”,’0′,’’,’0′)

***29′,’1′,’2010-07-04 23:15:59′,’2010-07-04 23:15:59′,’

This is beautiful, both in thought as in style:

I am inclined to agree with the burden of your argument, but I recommend avoiding such personifications as “Nature has ordered.” They will seem quasi-theological, and it is not theists whom we must convince. Our task is to persuade secular (i.e., economic and “high-culture” conservatives) and moderates.

Also, nature, although it has patterns and we should emphasize these, is unconscious. “Society” too is indefinite; any association of whatever kind, the best and the worst, is a society.

But culture is both customary human ethical practice and the more conscious deliberations of the law.

We can begin our arguments in support of marriage with the rational understanding of nature, but we cannot end there.

Now, to be fair to the homophiles, there was once an ethical, or at least a societal, sanction for (male) homosexuality. This occurred in the time of those wily Greeks. In the citizen army, an older man would pair with a youth; he would protect him and teach him soldiering as they stood against the foe. Aristotle approved of these arrangements, as long as they did not interfere with the duty of a man to take a wife and to replenish the citizenry. Nobody even in Alcibiades’ Athens imagined that the males themselves could marry each other.

That stage of culture, however, has been long surpassed. We live in vast nations, not intimate cities, and we have experienced the moral refinements that came with Christianity. The insights of Augustine and Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, have changed the ethical landscape, even among those who renounce a belief in God: Marx is not Leucippus, Freud is not Epicurus.

I understand your desire to make a “biological” argument against homosexual “marriage,” and this is a first step, but I suggest that the argument cannot pause at that level. The problem with empirical observations is that they are too abundant. One can pick and choose when trying to use them to make inferences about ethical human behavior. As Freud said, causes are overdetermined. Although some of our foes will soon tire of hearing it, we must emphasize that for us humans, reason is the essence of what we are, not the contingencies of nature.

Comment by Noesis Noeseos here‘,’Philosophical thoughts against same-sex marriage’,’0′,”,’publish’,’open’,’closed’,”,’philosophical-thoughts-against-same-sex-marriage’,”,’ ‘,’2010-07-04 23:16:54′,’2010-07-04 23:16:54′,”,’0′,’’,’0′) ***30′,’1′,’2010-07-05 20:35:35′,’2010-07-05 20:35:35′,’

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: