induced cytotec dipp cephalexin over the counter aldactone mg spironolactone usa
kamagra pillen ordine viagra viagra frankreich rezeptfrei
valacyclovir tablets usp 500 mg acyclovir online pharmacy uk bactrim price philippines dexamethasone cause leukocytosis générique diprolene prednisolone lean

Hospital Colchicine Injection

November 3, 2009 by Editor 

Hospital Colchicine Injection, Just in from "Restore America", a refreshing reminder of just how out of touch with the mainstream they are and another reason I think their leader is a mo. In the words of Kathy G... allegedly.

Restore America was in back of the failed effort to put both Oregon's Domestic Partnership and Statewide Anti-Discrimination laws back on the ballot in an attempt to reverse them.

As you read below, you may also get the sickening sense that their cultish leader, David Crowe, has such contempt for gays and lesbians, that he secretly wants to get in a guy's pants. Just my opinion David, Hospital Colchicine Injection.

Here is the article in the Oregonian that he is referring to.

Here's the email from them today in light of Basic Rights Oregon starting a statewide conversation on marriage equality.

Oregon's Sodomites Can't Take "No" For An Answer

On November first, Bill Graves of The Oregonian reported that Basic Rights Oregon, the political front group for the sodomite community in Oregon, is planning another attack on traditional marriage, Hospital Colchicine Injection us, er go, Oregon's Constitution, and the clearly expressed will of the people of Oregon.

The self absorbed child is throwing another public

No matter how many subjective videos, TV tear jerkers, poor me stories, and claims of discrimination they are going to throw at Oregonians, Basic Rights Oregon has an agenda of intolerance shaped in Washington D.C. that parallels that of the Obama Administration and his radical democrat friends in Congress. Hospital Colchicine Injection, Basic Rights and their rejection of traditional American values is simply another organization in a wider political scheme to reshape America into a nation representing their vision, not that of our Founders, and certainly not the majority of Americans, including Oregonians.

Traditional marriage is inviolable

A committed, natural, and God ordained relationship between a man and a woman, Hospital Colchicine Injection ebay, for the purpose of procreation, child rearing, the blessing of family, intimate relationship, and the growth of a moral society, is the only form of 'marriage.' There is no other. Any other relationship between men and men, and women and women, is not marriage, nor will it ever be. Calling an immoral relationship any other name - especially mariage - is an illusion of already deluded, deceived and emotionally troubled people who recognize they are missing what a normal committed relationship produces. Unwisely, they believe that governmental benefits and forced societal acceptance will provide that, Hospital Colchicine Injection craiglist, making what they do, acceptable to those around them.

So called 'same sex marriage' is oxymoronic and immoral

The current swirl of fashionable political manipulation, media 'shove' and social pressure to make marriage anything else, particularly to those who cannot procreate, and who can only confuse children, is nothing more than the sorrowful figment of morally fragmented minds, the anti God elites who manipulate them for their own purposes, and troubled souls who want acceptance and benefits, from the taxpayers - a majority of which have a legitimate conscience problem with their tax dollars being used to cater to a behavior that is in fact, and by consensus, now, Hospital Colchicine Injection india, and in millennia past, immoral.

In short, this effort in itself is immoral, shortsighted, self centered, and juvenile, and will cost Oregonians millions, not only financially, but in the years ahead with confused children, multiplied division, and the loss of free speech if Basic Rights Oregon, and a small special interest group get their way.

Do not be deceived Oregonians, Hospital Colchicine Injection usa. We have seen this all before.


Similar posts: Weaning Off Prozac. Hormones Nutrient Depletion Tetracycline. Drug Interaction Prozac Sulfamethoxazol Trimethoprim craiglist. Tetracycline For Urinary Tract Infections coupon.
Trackbacks from: Hospital Colchicine Injection. Hospital Colchicine Injection. Hospital Colchicine Injection overseas. 250mg Hospital Colchicine Injection.


16 Responses to “Hospital Colchicine Injection”

  1. Jeff on November 9th, 2009 6:43 am

    You know, it’s one thing when I’m presented with a fairly sound, rational objection to some aspect of alternative sexuality- the inability to scientifically establish causation, the possibility that it’s a social construct, some of our more embarrassing public displays of affection- these things kind of give me pause for reflection, and I can kind of see how a rational mind could be duped by some of the more well-reasoned arguments.

    But this foaming at the mouth, irrational vitriol from ridiculously self-assured, pompous, angry people? Doesn’t even hurt my feelings. It’s just so abstract I can’t even process it as being applicable to me, so I just laugh.

  2. Chris on November 10th, 2009 10:47 am

    While I have to agree with Jeff, there was one particular sentence that made me stop and think.

    “A committed, natural, and God ordained relationship between a man and a woman, for the purpose of procreation, child rearing, the blessing of family, intimate relationship, and the growth of a moral society, is the only form of ‘marriage.’”

    If this is the stance that we are taking, the standards that define marriage, then I think there are several man-woman relationships that shouldn’t be deemed marriage. After all many people do not get married for the purpose of rearing children and if you’re not contributing to the growth of moral society, sorry to tell you, but your marriage is axed.

  3. Brent Wittgenstien on December 3rd, 2009 3:05 pm

    Interesting article!

    I am a gay man and I am a christian and I have never before read such a clear and obstinate position stated publicly. I would almost call this a hate crime. That said, I take a taoist approach to conflict like this and by that I mean, embrace the hate. I think the proper approach here is to admit that we are sinners and let the opposition know that we are ok with going to hell for our marital lusts, Who the hell wants to be in heaven with a bunch of straight assholes like this anyway. We have to stick together even amidst hellfire!

    Perhaps if we let them win the battle of heaven and hell they will concede this earthly sinpot to us.

  4. Charly on December 3rd, 2009 3:45 pm

    Hi Brent,
    thanks for your comment, I understand your point of view but I believe you are completely mistaken.
    As you may not know, Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticized the Mosaic law on divorce, claiming that “What God has joined together let no man separate” and yet we don’t see any Christian lobbying to make divorce illegal.
    What I really wonder is why would anyone ever want to marry for religious purposes? While many conservative would claim that marriage is central to Christian culture, people often forget that Apostle Paul actually taught that marriage was reserved for those people who are not able to resist to the temptation in order to stay celibate and only love God.
    Why do you need to marry your lover? Isn’t it enough for you to be aware that you love him and that you love God, and that God will love you both no matter what your marital status is?

  5. Brent on December 3rd, 2009 4:01 pm

    Well I think it’s you who may be mistaken Charly boy. It never ceases to amaze me how people can find a rationalization for anything they do. Look I’m the first to admit that the same thing is being done by the oppostion but you can’t really be saying (and believing) that is ok to spit on god’s laws as long as you love him. Try that with your mother or you lover for that matter and see how it works out. No really try it, listen politely to all his requests and then do the exact opposite and then see how your relationships work out.

    People (gay and straight alike) need to start being honest. If your a sinner, admit it! and then work on it! God has made all kinds of people with different challenges to overcome, some people are born with urges to molest children and some people are born with urges to kill and everyone has to overcome thier demons, the whole leigon of them we are born with. To say that marrige isn’t important is just a rationalization you’ve made up to try and sidestep your demons but it won’t work they will still be there. I love men and I admit it I would just like the freedom to be married to my lover so that I can stop sinning in that way at least. Plus it’s not even about that for some people, some people have lovers from other countries that they want to become citizens. They should have the same right as the rest of the sinners

  6. Charly on December 4th, 2009 12:15 am

    Dear Brent,
    you should know that the church did not define the marriage as a sacrament until 1215. At that point, the church embraced many of the assumptions of the patriarchal culture, in which women and marriageable children became assets to be controlled and exploited to the advantage of the man who headed their household. The theology of marriage was heavily influenced by economic and legal considerations: it emphasized procreation, and spoke only secondarily of the “mutual consolation of the spouses.” The marriage is not an object of God but a mere artifact of the church intended to control not only the minds but also the development of the population. You should consider yourself lucky that the government is actually preventing you from being abused by the church..

  7. Brent on December 4th, 2009 8:45 am

    O my God

    And I’m not saying that in vain. I really mean it. “O my god please come and strike down this demonic blasphemer charly!”

    It’s amazing to me how you think that big words and the pseudo-ability to morph the true word of the bible give you the answers you are claiming to have. Marriage is not some man made scheme to control other men. It is the way in which god has made us. We bond, then we share and speak our bond before god and all and then an ordained member of god’s community bonds us before god. I don’t know why I am even bothering with your pompus ass but for your information Marriage PREDATES recorded history! Maybe the word “marriage” only goes back as far as the middle ages but our sun and moon used to be called something else too.

    They say it is wrong for Men to marry men because it is a sin to lay with another man. But that is like saying it is wrong to Worship god before all others just because you are coveting your neighbors wife. May god have mercy on those who wish to distort his word to their purposes

  8. Charly on December 5th, 2009 4:42 am

    you have to understand that marriage equality is the only way to protect the religious liberty of those who believe that God’s love can be reflected in the loving commitment between two people of the same sex and of those who do not find God there. This is as it should be in a society so deeply rooted in the principles of religious freedom and equality under the law.
    If governments were allowed to make religious laws (i.e. laws based solely on religious opinion), individual religious liberty would not exist as we know it.
    Ironically, inside the United States, it is the Christians rather than the government who do the majority of persecution. Our God dominates the currency, endorses the Pledge of Allegiance, and to an unknowing foreigner might even sound like an official religion..

  9. Michael on December 10th, 2009 11:40 am

    I suppose I still don’t understand why many conservative Christians quote the bible to “everyone” as if “everyone” uses this piece of literature as their moral compass. Certainly, many do…but lest we forget we are a country that prides itself on our “freedom of religion”? The bible is not the “go to” book for all faiths, so when it is quoted by a conservative Christian as such, it can seem to carry as much weight as if they quoted from Wikipedia. When it is used as the source for defining “marriage”, then we are essentially ignoring the importance of religious freedom and the very “America” our founding fathers wanted.

    This is not a bashing of religion, but rather a celebration of the diversity that is “America”.

  10. Justin on January 15th, 2010 1:39 pm

    Having attended several debates about same-sex marriage thus far, it is still my firm conviction that there has yet to be proposed a single reason why same-sex marriage is bad for the country that is not based on religion or that has not been sufficiently countered. Most of the reasons proposed against same-sex marriage are in fact arguments against homosexuality in general, which is a useless argument to be had in the first place (as if one chooses between homo- or heterosexuality based on logic). While I can understand the opposition on religious grounds, I cannot understand why those same people cannot appreciate that other religious people might legitimately disagree with them. It seems shocking to some that Christians could support same-sex marriage, yet there has been a faithful contingent of religious pro-same-sex marriage supporters at every rally or event (for or against) that I have attended thus far. I thought it may be timely to explain how some Christians can do this – and further, why all Christians should. Opposition to same-sex marriage need not be labelled religious, as the Christian camp is by no means united on this matter. Naturally, I can only speak from the perspective of my own religion, Christianity, but I thought I would offer my own contribution to the debate: ten reasons why Christians should support same-sex marriage.

    Because Christians support equal rights for all Canadians (indeed, all humans). The “special rights” argument is patently false – this is obviously a clear case of all citizens being treated exactly equally with respect to all of the societal approbations that are associated with marriage: inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation rights etc. What is special about gays and lesbians being granted the same rights as heterosexual couples already have?
    Because Christians have long benefited from the freedom of religion in this country, and would want to continue to respect that in the future. Even if you personally don’t approve of same-sex marriage, you might at least recognize that there are several other denominations who are in favour of same-sex marriage: the Society of Friends, Metropolitan Community Church, Lambda Christian Church, and the United Church of Canada are only four Edmonton examples. To deny any religious groups’ belief to practice same-sex marriage in Canada violates a belief in the freedom of religion for all.
    Because modern Christians realize that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Often a primary objection to same-sex marriages is that they cannot bear children. Not only is this narrow-minded and untrue (many creative solutions are available to the same-sex couple that desires to raise children), it’s a double-standard. No one tests heterosexuals for their fertility or desire to raise children before determining their suitability for marriage – on the contrary, churches today regularly marry couples known to be infertile (post-menopausal women being only one example) Inasmuch as any heterosexual couple that has remained childless has been recognized as married by the church, it is hypocritical to resort to this fallacious logic in the same-sex marriage debate.
    Because Christians should support marriage in all of its forms. Some claim that same-sex marriage is an attack on family values, but this is incorrect. On the contrary, it is an attempt by GLBT people to be legally recognized as having families in the first place. It is a non sequitur to claim that only the “traditional” nuclear family model is legitimate when less than half of Canadian families conform to this model currently anyways. Same-sex marriage can be seen as enhancing and strengthening marriage instead of the opposite.
    Because Christians realize that the Church has been discriminatory in the past and would seek amends for that. Formerly the Church denigrated “homosexual promiscuity” without making available any other option (a recognized covenanted relationship). The Christian support of same-sex marriage thus can end a hypocritical position of the Church and give the Church more relevance to contemporary society. Many agree that Christians should be opposed to discrimination in any form. The “have-your-relationships-but-don’t-call-it-marriage” argument is specious as it promotes a South African-type apartheid: the “same water coming from different fountains” is not equal. As the American Supreme Court has decided “separate but equal” is not.
    Because Christians realize that marriage has never been a static institution, and therefore there is no reason that it should be now. From its early origin as a property exchange, to a method of ensuring peace between nations, to being recognized as a church function only in the thirteenth century, to the recent questioning of the “God-given” roles for men and women, the institution of marriage has always been in a state of flux. Things once illegal, such as miscegenation and the marriage of the mentally handicapped, are now permitted. To arbitrarily decide that now marriage has evolved as far as it should according to an 1960’s definition is to deny any possible subsequent influence of the Holy Spirit in our world
    Because Christians support the separation of Church and State. Hardly anyone believes these days that the Church should define the law in this country – this position is ignorant of the centuries of problems that that historical situation created. In accordance with the freedom of religion in Canada, modern Christians realize that the insertion of the Christian God into government only spells trouble for those who (everyone agrees) have the right NOT to believe in that God. Christians do not want their denomination to dictate law for the rest of the country.
    Because Christians have long known that the Church should not determine legal policy. Further to the above, Christians universally believe in following one’s own conscience, even when that entails opposing the official policy of one’s church. Catholics believe that each person has a solemn moral obligation to adhere to the dictates of his or her conscience (even if that conscience is erroneous), over and above the dictates of the Church. As Cardinal Ratzinger has written: “Only the absoluteness of conscience is the antithesis to tyranny.” Thus for Catholics convicted that all Canadians should be treated equally and that the Canadian freedom of religion should be respected as above, not to promote the legalisation of same-sex marriages is sinful. Within Protestantism the case is even easier, as the entire tradition is ultimately based upon an individual acting according to the dictates of his conscience by nailing up 95 thesis to the wall of a Wittenberg church, an act commemorated in most Protestant churches this week To stand up and challenge the dominant authority is a practice firmly rooted and celebrated in Protestant tradition. Even those opposed to homosexuality in general can logically support same-sex marriage as a decidedly “lesser evil” than the alternative.
    Because Christians realize that to hold up marriage as for heterosexuals only is not only discriminatory, it also borders on idolatry. Just as the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were maligned for counting their dill seeds while neglecting justice and mercy (Mathew 23:23), Christians today realize that marriage was created for humankind, not the opposite. Jesus’ words in Mark 2:27 are an interesting parallel to the contemporary situation. Marriage is a tool for developing honest, voluntary, long-lasting and mutually accountable relationships between two people, and Christians realize that that is a laudable goal for two people of any gender and seek to promote that.
    Because Christians believe in the supremacy of God, not the supremacy of government. Even those who consider homosexual behaviour to be sinful can believe in the equality of all people under the government. Christians realize that many sins are not covered by the Criminal Code, nor should they be, as they are more matters of individual conscience. Ultimately, Christians can take solace in the fact that all will be judged fairly before God, and leave it to God to do the judging. In the meantime, one can work toward the most equitable society possible on this earth: this is what Jesus would have us do.
    In yet another reason, educated Christians are also aware of the inherent difficulties in defining marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman: Olympic Committees and lawmakers alike realize the surprising impossibility of legally defining the terms “man” and “woman.” True, for the majority of the population these things are self-evident, but a universal law applying to all Canadians must also take into account the 1 in 1,000 babies that are born intersexed (with anatomical, hormonal, or chromosomal differences that render them unable to conclusively determine a child’s gender, let alone subsequent questions of orientation). The modern world is painfully beginning to realize that nature does not boil down into binary categories nearly as simply as we might like it to. The artificial dichotomy on sex and gender will be one of the final barriers to post-modern thinking to be lifted. If Christians are to seek justice in the world for all people this needs to include transgender individuals and intersexed people as well.

    Instead of appearing reluctant or divided, the Christian church should be among the leaders in taking a progressive and prophetic stance in this matter. By doing this not only would the Church be thus opening itself up to the moving of the Holy Spirit in the world, but this would also enable it to regain a sense of relevancy to contemporary society. It is only through supporting same-sex marriage that the Christian Church will be able to live up to its own standard of communicating the unconditional love of God and the radical inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world.

  11. chuck on January 28th, 2010 3:54 am

    Can you explain law of slavery? Jesus said to be a good slave in Mathew? Why,is it wrong if it was okay by Jesus word of scripture? How come I can’t have many wives like old testament? Im lost can you help me understand scripture? Old Testament or God Laws were updated by Jesus New Law? Why, is wrong to be gay? Old Law? Jesus said, Love all man unconditional? Why, is it wrong for gay’s to marry. Old Law of God? New law of Jesus unconditionaly? Is this not double jepardy? We don’t do it today’s law, except with Gay people?Is this not double jepardy? A Double standard? I dont get it. I guess this is why so many say it contradicts! We say Love equal than say you can’t get Married? Justify with old law when Jesus said, Love all man and old testament says love all man? If, so can I use it in Law today? Sounds good to me.I can have slaves? Updated law dont mean anything? We can still use old laws and new laws? What is Human Right. Is this not to be equal.What is unconditional then.I looked in dictionary and says without conditions. Is this not double jepordy? To say I love you unconditionally,except if your Gay.What about Gay Christians that dont want to sin by Adultry. We say we love them equal with limitations.Then use old scripture or Laws and say No? How is this fair? I’m lost? If we just got rid of Old Testament it wouldn’t be confusing? Like our old Laws.We no longer use Old laws with new. Old Law of God,One Book.Law of Jesus another Book of laws. Do you see where I’m going. If a man stole a cow we used to hang them. Why not today? You do it in the Bible, it must be okay for us today? We can just make laws to fit us? So if I have many wives I can Justify with Old Laws like Old Testament. Why keep old law if new ones take its place? Thus old test. law and new test. law. Jesus said, Unconditionaly.And also said Meant to be between Man and Woman. Can I justify having two wives by old law? What does word Meant mean. I looked in dictionary it say Soposed to be. So I can have many still? Meant in law mean today. Did it change of something? Meant, man and woman. Does it say not man and man? Where is the limitations on it. Surely not in old law?Updated law of today dont allow that.Why would God make it differant, Is he not fair?Does he love one more than the other? Jesus said under no condition and we say yes we are then no you cant. What is that? Two most important Commandments,Mathew said Jesus Updated the Law and we use old law of God. No wonder people say, It contradict. Do you see where Im going. How is a lesser law hight than More important law. I know the truth! I just wanted you to see it. You would do better without old law of Moses, Just used Jesus New Testament Law. To use both wouldn’t stand up in court. Unless Prejudiced? Do you catch my meaning.We do it to Gays and then use old law to justify over new law. You Guy don’t even see it.Blind and now do you see!!I have been trying to tell people won’t but won’t listen? I just hear justification of old law of Moses.So Moses law more importand than New updated law?Im trying to tell the world something and get blown off. I know I had been going around it wrong.I just don’t know what God’s meaning is behind it.Something Im positive of. God gave me the gift of scripture yet I did not know how to tell anyone without thinking I’m crazy. I hope this one get’s taken seriously. I know without a dought what I’m soposed to do but don’t know how to tell ya.This is my best bet to use parable as Jesus to get point across without putting up a wall. I was blind and now I see. I was a Christian for long time to. I’d thought someone was crazy if opposite situation. Can’t blame them plus it is for some reason. God only know though.I will see soon. I’m trying to tell them he’s comming. Like a thier in the night. Lot shorter than you think. More like now.This is the Alpha of omega. I know you think, huh? He wants you to be ready. Think 2012 calendars stop. You think ah,maybe. I say no for sure. If you knew what I do you’d go nuts as anyone else in my shoe. He hints then I wait then bang out of know where I just jump and as high as I can. He is real. You know he’s real. Forget the old Testament. Like old law of society.Read word for word in bible truth of scripture only new law not moses’s. Read Mathew at least. Then read Rev. the same way. No more contradiction and you will see his comming. Pleas try it he does love you.Believe in him you shall not parrish but have eternal life.If you don’t catch on to this message you safe. Wouldn’t like a little less burden. “Justice is mine says”, The Lord. I can maybe help you if you missed the meaning.It is for reason all is for reason. God’s Ordained Rev. Parker 3

  12. Michael on January 29th, 2010 3:31 am

    Homophobia is not a “traditional American value.” It’s a sin like lying, stealing and murder. In his effort to demonize and revile law-abiding, taxpaying, gay Americans, radical anti-gay activist Crowe conveniently ignores the fact that the Bible in more than one place warns that revilers are going to hell. Before he points fingers at others, unrepentant homophobe Crowe should focus on his own sins.

  13. Kiera O'Brien on April 7th, 2010 6:46 pm

    I find it ironic that I wasn’t born in this country, and yet through the citizenship process I know more about America than those who’ve always lived here.

    Our dear friend Mr Crowe seems unaware that in the Constitution there lies not only
    a FREEDOM OF RELIGION but also a definitive statement ordering the separation of CHURCH AND STATE.

    So please, let us all remind the homophobic (and as suggested, possibly self -loathing closet case) SOB that his god has no place in a discussion about the laws of humans.

  14. Mike on December 17th, 2010 9:34 pm

    You’re right in the sense that if divorce rates are through the roofs, and if 50% of married couples don’t make it, it doesn’t speak well for the notion of marriage, and probably reflect the loss of morals in our society. However, that isn’t a cause for allowing a different form of immorality.

    Words have a meaning; a hate crime does not consist of publishing an article. There’s no murderer and victim here.
    It’s pretty interesting that you consider someone “with urges to molest children” has someone who “has demons to work on”, but when it comes to your urge to be married and that you recognize as a sin, you want the world to adapt to your view. Why do you refuse to apply the same morals in both cases? You demonstrated you have them, citing coveting your neighbor’s wife, and not killing.

    You want to live with your companion and have taxes, property rights, and the rest of social benefits that heterosexuals have, that’s fine. Call it what it is: a “civil union”.
    You want to use “creative solutions” to procreate, that’s fine too, just recognize that you are going against nature’s way. Procreation was designed between a man and a woman. Notice I didn’t talk about religion. It’s just the nature of things.
    Thirdly, normalizing gay union might seem to you like its strengthening marriage because you feel your relationship is a strong bond that can spawn the nucleus of a family, much better than the average American couple, but you’re also forgetting that what you’re really doing is normalizing a situation that’s immoral. Again, this is not on a religious base, but from a natural perspective.
    Fourth, you believe in the separation of church and state, that’s perfect, so let’s keep it that way. Let churches deal with marriages, and the state deal with “civil union”. By the way, when I get married, I still need to go get my civil union recognized…
    Lastly, as for whether or not the church should change its stance on same sex marriage, I’ll tell you one thing. He made his views known a long time ago, whether you decide to recognize and live that is up to you, but a church that changes its moral based on the will of the people, not on the will of god is lacking he very base of its faith: god. Is that the church you seek?

    I agree with you on the fact that the bible is not the moral compass everyone use and therefore can’t have the same weight for everyone. However, there are several things you need to keep in mind. When you (and I mean you, Michael) use the term gay and marriage together, you encroach on my freedom of religion, that defines marriage as the recognition of the union of a men and a woman by God. By the way, this definition is pretty universal. Notice, I didn’t use any literature. I’m very willing to give you what you seek, the civil rights and the right to a different sexuality, but you have to recognize my rights too. So what don’t you use the term “civil union” which is much more appropriate to your situation.

    Kiera O’ Brian,
    Thank you for becoming a citizen. As for the laws of humans, they should be based on morals, not on what Hollywood thinks, or what’s politically convenient. Whether you want to recognize that a lot of our American values are derived from our Judeo-Christian faith is your choice. But if you lack the morals, you will never agree with good laws or understand them. I’m not here to judge, but I do want you to give the right value to law based on values.

  15. ruben brigantty on August 18th, 2012 7:39 am

    mike, homosexuality is neither moral nor immoral.. it’s a sexual orientation.. it’s one variant of human sexuality.. it’s not an act, behavior or “lifestyle.” it exist in nature.. many animals in the wild also express this orientation..this has been documented and recorded by the scientific community. it is natural..secondly this is hate speech, cloaking it behind religious belief and biblical dogma, doesn’t change the message.. when christians were killing jews, supporting slavery and upholding bans on interracial marriages, the bible was quoted many times as justification.. it doesn’t change the fact that the message was hateful and hurtful to certain groups of people…as a matter of fact it’s cowardly and shameful for so called people of faith to act this way, using the bible to justify immoral acts is immoral..lastly, we are asking for “civil marriages,” we’re talking about city hall here.. no one’s talking about making or forcing religious institutions to marry us.. and please explain how my getting married to my husband is infringing on your religious rights, how my marriage is stopping you from believing in god. i mean if you don’t like same sex marriage just don’t have one…also why you feel that your religious rights supersede everyone else’s civil rights..mike we pay taxes too.. taxes which we see spent on wasteful frivolous things every year..aren’t the 10 million of us living in the usa entitled to the same equal treatment?..

  16. Brooke on May 23rd, 2014 11:59 pm

    I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post
    was great. I do not know who you are but certainly you’re going to
    a famous blogger if you aren’t already ;) Cheers!

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!