Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HOMOSEXUALITY:From mental disorder to civil-rights cause
World Magazine ^ | 13 Feb. 2005 | Marvin Olasky

Posted on 02/13/2005 7:02:46 PM PST by dzzrtrock

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last
To: dzzrtrock
That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.
51 posted on 02/13/2005 9:53:38 PM PST by John Lenin (Moral decay is running rampant and good people do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

The Print Media
Literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page [of the New York Times] are not-so-closeted homosexuals. ~ Richard Berke, journalist

The above statement was made by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke. He made the remarks in an April 12, 2000 National Press Club reception reveling about how much things have changed at the Times since he started 15 years ago. “[It is] a real far cry from what it was like not so long ago,” he exulted.

The Times is the nation’s most influential newspaper and what it places on its front page sets the agenda for other newspapers all over the country and in many parts of the world. It follows then, that not-so-closeted homosexuals determine what much of the country reads in its newspapers.

Richard Berke is an open homosexual and longtime member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA)—a 1,200-member organization dedicated to providing “responsible gay coverage [for the] issues of same-sex marriage, gay families, parenting and adoption, gays in the military, sex education in the schools, civil liberties, gay-related ballot initiatives, gay bashing and anti-gay violence.”

The reach of the NLGJA goes far beyond the pages of the New York Times. Speakers, honored guests, or workshop presenters at NLGJA functions read like the who’s who” of media: Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Harry Smith, Katie Couric, Lesley Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Barbara Walters, Stone Phillips, Linda Ellerbee Armstrong Williams, and Linda Vester. Other participants have included New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Mark Rosenthal, president and chief operating officer of MTV Networks; Jim Kelly, managing editor of Time magazine; Walter Isaacson, chief executive officer of CNN; Anthony Marro, editor of Newsday; Caroline Miller, editor-in-chief of New York magazine; Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, and John Huey, managing editor of Fortune.

The wide support for the NLGJA shown by the active participation by these media executives and personalities is a clear indication of the depth of homosexual influence in the popular media, and certainly arouses justifiable suspicion that an imbalance of reporting exists concerning issues of gay rights.


52 posted on 02/13/2005 10:04:10 PM PST by SweetCaroline (Be still and rest in the Lord; wait for Him and lean yourself upon him... Psalm 37:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

I have been studying psychology for thirty years. I remember when homosexuality was listed in the DSM as an aberation because the preponderance of homosexuals who had taken over the leadership of the APA. They carefully concealed their orientation until they had risen to those offices, and then effected the changes without coming out. Wonderful people, those homosexuals, open, honest, honorable, never lie, how could anyone not just love them? [Note: I love sarcasm.]


53 posted on 02/13/2005 10:09:50 PM PST by lifelongsoldier (Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
In the final analysis, "born homosexual" is about as valid as "born to paaaaaarty".

If you born a homosexual, can argue you are born a democrat?

54 posted on 02/13/2005 10:36:25 PM PST by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rooivalk
I made that point on another thread. THIS is what I believe causes a male or female to turn "gay":

A normal guy or girl, has trouble with relationships, with the opposite sex, and/or has a bad home experience, belittled by a father or mother, ie; a boy not treated very well by his father, and not shown much of a male influence.

Somehow, he (or she) is then severely hurt, by a member , or members, of the opposite sex. This person is unable to properly deal with this hurt, and probably given little or no support from friends or family ,on this matter. THEN, when this person, is feeling down, and distrustful, of the opposite sex, Satan comes in, and puts a demonic spirit in them, causing them to then-on, have a disposition, towards homosexuality.

Just my opinion, I have no scientific backing, only observations, of a few actual cases.
55 posted on 02/13/2005 10:59:07 PM PST by Rca2000 (Helping to swing the swing state of Ohio to "W")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lifelongsoldier
And now the gay agenda is trying to make it so , that Christianity is considered a mental disorder.
Us Christians, Conservatives, need to reverse everything that the feminist, and the gay agenda has done in the passed 45 years, because, if we don't, they are going to take over, and our whole society will be destroyed.
56 posted on 02/13/2005 11:11:04 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

bttt


57 posted on 02/14/2005 12:05:50 AM PST by John Lenin (Moral decay is running rampant and good people do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin

What does bttt mean ?


58 posted on 02/14/2005 3:16:00 AM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

Good references.

I wonder if anyone has done similar studies on "theft".

You know, the desire to steal vs the actual lowering of the will to steal.

Seems that we humans have various levels of mental misbehavior, but only some of us will take that mental misbehavior and make a lifestyle out of it.

Have they done a twin study on it yet? If a twin is a pathological thief, is their twin more likely to be one?


59 posted on 02/14/2005 5:54:57 AM PST by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: conservativeharleyguy

I agree with you. I think something is wrong. Someday the real truth will come out. I have gay relatives. It worries me. They are a bit off mentally. One, is mentally incompetent, and the other grew up very low self image, bad marriage, couldn't have children, etc.


60 posted on 02/14/2005 6:03:06 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
Actually, yea. I think some have been done on criminal behavior and found correlations. But the the twin studies that I think have the most commonality to homosexuality are on mental illness. I looked it up a long time ago, but didn’t save it, Google results. I think “mental illness” is a better comparison because sexual “orientation” is more resultant of an emotional/psychological “principle” if you will, that most participants say has always been beyond their control. I think it’s also comparable on a moral level, not so blatant a “sin”, benign at best and arguably indirectly destructive to society.
61 posted on 02/14/2005 6:54:49 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Thanks Gidget. I did it myself a few yrs ago.


62 posted on 02/14/2005 7:51:40 AM PST by MeekMom (Praise Jesus! We have so much to be thankful for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

--- I think it’s also comparable on a moral level, not so blatant a “sin”, benign at best and arguably indirectly destructive to society. ---

I believe that homosexuality itself is not necessarily "destructive to society" but *tolerance of the behavior* is.

Its like a person who feels the compulsion to steal (kleptomania)... we should feel sorry for that person and try to help them. But to suddenly condone theft by kleptomaniacs as "tolerable" is crazy. It creates a huge problem for society to understand what rules apply to whom.

I think the closet was a good place for homosexuals and sexual perverts of all kinds. Let them do what they want in their bedrooms, but keep it out of our faces.

By pushing tolerance, they are really targeting our children. I am fully convinced that young children and teens are very susceptible to peer pressure and less inhibited. This is a recipe for getting pulled into a lifestyle that will not let them escape.

I have seen it happen more than once. Always someone who is at a weak point in their life and they are consoled by a homosexual who "just wants to be a friend"...


63 posted on 02/14/2005 7:59:31 AM PST by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
" I believe that homosexuality itself is not necessarily "destructive to society" but *tolerance of the behavior* is. "

If it’s not destructive then why not tolerate it? Unlike crime which is always directly destructive, I think it’s indirectly and ambiguously destructive.

- It introduces sexuality into areas that are better removed from it, like combat units, boy scouts, etc… even the apparently “benevolent” friendships to the weak like you mentioned, making people suspicious of social advances by even the same sex, closing people off to each other.

- There’s greater potential for disease.

- Societal acceptance is a potential endorsement for hedonism and moral subjectivism, if it feel’s good do it.

64 posted on 02/14/2005 8:45:10 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

snip....."I never did figure out how sexual orientation became a race..."


Read: "What's Your Orientation?"
http://www.sierratimes.com/05/02/13/209_240_205_63_37782.htm

Orientation is nothing but a political scheme, when all is said and done.


65 posted on 02/14/2005 8:55:59 AM PST by Lindykim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SweetCaroline; Grampa Dave

BTTT


66 posted on 02/14/2005 9:29:24 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

--- " I believe that homosexuality itself is not necessarily "destructive to society" but *tolerance of the behavior* is. "
If it’s not destructive then why not tolerate it? Unlike crime which is always directly destructive, I think it’s indirectly and ambiguously destructive. ----

We are getting down to fine points here. I think that it is destructive to the individual when they keep it to themselves and only becomes destructive to society (in the first order) when they make it public and even worse when they demand acceptance.

It is certainly destructive to the individual, and thus, can be arguably destructive to society from the standpoint that "no man is an island" and self-destruction brings us all down.

I don't stand corrected, but I certainly understand the need for clarification.


67 posted on 02/14/2005 9:41:22 AM PST by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dzzrtrock
Jim Robinson's Master List Of Articles To Be Excerpted


From mental disorder to civil-rights cause

INTERVIEW: Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor traces the advances of the gay-rights agenda in science and the law to a common source: political intimidation | by Marvin Olasky
 
A big contributor to the gay movement's political success is the portrayal of homosexuality as an orientation over which individuals have no control. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996) and other books, has practiced psychiatry since 1986 and come to a different understanding, which he explained at a recent conference of the Witherspoon Institute here.
 
Dr. Satinover is a graduate of M.I.T. (Humanities and Science), Harvard (Clinical Psychology), and Yale (Physics), and received an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School. He presently conducts research into complex systems at the National Center for Scientific Research at the University of Nice in France and teaches civil liberties and constitutional law part-time at Princeton.
 
WORLD: You've argued, against today's conventional wisdom, that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a fiction. What's the scientific evidence?
 
JS: A nationwide University of Chicago study of sexuality in America in 1994 concluded, "...it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured." Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same.
 
We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime. The proportion of people who adopt a homosexual identity and the length of time they persist in holding on to it are affected primarily by environmental factors clearly identifiable in these epidemiologic studies. These factors - deemed "cultural" or "demographic" - include effects such as social networks, education, early sexual experiences, childhood sexual abuse, and cultural beliefs.
 
WORLD: How and why did the American Psychiatric Association misrepresent the evidence concerning homosexuality?
 
JS: In 1957, with quiet political support largely from the prominent UCLA psychiatrist Judd Marmor, Evelyn Hooker, an experimental psychologist (her expertise was with mice, not people) at UCLA, published a scientifically bogus paper that supposedly showed no differences in the psychopathology of homosexual and heterosexual males. In the late '60s she chaired a task force that excluded anyone who believed that there was anything in the least problematic with homosexuality - meaning she excluded the entire body of clinicians who until then had devoted their careers to the subject. She similarly ensured that all its mental-health members were collaborators of Alfred Kinsey.
 
Under the guise of its being a "mental-health" panel, and using the false cover of the Kinsey Report (which claimed to be scientific, but which even then had been long condemned by the American Statistical Association as invalid), Hooker's Task Force issued a set of "policy" recommendations based on the claim that homosexuality had been shown to be normal, a degree of bisexuality was the universal norm, and whatever unusual distress homosexuals might display was due to social prejudice. The elimination of all forms of social prejudice against homosexuality was a "mental-health" prerogative for the nation.
 
By the early '70s, Judd Marmor was on his way to the vice presidency of the American Psychiatric Association. He and a number of allies in the APA arranged to have outside gay activists disrupt APA meetings to protest the persistence of homosexuality as a diagnostic category within the APA's list of disorders. Eventually, these protests led to a series of meetings with the APA's "nomenclature committee" at which "research" was presented purportedly demonstrating no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. These presentations were tendentious, the "research" consisting largely of Hooker's bogus work and Kinsey's data. With that, along with political pressure and the "civil-rights" argument, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual.
 
Anyone who actually reads the studies examining the association between homosexuality and psychological disturbance will find a very strong association. What has never been clear until, perhaps, recently, is why. Perhaps the same problems that cause increased psychological distress also cause homosexuality. Perhaps homosexuality is an intrinsic psychopathology. Perhaps the social stigma experienced by being homosexual causes the psychological distress. Perhaps some unknown proportion of each. Perhaps some unknown proportion of each and a complex, nonlinear interaction among them over time. None of the early studies addressed these very obvious questions. They merely presumed the ideologically correct responses.
 
WORLD: How have Supreme Court decisions fit in with such misrepresentation?
 
JS: The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges' understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.
 
These platitudinous outlooks "feel" deep, but are astoundingly shallow (the concept "sexual orientation" is an example - it is a "stopthought" that won't bear five minutes of serious scrutiny before dissolving into a welter of contradiction). But when a judge is handed an amicus brief that bears at its end a list of say five or 10 well-respected national or state mental-health professional organizations - he's impressed. Then he starts reading, and it's "The Emperor's New Robes." In learned-sounding terms, he's fed back all the nice-sounding pieties with which he's become familiar and comfortable. He doesn't have to stop and think for a second. He just has to be "nice."
 
So, over the years, the concept of "sexual orientation" has worked its way into the culture and up the court system to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court and in certain key state Supreme Court cases, especially in the Goodrich case in Massachusetts. The key U.S. Supreme Court cases are Romer and Lawrence. Leaving specific variations aside, all three approach homosexuality from the point of view of civil liberties - a misframing that goes all the way back to Hooker and the history I've mentioned.
 
It has been critical for the mental-health guilds to stand before the courts and say, "You see, your honors, we in particular, who are the very experts of what constitutes a mental disorder, proclaim that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a condition that is problematic and changeable, it is a normal and immutable state of the human being and therefore should be discussed in civil-rights terms, like race."
 
WORLD: How should the understanding that homosexuality is not a stable trait affect public policy?
 
JS: The entire legal argument (same-sex marriage, homosexual rights) rests upon the civil-rights argument, and this is based on the concept of "suspect class status." That's a technical term referring to the idea that you can define a group of people in some reasonable, meaningful way, and this definitional "boundary" results in their being subject to invidious discrimination.
 
The obvious example is being black. The way "suspect class status" is determined isn't totally mathematical, but it isn't totally fuzzy either. There's a good deal of common sense to it. We want to avoid having people cry "discrimination!" just when it suits them, in order to game the system. For example, I couldn't apply to the University of Michigan Law School as "black" under the recently decided affirmative-action decision because, having just returned from two weeks in the Caribbean, I've got such a terrific tan.
 
Since, to quote the University of Chicago study, "it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured," you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for building a "suspect class" out of it.
 
WORLD: How should that understanding affect the way individuals react to those who identify themselves as homosexual?
 
JS: What you're left with are human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that "homosexuals" are in effect a "different species" (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.
 
Of course as one grows and changes, one "grooves" a pathway that becomes embedded and increasingly difficult to alter. Of course a different innate disposition places one at a different "risk profile" for all sorts of different paths in life. So what else is new? It is also true that people do sometimes want to change, and some do and some don't. This is true of everything. It's also true that few good things in life are easy, and no achievement is ever perfect.
 
That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.

68 posted on 02/14/2005 9:50:22 AM PST by ConservativeStLouisGuy (11th FReeper Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000

I have seen the idea of demonic possession in action: My brother is a crackhead and when seeking the drug is inhabited by a cunning demonic spirit.
He has admitted that he is weak and that the spirit seeking pleasure uses him to experience the drug.
It is spooky when he is in the grip of that energy.


69 posted on 02/14/2005 12:58:18 PM PST by Rooivalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

BTTT


70 posted on 02/14/2005 3:52:21 PM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
We have had a few trolls around on this issue of late.

The question that caught my eye is "you don't believe people are born 'gay'?" and its variants. The effort is assuming that somehow the start position is to assume science has accepted born 'gay' and that the learned behavior is novel. (Its similar to the classic "how often do you beat your wife?")

I mention this only to keep a heads up as the homosexual debate is going to heat up in the next few months. They are going to push the "born" fallacy because it has their only tool to force acceptance into homosexual marriage and child adoptions.
71 posted on 02/14/2005 6:53:31 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; scripter; DirtyHarryY2K; little jeremiah; SweetCaroline; Clint N. Suhks; ArGee; ...

The question that caught my eye is "you don't believe people are born 'gay'?" and its variants. The effort is assuming that somehow the start position is to assume science has accepted born 'gay' and that the learned behavior is novel. (Its similar to the classic "how often do you beat your wife?")

I mention this only to keep a heads up as the homosexual debate is going to heat up in the next few months. They are going to push the "born" fallacy because it has their only tool to force acceptance into homosexual marriage and child adoptions.


Spot on observation! We'll be ready for the trolls.

Facts and documentation posted here: Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)

72 posted on 02/15/2005 3:44:26 PM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Rooivalk
when seeking the drug is inhabited by a cunning demonic spirt....I have seen this first hand.

I caught my brother in law going threw my purse for money to get his very needed fix. When I ripped my purse from his hands and asked him why he thought I should pay for his weakness( yes, I know those were not smart words to say to a man in his condition)he picked me up and threw me down the 6 concrete steps to my own house.

73 posted on 02/15/2005 4:18:17 PM PST by SweetCaroline (My soul wait thou only upon GOD, for my expectation is from him. Psalm 62:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I mention this only to keep a heads up as the homosexual debate is going to heat up in the next few months. They are going to push the "born" fallacy because it has their only tool to force acceptance into homosexual marriage and child adoptions.

The gay NGO's will argue that line to the Supreme Court in their Article IV constitutional-law attack on DOMA and its state equivalents. Thanks to the foresworn chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and her coconspirators on the SJC, the homosexual law firms (they are legion, like the Gadarene swine, and just as driven) will get that chance very soon.

Queer theory argues the opposite, however, and insists that sexuality is fluid and mutable; and that cognitive dissonance within the gay camp, compounded with Dr. Robert Spitzer's inability to locate a gene identifiable as "the gay gene" (other pro-gay researchers are hard at work, however) will be what the Supreme Court will eventually weigh.

74 posted on 02/15/2005 11:36:25 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dzzrtrock

WOW!


75 posted on 02/15/2005 11:42:04 PM PST by Jimbaugh (They will not get away with this. Developing . . . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dzzrtrock; scripter; EdReform; Clint N. Suhks; little jeremiah; DirtyHarryY2K
We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.

Can one of y'all explain what this statement means? Thanks.

76 posted on 02/16/2005 12:06:04 AM PST by Mockingbird For Short
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mockingbird For Short

You need to post those articles from those links in their entirety into this forum, rather than just links. It will make people aware of exactly how far down this slippery-slope we've gone. That is some POWERFUL stuff!


77 posted on 02/16/2005 12:46:02 PM PST by dzzrtrock ("If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" (Ronaldus Magnus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000
You're partially right as it is an anxiety-related behavior. Take care of the underlying anxiety and the homosexuality evaporates all by itself in 27% of the cases, including those who aren't looking to change orientation. Think how well it would work if it was treated as and for what it is? The reason I say "partially right" is because a majority of homosexuality is homosexual child molestation-related. They molest at a rate about 8 times the rate that straights do and have a much higher number of victims. Now THEY argue that a man who molests boys is NOT a "homosexual" but rather a "pedophile". IT is just coincidence that all his victims are boys.... Really, read their websites.... To them, someone like John Wayne Gacy is NOT a homosexual. Of coruse this all fits the "delusional" pathological profile.
78 posted on 02/16/2005 3:32:21 PM PST by dzzrtrock ("If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" (Ronaldus Magnus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

It is ALWAYS destructive to society. First is the child moslestation aspect of the lifestyle. Although these people rationalize it, it is still there at a ridiculous rate compared to straights. For example, the catholic church scandal was 80-90% HOMOSEXUAL. The domestic violence rate is higher and we pick up the tab. The drug use is higher and we pick up the tab. The dysphoric children coming out of these "families" often need professioanl help and we pick up the tab. The typical male homo dies 20 years earlier than a straight and the typical lesbian loses 10 years of her life, with a breast cancer rate much higher than straights and those impact health care costs just like smoking. That sounds pretty "destructive" to me. And the best part is, NONE of these problems come from the normal people out here. It is all "choices" and insiders doing to insiders, and the rest of us picking up the tab.


79 posted on 02/16/2005 3:49:17 PM PST by dzzrtrock ("If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" (Ronaldus Magnus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson