Saturday, December 12, 2009

Fun For the Whole Family

This has been floating around the Internet lately. Play Anti-Gay Bingo!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shatner and Palin on Conan

December 12, 2009 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


looks like five across in any direction you choose

thanks for the summary, Jim

lot of people don't understand all the problems with homosexuality so this gives them some stuff to think about

December 12, 2009 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Yes, there's lots here to think about. For instance:

A "family" means a man, a woman and their biological children. Nothing else will do.

Let's see, using this definition that Anone has expressed gratitude for, we find:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts with his adopted, non-biological kids, is not a family man.

Pat and Catherine Buchanan who produced no biological children are not a family.

Byrd and Melanie Billings, with their dozen adopted children, most of them special needs, were not a family before they were murdered in their home.

Randall Terry, who lamented "Families are destroyed as a father vents his mid life crisis by abandoning his wife for a 'younger, prettier model.'" and then divorced his wife of 19 years and married his former assistant who was 17 years his junior, along with his numerous foster and adopted non-biological children (including one adopted son who is gay and now disowned by Terry), is not a family man.

Yes indeed, lots to think about indeed.

Nothing else will do.

December 12, 2009 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fascinating, anon-B

homosexual partnerships for the purpose of engaging in a deviant form of hedonism has as much right to be called a family as those with adopted kids or those formed after a second marriage

you won't find many places where the majority of people agree with that

as a matter of fact, 32 states in America have voted that you're wrong

bingo that, lame-brain

December 12, 2009 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Who said anything about same sex marriage, Anone?

I applied your preferred definition of "family" to some heterosexual couples and their children, showing that many of these family groups don't qualify for definition of "family" you espouse, because you limit a "family" to a man, a woman and their biological children. Nothing else will do.

December 12, 2009 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Who said anything about same sex marriage, Anone?"

that's what the bingo game was about, inane

did you miss that point?

"I applied your preferred definition of "family" to some heterosexual couples and their children,"

I never gave my "preferred" definition

"showing that many of these family groups don't qualify for definition of "family" you espouse,"

I never "espoused" any definition

"because you limit a "family" to a man, a woman and their biological children. Nothing else will do."

I never said I "limit" a family to biological children

you really blew it this time, inane-B

December 12, 2009 1:34 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon stated:

“homosexual partnerships for the purpose of engaging in a deviant form of hedonism has as much right to be called a family as those with adopted kids or those formed after a second marriage

you won't find many places where the majority of people agree with that

as a matter of fact, 32 states in America have voted that you're wrong”

Interestingly, the states HAVE sanctioned all sorts of deviant HETEROsexual partnerships with absolutely no regard to whether they are being hedonistic, adulterous, or even committing sodomy. These couples have been allowed to have children or adopt them with little or no oversight. And yet no one has been able to vote on their marriage.

Somehow that doesn’t seem fair to me.

Have a nice day,


December 12, 2009 3:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, it is fair, Cynthia

males and females were designed by the Creator to form partnerships which are the basis of the society

they benefit society and, thus, deserve preference

you consider yourself hetero, don't you?

December 12, 2009 4:01 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asserted:

“males and females were designed by the Creator to form partnerships which are the basis of the society”

O.K. Anon, in the interest of saving time so I can work on my presentation for church, I’m going to have to pull one of your tricks out of the bag for this one:

You have no scientific evidence or proof of this. It’s an interesting theory, but you have nothing to back it up. There are plenty of heterosexuals throughout history that have terrorized society, started wars, pillaged, looted, and even worse. As a group, I’d have to say that in terms of sheer numbers of people murdered, raped, or pillaged, heterosexuals FAR out do whatever damage gay folks have done.

I also fail to see how anyone can claim heterosexual relationships, like that of Britney Spear’s two marriages, Mark Sanford’s marriage, Tiger Wood’s marriage, David Letterman’s or even Ted Haggard’s marriage is a “basis of society.”

“they benefit society and, thus, deserve preference”

Indeed some of them do, many do not. If you limited partnerships ONLY to people (straight or gay) that benefited society, then maybe you’d have a basis for doling out preferential treatment. Otherwise you are simply condoning hedonistic behavior for heterosexuals while punishing only gays for doing essentially the same thing.

Plenty of LGBT people have benefitted society as well; Alan Turing (who happened to be gay) helped build the first modern computing engines and was a major force behind decrypting German codes during WWII. A transwoman by the name of Lynn Conway was co-author of THE book for VLSI (computer chip) design, and also pioneered multiple-instructions-per-clock cycle processor design. Without that, all of the modern conveniences we take for granted (like harassing LGBT folks anonymously over the internet, rather than in-person) would not be possible.

As for myself, I try to benefit society by promoting civil discourse and civil rights, as well as paying for my nephew’s private Catholic high-school tuition. He’s a smart kid and will benefit well from the (non-religious portion of the) education he receives there. And I think he’s smart enough to avoid being inculcated by Catholic dogma.

Anon asked:

“you consider yourself hetero, don't you?”

In some ways it doesn’t matter what I “consider myself.” According to at least one CRG protester, I am apparently still a man. She told me I should be forced to use the men’s restroom. This was the day of the EQMD gala in June 2008. (You can see pictures of the protest here: They only have pictures from my back however – you can go to my YouTube channel to see my front by clicking “svelte_brunette” above.) Given my appearance, behavior, curlitude, sparkling personality, and the fact that I am post-operative (i.e. I have girlie bits) I fail to see the logic behind forcing me to use the men’s room or considering me a “man.”

If I wanted to marry a man, and announced my intentions in local papers, I wouldn’t be surprised if CRG folks protested my “gay marriage,” and pointed out that, not only am I still a man, but gay marriage is still against the law in MD. Yet if I were to hold hands with one of my girl friends in the mall, people would snicker, frown, and possibly harass us for being lesbians – and they certainly wouldn’t condone us getting married. So who can I legally marry??? Trans persons that have gotten married in the past have later had their marriages annulled by a court order based on the fact that their state didn’t allow gay marriages, even though their marriage involved the same genitalia pair as any heterosexual marriage.

December 12, 2009 5:57 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“you consider yourself hetero, don't you?”

I never had “gay sex” with a man while I was trying to live as a man, and I have never had “lesbian sex” now that I am living as a woman. That’s not saying much, considering my utter lack of sexual activity – I just don’t have sex as general rule. If the right fascinating, handsome, and intelligent guy came along, and we were emotionally compatible, and in a committed long term relationship, I don’t doubt I would consider having sex with him. So far though, those kind of guys haven’t exactly been beating down my door. I may never have sex, and I may never be able to get legally married. It’s a good thing I have lots of wonderful friends, and that promoting understanding and tolerance fills a lot of my free time.

Back on the topic of the Creator, since you brought him (or her) up… here are some passages from a text many people attribute to his (or her) divine inspiration. I find it interesting to contrast how certain people use this text and certain passages from it to condemn people like me, while in the text itself there seems to be quite a bit of tolerance for non-child bearing persons like myself.

From Isaiah 56:

“1 Thus says the LORD, “Preserve justice and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come And My righteousness to be revealed.
2 “How blessed is the man who does this, And the son of man who takes hold of it; who keeps from profaning the Sabbath, And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from His people.” Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”
4 For thus says the LORD, “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.”

Or perhaps Acts 8:26-40:

“26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Arise and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.)
27 And he arose and went; and behold, there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship.
28 And he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.”
30 And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?”
35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing.
40 But Philip found himself at Azotus; and as he passed through he kept preaching the gospel to all the cities, until he came to Caesarea.”

December 12, 2009 5:59 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Well, so much for keeping things short. I have to get ready to visit with some of my wonderful T friends and their families.

Have a nice evening,


December 12, 2009 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

male/female is the ideal, Cynthia

that eunuchs became saved doesn't change that

taking it as support for homosexual "marriage" is, frankly, ridiculous

here's a professor in the currently frigid meteorology department at Penn State:

"A scientist who goes in trying to prove his theory is not a good scientist. ... Any scientist needs to be skeptical. A good scientist is a skeptical scientist. ... There are four groups of people who are involved in the global warming debate. I think the one that is naturally skeptical -- that looks at the evidence and considers whether it's good or not based on its own merits as opposed to his personal position on the topic -- is making the wise choice. There are people who are deniers of global warming who look at every piece of evidence that shows global warming is not occurring and ignore anything that might show global warming is a possibility or that man might be causing it. And you have the pro-anthropogenic group who will look at any piece of evidence that supports their idea man is influencing the climate and dismiss anything that isn't and say the science has already been decided. I think both of these groups are scary because they're not reacting in a truly scientific way. The fourth group of people -- and it's a significantly large group -- are those who are apathetic, who just don't care. And I think it's too important a topic not to be aware of."

his comments apply equally to all the sexuality studies too

too many scientists in the field have results they want to find before the study has commenced

science needs to find some better quality control procedures

peer review isn't working

December 12, 2009 10:35 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon fragmented:

“male/female is the ideal, Cynthia”

Personally, I’m fine with just the female Cynthia. I tried the male thing for WAY to long – it didn’t work for me.

“that eunuchs became saved doesn't change that
taking it as support for homosexual "marriage" is, frankly, ridiculous”

I wasn’t making that connection. Try rereading the post. I was merely musing on one of my other favorite topics, which is the appropriate treatment of trans people. Which is near and dear to my heart, and I couldn’t help but thinking of when someone anonymously asked me about my sexuality in a post related to marriage. The original question, which assumed my heterosexuality, sort of implied a question of why would I support gay marriage if I’m a hererosexual.

Anon stated:
“here's a professor in the currently frigid meteorology department at Penn State:” (Followed un referenced quote.)
“Current frigid” and other references on other threads on this site to recently cold weather as a refutation of global warming belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what global warming actually is. The total expected temperature rise due to global warming is on the order of a few degrees (I think less than 10, but I haven’t kept up with all the latest studies.) That kind of temperature fluctuation is easily exceeded on any given day, not to mention over a year.

It is very easy to look at a thermometer and say “yes it’s getting warmer” or “you see, I told you so, it’s getting colder.” These statements are irrelevant. The “warming” has already occurred, as evidenced by the disappearance of glaciers all over the globe and the opening of the once fabled, and long sought for “Northwest Passage.”

Anyone with a modicum of science or engineering education knows that ice has something that’s called “enthalpy of fusion” ( ) which is the amount of heat energy required to change 1 mole (a specific number of molecules) of a substance from solid to liquid (or back) WITHOUT CHANGING ITS TEMPERATURE.

There’s a simple experiment you can do on your stove top. Put a pot (about 1 to 2 quart size) on your stove and then fill it to near the top with ice. Put in just enough water to get most of the ice wet, stir it up well and stick in a thermometer. It will read 0C or 32F. Now put the pot on the stove on a burner turned to HIGH. Keep stirring the pot and take a temperature measurement every 30 seconds to once a minute. What you will find is that despite fact that your burner is on high, the temperature in the pot will stay very close to 32F until nearly all the ice is gone. After that, the temperature will start to sky rocket.

December 13, 2009 12:27 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

What you may notice is that it took a tremendous amount of heat (actually 334kJ/kg) to do this. (I’ll have to come up with a more friendly explanation of what that amount of heat means.) But after standing there for 10 to 15 minutes with the burner on high melting the ice you’ll get a feel for just how much energy it took to melt just a quart or two of ice. The amount of heat required to melt megatons of glaciers is nearly astronomical – and like the stove top experiment, it didn’t really raise the temperature much.

The real problems start to occur when all the ice is gone, because there is nothing so effective for soaking up that kind of heat without changing temperature. There are two things that will stop the heat from rising further. The one we really hope we don’t get to is the “latent heat of vaporization” of water ( ) which is 419kJ/kg -- the energy it takes to change water into steam (at the same temperature again). This is a rather unpleasant place to be because at this point, water is at 212F. MUCH hotter than I like it to be.

The second thing that will limit temperature is that fortunately for humans, we live in what is essentially a “closed system.” Unlike the stove top experiment, where the steam escaped away from the heat source, steam from earth will be turned into clouds which will help block the sun – the single largest source of heat we have. Unfortunately cloud cover also blocks infrared energy from escaping at night, keeping the heat in, meaning less energy is needed to keep the temperature up during the day.

The temperature equilibrium point of the earth has changed. We don’t know where the new point will be, or whether it will be a comfortable place for humans to hang out any more. At this point whether it is “natural” or “man made” because of CO2 emissions, is a secondary issue. The real question is can we start changing it back to where it was before it’s too late.

“too many scientists in the field have results they want to find before the study has commenced
science needs to find some better quality control procedures
peer review isn't working”

Try learning some physics for yourself, that way you don’t have to depend on other people to look at the data and draw reasonable conclusions.

Have a nice day,


December 13, 2009 12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you think about these ?
Will they do 175 watts here...

That would mean probably at least 40 panels to support 8400 which is only about 1/2 our use.

still would help.

If you build them yourself as opposed to purchasing them, I wonder if you could build a panel that would do 175 watts...

puts the cost at 200.00 a panel as opposed to 900.00, 40 panels becomes doable.

December 13, 2009 3:15 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon asked:
What do you think about these ?
Will they do 175 watts here...”

Typically the ratings on solar panels are in very bright sunlight with the panel directly facing the sun. It should be considered a maximum, and typical output will likely be significantly less that that. How close you come to that depends on your particular location, whether or not it is partially blocked by trees or other shadowing structures, whether you mount it at a fixed angle (and how close you’ve managed to get to the optimum angle), or if you’ve installed the panels on a tracking system.

“That would mean probably at least 40 panels to support 8400 which is only about 1/2 our use.”

8400 whats? “½ of your use” would imply you use 16,800 of them, whatever they are. Is this 16,800 KWH/year? This is about the right scale I would expect for this number, but you could be talking about an averaged value 16,800W, which is absolutely huge for a continuous consumption rate. Without the proper units, I can’t be sure of what you’re talking about.

I’ll use my own electric bill as an example, go through some math, and maybe that will help you out.

My yearly electric bill breaks down roughly as follows:

Summer: 435KWH/month
Spring / Fall: 1200KWH/month
Winter: 2100KWH/month

Let’s say I wanted to replace all of my summer time electricity with solar panels. How many would I need, roughly speaking?

Consider that there is an average of about 30.5 days per month (D/mo), and 24 hours per day (H/D).

My 435KWH/mo translates to an equivalent continuous usage of 435KWH/mo / (30.5D/mo * 24H/D) = 594W. That is, if I used precisely 594 watts continuously, all through the month, my electric bill would show that I used 434.808KWH/mo – or 435 if you round.

594 watts doesn’t sound like all that much. It seems easy to reach this with 175W solar panels. However, as you know, solar panels only work during the sunny parts of the day. I seem to recall you mentioning installing these on roofs, so I’m going to assume that these are NOT mounted on a tracking system. This will limit how much sunlight the cells receive.

December 13, 2009 11:31 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

If we generously assume that we can get a decent 8 hours of sun per day in the summer, and that rain, clouds, and the angle of the sun only reduce the power output of the system by an average of one third (leaving 2/3rds in tact), the effective number of hours per month we have to collect energy is: 30.5D/mo * 8H/D * 2/3 = 162.7H/mo.

Thus to meet my summer electric needs, I require an output capability of (435KWH/mo / 162.7H/mo) = 2.674KW. Since the panels are rated for 175W per panel, I would need (2.674KW / 175W/panel) = 15.3 panels. Plus a boatload of batteries to store all the energy I needed to use while the sun isn’t shining.

For the spring and fall, my power consumption goes up by nearly a factor of 3, and for the winter, a factor of five. However, in the winter, things get even worse – as sunlight is available for considerably fewer hours per day. The map here:
shows that the average low peak sun hours is about 3 for most of Maryland. This increases the number of panels I need in the winter by roughly a factor of 8/3 = 2.667, assuming I wanted to power my house entirely from solar. This doesn’t take into account that there are more cloudy days in the winter, so that multiplier is at least 3 and may well be close to 4. Given that my energy use went up by a factor of 5 for the winter, and the panel’s ability to generate power went down by at least a factor of 3, I would need 15 TIMES as many panels – assuming I wanted to go “off grid.” Obviously, this is WAY too many panels to be viable, even at $200 each.

There are several other things to consider about $200 solar panels. Have you figured out a way to use a dry gas and guarantee you can maintain an airtight seal for several years on the home-built panels? If not, moisture will collect on the inside of the glass and either fog or ice up, depending on temperature. This will considerably reduce your power output. $200 seems like it might only include the solar cells. One would also have to use marine plywood or otherwise weatherproof your entire assembly.

The other thing to consider is that the $900 panels provided 120VAC output. The home-built cells provide only DC. Unless you’re living in an RV, or all of your fixtures were bought at the RV outfitters and run on (typically 12, 24, or 48VDC) you will need an inverter. I would expect to pay at least about $1 per watt for a small (less than 400W) inverter, thus I suspect about $175 of the $900 panel cost is for the inverter. If you look around, you can find small inverters for considerably less than this. However, these are not rated for “grid tie” systems, and as someone who has been in the electronics business for 20 years, some of that designing or doing cost tradeoffs for power supplies, I wouldn’t trust any power supply I paid less than $1/watt for. (An inverter uses circuits that are similar to those used in a typical switch-mode power supply, just in a different fashion.) Larger inverters (several KW, large enough for a whole house) can safely be cheaper than $1/W, and it shouldn’t be hard to find those.

I hope that helps.


December 13, 2009 11:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that is very helpful Cynthia, thanks...

not sure what we are doing about weatherproofing the panels, that is a great point.

I would need about 4x what you are using.... but my highest need is in summer because I have gas heat. 60 panels at 24 sq feet a panel is 1440 sq feet of panels... still doable I think.

we are insulating as well.
60 panels commercially purchased is 60,000 ... not financially feasible. that is why building them is so attractive. the solar cells look like about 150.00, but I need to do some more research on this. We are definitely going to try and build one panel, hook it up next to a commercial panel, and see if we can build a panel that will produce the same output.

If you can build them for 1/5 the price of buying them, that 60K number goes to 12K, and a couple grand for an inverter is in the noise... it probably won't work, but they have to do a science project for the spring anyway... so definitely worth a try.
we are also going to get estimates from the solar companies.

thanks for the insight.

December 14, 2009 12:44 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon said:

“that is very helpful Cynthia, thanks...”

No problem! Glad I could help! :D

“we are insulating as well.”

Great. I would look at the numbers for this carefully. There’s a chance you’ll get more “bang for your buck” by insulating than by buying more solar panels. Depending on how old your house is, you may want to look into new energy efficient windows as well.

“We are definitely going to try and build one panel, hook it up next to a commercial panel, and see if we can build a panel that will produce the same output.”

EXCELLENT idea. Having to build one yourself forces one to go into all the gory details of what really needs to be done – things they don’t bother telling you about on the flashy websites! I suspect it will be quite the educational experience. You’ll also have first hand knowledge of just how much power you can get out of one of these puppies. I would recommend hooking up some power meters and trying to run a room, and see how far it gets you. Keep a record of how much energy you get every day – it will be helpful for estimating your needs later. Do your homework, and do the math. It will save you a lot of frustration.

“it probably won't work, but they have to do a science project for the spring anyway... so definitely worth a try.”

It is certainly worth a try, and it sounds like fun. In conjunction with this, I’d be looking at where all your electricity is going.

“but my highest need is in summer because I have gas heat.”

Then unless you are growing plants in your basement for umm, “medicinal purposes,” I suspect most of your energy use is in running the air conditioner. Good insulation can help this tremendously – it would also lower your gas consumption. Depending on the construction of your house though, adding significant insulation maybe be problematic. However AC efficiency can be improved by going to an underground heat exchanger rather than the typical air exchanger.

Of course you could be running a couple of 50” plasma TVs in your house – these would consume LOTS of electricity. Smaller LCDs would save a bunch. I would recommend itemizing all of your electrical usage and seeing where you can substitute newer, more efficient models. Then you’ll need fewer panels to begin with.

“thanks for the insight.”

You’re welcome, and good luck!


December 14, 2009 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Blogs were endowed by their creator to foster reasoned, civil discussion. Anonymous trollery just isn't natural.

December 14, 2009 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, the blog creator has the power to delete or block anonymous commenters

like the Wizard of Oz, however, he can't grant you intelligence

so you can just keep whistlin', "If I Only Had a Brain"

December 14, 2009 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

different anon. I sincerely appreciated all of Cynthia's help. I will let you know how we make out around the March timeframe...

thanks again.

December 14, 2009 5:31 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You however have much in common with the Tin Man.

December 15, 2009 8:46 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

@ Different Anon:

I would love to hear how things work out for you! Let me know if you hit any potholes on the road there... maybe I can offer some suggestions.

The topic was a nice change from the daily dose of Anti-Gay Bingo.

Have fun with your project!


December 15, 2009 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Archdiocese of Washington News Release

Legalization of Same Sex Marriage in the Nation’s Capital

Archdiocese Remains Committed to Serving Poor

December 15, 2009

Today the District of Columbia joined a handful of states where legislatures or courts have redefined marriage to include persons of the same sex. Since this legislation was first introduced in October, the Archdiocese of Washington opposed the redefinition of marriage based on the core teaching of the Catholic Church that the complementarity of man and woman is intrinsic to the definition of marriage. However, understanding the City Council was committed to legalizing same sex marriages, the archdiocese advocated for a bill that would balance the Council’s interest in redefining marriage with the need to protect religious freedom. Regrettably, the bill did not strike that balance.

The Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic Charities are deeply committed to serving those in need, regardless of race, creed, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. This commitment is integral to our Catholic faith and will remain unchanged into the future.

Religious organizations have long been eligible to provide social services in our nation’s capital and have not been excluded simply because of their religious character. This is because the choice of provider has focused on the ability to deliver services effectively and efficiently. We are committed to serving the needs of the poor and look forward to working in partnership with the District of Columbia consistent with the mission of the Catholic Church.

December 16, 2009 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the media is portraying this as a change in position but it's not

not they say they will work with DC as long as they can do so "consistent with the mission of the Catholic Church"

as long as the government keeps funding their shelters, they will continue to operate them but they won't recognize gay "marriage" so it will be up to the city to cancel the programs

December 16, 2009 5:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home