I underwent breast augmentation after I had a sentinel node removed, and I have to warn you that sometimes it’s better to pay a little bit more and go to a more reputable doctor. I’m not going to list his name because it’s not like a got an infection or was a victim of malpractice or anything – it’s just that he has a poor eye for his work, to put it mildly. If you really want to see what I mean (and have the constitution for this sort of thing) look at the breast augmentation before and after pictures. I understand that I am still recovering from the removal of the lymph node, but this is obviously a botched job here. I guess that’s what I get for getting the operation in Chula Vista.

Earlier in this decade I left two professional organizations because of their inclination to be swayed by political correctness. Basically these groups were telling professional therapists that they have to redefine their notions of what constitutes a "healthy family". There is no body of research supporting such revisions of married life. I find that the Judeo-Christian model I grew up with works quite nicely in defining marriage and family relationships.

Considering the current intrusive expansions of our federal government, the clamorous attempts to revise American history and the militant efforts to tear down time-tested institutions like marriage and family
I can't help but reflect on the following passage:

"Professing they to be wise, they became fools..." Romans 1:22

Restricting marriage to one man and one woman is NOT discrimination. This has been the standard for marriage in every culture for thousands of years. To arbitrarily alter the definition of an age old tradition is not the function of government.

What homosexuals want are not equal rights, they want a redefinition of the word “marriage”. Homosexuals are already free to marry one person of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else. Why should hundreds of millions of heterosexuals, many of whom see marriage as a sacred religious institution, have to redefine an age old word for the sake of a militant minority?

If government starts allowing the redefinition of words deemed unacceptable by another party it will lead to so much uncertainty that chaos will result.
If government can redefine words on a whim, then words have no real meaning. To allow same sex "marriage" will not make two men married, it will simply invalidate the word marriage and make it meaningless. Calling the night day does not change the night. It simply makes the word “day” meaningless. Words have meaning and the word “marriage” has already been taken by cultures going back thousands of years.

Mormons, in the early history of our country, were denied the desire to redefine marriage to include multiple spouses. They learned to live within the confines of social traditions and religious sanctity. Homosexuals should do the same. If homosexuals want an institution for their partnerships, let them coin and define their own word for it.

The quote by Samuel Adams at the top of BTP home page should give us all pause. Here we have a small minority in our country who are trying to redefine a word that has had one, precious meaning for billions of people for thousands of years and those who want to throw away that meaning expect us to have blind faith that unintended, and serious negative consequences won’t result.

i have no problem with gays, as long as they don't pressure younger, more impressionable gays into getting gender reassignment surgery. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for LGBT rights, it’s just that I think their line of thinking is a slippery slope similar to those who have impulsive urges to modify their bodies, and consequently end up ruining them. I’m all for gender reassignment operations if the person genuinely feels that they would feel more in harmony with themselves if they had a sex change, but the issue is of whether they will feel that way in a few years, or even a few months. When people get tattoos and piercings, sometimes they regret them when they’re older because they no longer have the same mindset that they did, or are simply sick of it. Unless it’s a necessary operation (implants for
breast cancer surgery, etc..), we already have seen many cases where elective surgeries lead to an addiction. I’m just afraid that LGBT people might be going down this same path by being so eager to undergo an operation. All I’m asking is that they try to do everything in their power to be comfortable and accepting of the way they were made before they decide to go get work done.

Gay marriages have become the major issue now a days where they ask for equal justice for them.What satisfaction do they get by marrying of same sex?

online dating

http://www.spiceoflife.com.au

....or are people making too many of these decisions on emotion and not thought, and care? I know, I don't want to say it, I have liked some gay guys or might have I tend not to ask, prefer it be their business. None-the-less I think the lack of debate and reason has been used on an unsentimental level to even permit this lack of understanding of that sexist scientific truth there are two different but potentially equal genders.

"The constitution is for moral and religious people." in his defense of the constitution.

In fact we should be against marriage benefits that single people are not allowed to have.
Also marriage only has relevance under religion. religion as old as Zarathustra who defined it as being between a man and a woman and so this would violate religious freedom intefearing in a old sacrament.
Granted Pagan Romans and Greeks ridiculed it as a post wrestling event, post Zoroaster.
Now I think a sacrament, given name changes, and a theology should be registered openly for examination to make sure they are not beaking with theology and are acting as a secret society-cult and are a true monotheism. Many "christian" churches marry Gays violating Matt 19, in same vain or vanity divorse. Would this make them genuine? No a fraud.
Physics, does it not govern physical reality? Does it not say opposites attract and similars detract, now this is not like friends who have common likes and dislikes, this goes to the courtship that normally ends mating (or child making).
We do not live in a jungle as a primitive animal rumping someone over turf. That is why nature does it.
So as for Libertarians for Life there are many who scientifically oppose it.

I do support over ruling all judicial activism and binding referendums that violate a state's right to a Republican Form of Government.

“Party like it’s 1773” is the rally cry, but this decision flies in the face of appealing to historical antecedent!

Do you think the original Tea Party participants (and the Founders) would have supported gay marriage? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Look at history: Anti-sodomy (read same-sex unions) laws were British law beginning with King Henry’s reign in the 1500’s. It was a CRIME to engage in sodomy and punishable by death. This was the framework of the Founders. The original 13 colonies adopted such laws, making sodomy illegal in the States, also. (By the mid 1900’s, all 50 of the United States had criminalized sodomy with various penalties for this ‘crime against nature’.) The Patriots would not have supported any notion that ‘same-sex marriage’ was an acceptable form of sodomy!!!!

How can you appeal to people via American tradition while supporting a modern moral stance that is completely contrary to what those same Christian Patriots would reject?

Sodomy is NOT sanctified by legitimizing it as marriage!