Question about same-sex marriage vs. religious freedom

[StriplingWarrior]

I've thought to myself if I was ever in a situation where I had to vote or take a political and moral stand on whether or not to support same-sex marriage, I'm not quite sure what exactly to do. For the sake of the topic, let's assume I am obligated to make a decision between voting for or against same-sex marriage in Alaska (tried to think of the most arbitrary state) and a law was being proposed to make same-sex marriage legal for Alaska. And I don't live in Alaska or a state in this dilemma.

I've thought of it this way: If I was to "vote" against same-sex marriage, I think I would be standing up for principles of truth and righteousness and the natural order of things as our Father has created it and desires in a world where this standard is quickly disappearing.

But on the flip side, if I were to "vote" against same-sex marriage in an attempt to preserve my beliefs and tradition and to stand up for truth in that state, technically I would be voting against the agency of those homosexuals that would gain the legal freedom and god-given right (through the exercise of agency) to marry whomever they desired. Don't they have the right to exercise their agency in any way they want, regardless of whether it is right or not? If the vote was vetoed and did not pass, wouldn't those who voted against the law allowing same-sex marriage be violating the god-given agency and rights that homosexuals have to choose whatever they want? It seems that we have no right to disallow men and women to marry whomever they wanted, or in other words, to vote against pro-gay laws because by not voting against pro-gay laws, it would be preserving their legal agency, if not our traditionalist desires.

See the loop I seem to have stuck myself in? Anyone got any input?

I guess I am wondering what conclusions you have come to that support your belief.

[heartsongs]

:ymsigh:

[braingrunt]

see viewtopic.php?f=19&t=35182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it's not an old thread. Lots of responses to your query.

ps I just loved how you called it a God given right for homosexuals to marry. Not.

[natasha]

I've thought to myself if I was ever in a situation where I had to vote or take a political and moral stand on whether or not to support same-sex marriage, I'm not quite sure what exactly to do. For the sake of the topic, let's assume I am obligated to make a decision between voting for or against same-sex marriage in Alaska (tried to think of the most arbitrary state) and a law was being proposed to make same-sex marriage legal for Alaska. And I don't live in Alaska or a state in this dilemma.

I've thought of it this way: If I was to "vote" against same-sex marriage, I think I would be standing up for principles of truth and righteousness and the natural order of things as our Father has created it and desires in a world where this standard is quickly disappearing.

But on the flip side, if I were to "vote" against same-sex marriage in an attempt to preserve my beliefs and tradition and to stand up for truth in that state, technically I would be voting against the agency of those homosexuals that would gain the legal freedom and god-given right (through the exercise of agency) to marry whomever they desired. Don't they have the right to exercise their agency in any way they want, regardless of whether it is right or not? If the vote was vetoed and did not pass, wouldn't those who voted against the law allowing same-sex marriage be violating the god-given agency and rights that homosexuals have to choose whatever they want? It seems that we have no right to disallow men and women to marry whomever they wanted, or in other words, to vote against pro-gay laws because by not voting against pro-gay laws, it would be preserving their legal agency, if not our traditionalist desires.

See the loop I seem to have stuck myself in? Anyone got any input?

I guess I am wondering what conclusions you have come to that support your belief.

Well....in that case....couldn't we apply your logic to every law on the books? Do people have the right to steal (exercising their agency), or to have sex with little children (exercising their agency), or etc. and etc. I mean, there are those whose "desire" to have sex with little children.

We had a fireside a couple of weeks ago in my ward where our Stake Pres. was the moderator asking questions of a couple of bishops and a psychologist who has worked for 30 years almost exclusively with SSA. It was quite an educational fireside. When asked if he thought homosexuals were "born that way"...he emphatically said NO....and he said that there has never been any conclusive evidence in his field to say that they are. He was a very compassionate man stating that the general description of those struggling with SSA is that they are very sensitive people..very caring people..and very concerned (those that are LDS) that they do everything within their power to lead an exemplary life and be worthy. Having said that...he also said that when he first started working with those who have SSA, it created a struggle in his life regarding the gospel, because his experience with them showed that they were very intelligent people with a desire to do what is right....and he struggled to reconcile this with the gospel. He said through prayer and study, instead, his testimony of the gospel grew stronger. As he worked with his patients, they had a great deal of success....that is, they were able to lead normal lives and remain active in the Church and gospel. Many of them married (the opposite sex), had children, etc.

First off...the government probably should not be involved with marriage....but since it is, I believe it's a states' rights issue. Having said that, some states will op to go with it....and it looks like more and more because of the federal government being involve....that we will become a country that allows it. I would recommend that you do some research on your own regarding homosexual marriages, etc. I have done some and just a quick state: their marriages end in divorce/breaking up double the amount of heterosexuals; they also have a much higher rate of "cheating on spouse/partner"...there is much more but I would suggest that you do your own research and not rely on what I have found.

Secondly, and actually most important to me is the stance the Church has taken....that marriage is between a man and a woman. It seems to me that the adversary has been attacking the most basic and important part of society....the family. As goes the family, so goes a nation.

[natekriv]

Here is a question

If homosexuality is evil, and the LDS church is true, then a homosexual who was baptized worthily and received the Holy Ghost would not be a homosexual anymore.

This can be proven through the Book of Mormon and bible that when someone is born of God they "have no more disposition to do evil".

Is this the case?

And if homosexuality is evil, then even if you don't act on it the very thought of it or the attraction itself is evil, and Jeffrey r holland taught false doctrine when he said as long as you don't act on it it is not a sin.

"Whosoever looketh upon a woman..."
It doesn't matter if someone doesn't act on something. It is their heart that matters.

What I would suggest is to pray if homosexuality is ALWAYS a sin. I have received an answer from the Spirit. Have you? Or do you think you don't need one because a book that we acknowledge that has mistranslations says it is? Or you think leaders who also believe in that book say it is so it must be true?

[Fiannan]

A man or woman looking at a woman and getting turned on is not a sin. Contemplating committing the sin (planning, even if only fantasy) is, although it is not something as bad as actually doing it.

Look up any Jewish source on the matter -- I think they would know the general context of what someone of that culture would have meant in regards to the "sinning in one's heart" aspect.

[natekriv]

A man or woman looking at a woman and getting turned on is not a sin. Contemplating committing the sin (planning, even if only fantasy) is, although it is not something as bad as actually doing it.

Look up any Jewish source on the matter -- I think they would know the general context of what someone of that culture would have meant in regards to the "sinning in one's heart" aspect.

Wow I have never heard this before. So if I look at a 3 year old and get turned on is that not a sin? That is ridiculous. I do not have to actually consider raping someone or lay plans to do it in order to sin. In the Book of Mormon it says that people who become holy look upon sin with abhorrence. To get turned on by anyone other than the person you are dating or married to is abhorrent.

If I look at a man strangling a cat and it arouses me that shows that I have an underlying sin of some sort. These are strange and extreme examples but I think it gets the point across.

[braingrunt]

@natekriv
Baptism is not the same as being born of god. In my opinion this is the same as baptism of fire and holy ghost, which may or may not accompany baptism+confirmation.

My guess is that, more often than not, members have not experienced this.

I believe that Jeffrey Holland was wrong, or at least people interpret him wrongly. However I'm comfortable saying he's just wrong. A person truly freed of their sins or the effects of the fallen world will not have identifiable homosexual traits. So says I.


@sen6b
I think that SSA etc is not A choice, but choiceS. As such I can easily understand that many/most sufferers might not have a clear idea of what they did to cause it; yet I feel inclined to bet that in every case they could have made other choices which would have made them straight. I think such key choices happen early, and after years of cumulative impact cannot easily be reversed. In that sense someone who has struggled with SSA for years may have no choice but to fight with the issue the remainder of their lives. But who am I to say?

My only authority is my own life. Pre and early puberty I had a friend, and to sum up we nearly became gay. I struggled with some level of fantasy for a few years. This is a fact. I used meditative techniques to fight them. They were not all focused on raging against the problem and I bet that was lucky for me or else I would have just made it worse. As it is I'm one weird and messed up customer... but I'm straight as far as I can tell. And I'm pretty sure I made the choice, and I'm pretty sure that it was other choices which led to the struggle in the first place.

Some people might dismiss my case as unusual. Some might dismiss me as 'you were straight all along'. Some might dismiss me as a repressed bisexual. All I have is a conviction that I made choices which dictated how things played out, and other people do as well.

[natekriv]

I totally agree. That is why I said "born again". Not merely confirmed but received the Holy Ghost. Yes holland was wrong.

[theBruceGuy]

I very much disagree that people are not born gay. I know a few personally..one has fully embraced into it and the other struggles every day with it. My point is if he has those urges and feelings towards the same sex but wishes he didn't and is embarrassed about it.....how can you say he chose that?

Having said that i do think that for some there is something i call a same sex fetish....like how some people like,feet, or having sex with balloons......

When I practised as an analytical hypnotherapist, my association insisted that when we had a client who was homosexual, that we had to advise them that successful therapy for whatever brought them to me would probably remove any homosexual tendencies. Although the issue they came to us for may be something completely unrelated to their homosexuality, the process of therapy re-examining their childhood would often uncover incidents that caused their homosexual feelings; and once resolved, those feelings disappeared.

While to us that may seem desirable, when they were in relationships, perhaps with homes together with a partner, the thought of no longer having feelings to their partner prevented some from accepting therapy.

In my opinion, it appears that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, from incidents sometimes even as babies. They have no more control on these urges than my clients who feared spiders, water, daisies, turning right in a car, all were irrational fears or feelings caused in early childhood.

[braingrunt]

Idk one of the guys i know is an identical twin. Raised in a very loving lds family raised exactly the same as his identical twin.

This would be circumstantial evidence that it wasn't birth that caused it. Same genetics delivered to both. I assume similar womb chemistry throughout. What's left to blame?

They have distinct spirits. They made their own choices with some life experiences being different. It must be one of those which caused it.

[natekriv]

I very much disagree that people are not born gay. I know a few personally..one has fully embraced into it and the other struggles every day with it. My point is if he has those urges and feelings towards the same sex but wishes he didn't and is embarrassed about it.....how can you say he chose that?

Having said that i do think that for some there is something i call a same sex fetish....like how some people like,feet, or having sex with balloons......

When I practised as an analytical hypnotherapist, my association insisted that when we had a client who was homosexual, that we had to advise them that successful therapy for whatever brought them to me would probably remove any homosexual tendencies. Although the issue they came to us for may be something completely unrelated to their homosexuality, the process of therapy re-examining their childhood would often uncover incidents that caused their homosexual feelings; and once resolved, those feelings disappeared.

While to us that may seem desirable, when they were in relationships, perhaps with homes together with a partner, the thought of no longer having feelings to their partner prevented some from accepting therapy.

In my opinion, it appears that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, from incidents sometimes even as babies. They have no more control on these urges than my clients who feared spiders, water, daisies, turning right in a car, all were irrational fears or feelings caused in early childhood.

I will argue from a hypnotherapists standpoint because you made your point from that line of profession. In many many past life regression cases (for those that don't know this is a form of hypnotherapy) the client often told of choosing a homosexual body for a variety of reasons. From the view of hypnotherapy there is just as much evidence that people are born gay and often chose to be born gay as there is that it is a "learned behavior".
If you are going to pull evidence from a field I would think it beneficial to use all evidence instead of cherry picking the evidence to support your own paradigm.

[natekriv]

What if the truth is that some spirits are gay?

[jbalm]

I'm pretty sure I didn't choose my hetero-ness.

I've always liked the bewbs. Never liked the pee-pees ('cept for my own, of course).

When I was a little kid, it sure wasn't pictures of nekkid dudes I was hiding under my brother's bed.

Doubt I could choose to be a 'mo, even if I wanted to give it a shot.

[Fiannan]

A man or woman looking at a woman and getting turned on is not a sin. Contemplating committing the sin (planning, even if only fantasy) is, although it is not something as bad as actually doing it.

Look up any Jewish source on the matter -- I think they would know the general context of what someone of that culture would have meant in regards to the "sinning in one's heart" aspect.

Wow I have never heard this before. So if I look at a 3 year old and get turned on is that not a sin? That is ridiculous. I do not have to actually consider raping someone or lay plans to do it in order to sin. In the Book of Mormon it says that people who become holy look upon sin with abhorrence. To get turned on by anyone other than the person you are dating or married to is abhorrent.

If I look at a man strangling a cat and it arouses me that shows that I have an underlying sin of some sort. These are strange and extreme examples but I think it gets the point across.

Hook a plethysmograph to a man and show him a pic of a young woman at the beach and it will show reaction. Put him in a functional MRI and you will get the brain activity associated with being turned on. Do the same with a woman and show her a pic of a man in a sensual pose...same thing, and in most cases women will react to a pic of the young woman at the beach as well.

So are you sinning when your sub-conscious takes note of someone that is of a physical nature? If the brain cannot help but to do this then to tell a person they cannot "lust" is like telling a hungry person it is a sin to salivate when they smell food.

Of course the Jews (Jesus was a Jew you know, and He spoke in their cognitive context) say that one has to contemplate the sin of being with someone you feel attracted to in a much more detailed manner. So for it to fall into the category of coveting then a man must be devising a more structured plan in his brain that implies a course of action. Women are not as strictly governed by this as a single woman in the Bible days could desire a married man because the possibility of her entering into polygamy was engrained into the whole concept of the 10 Commandments in the first place.

As for your extreme examples let's keep this in the normal range, okay?

[natekriv]

Fiannan

If the brain cannot help but to do this then to tell a person they cannot "lust" is like telling a hungry person it is a sin to salivate when they smell food.

Where did I ever get the idea that "lust" was a sin? How silly. So let's not argue semantics then. Nowhere did you say that a man under normal circumstances would be "turned on" by a man. So homosexual attraction (at least for men) is unnatural, and shall we say "perverted"? That is a word that Boyd k packer has thrown around about homosexuals. If this is the case, my argument still stands that if a homosexual male was born again they would not have that attraction anymore. Do you agree with that?

[Epistemology]

just because someone may "have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually" doesn't mean that person will from that point on never sin. if that were the case then all those that "have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually" have reached perfection.

[natekriv]

just because someone may "have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually" doesn't mean that person will from that point on never sin. if that were the case then all those that "have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually" have reached perfection.

I agree that being born again does not equate to never sinning again. I disagree that being without sin equals perfection, but that is not what this discussion is about.

When one is born again we learn from multiple scriptures that "they become new creatures". The person has a "wicked spirit rooted out" of them and "a new spirit placed within them".
So are you saying that God would make that new creature a gay creature, or that the new spirit that God would place in them would be a gay spirit? If gay attraction or thoughts are evil, then certainly gay person would irrefutably have a "disposition" to have gay thoughts or attractions. It is at the very core of who the person is. If God will simply change them in the next life if they are faithful here, why wouldn't a conversion to the gospel change them from being gay now in this life?


I believe that if a gay man or woman is born again they will still be gay.

[StriplingWarrior]

see viewtopic.php?f=19&t=35182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it's not an old thread. Lots of responses to your query.

ps I just loved how you called it a God given right for homosexuals to marry. Not.

I wasn't really saying they had a god given right to be gay and marry gay, I was saying they had a god given right to exercise their agency and use that agency to choose homosexuality.

[Thinker]

see viewtopic.php?f=19&t=35182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it's not an old thread. Lots of responses to your query.

ps I just loved how you called it a God given right for homosexuals to marry. Not.

I wasn't really saying they had a god given right to be gay and marry gay, I was saying they had a god given right to exercise their agency and use that agency to choose homosexuality.

You have the God-given right to choose any form of evil you want, so what's your point?

Homosexuality is not something inborn - it's been studied over and over and there is NO "gay gene."
The studies that did find some brain differences were found to be illegitimate because they were studying AIDS patients, which causes brain abnormalities.
A quick look at Human Development reveals that we are born with brains only 25% developed, so we can better adapt to environmental stimuli. Sexual preference is something learned - one way or the other. Although there are various dynamics that contribute to homosexual preferences, studies show that child sexual abuse is one significant one, as well as gender identity problems that may come from a particularly negative experience with the opposite sex, especially with parents and/or a obsessive adoration/longing for of the same sex parent.

Moreover, this is not just about religious freedom - but also about whether it's ok for judges in higher courts to dictate their will over and above the people's voiced desire through democratic vote. The homosexual groups have stampeded over the democratic process - and for what - just so they can legally force Americans to accept that certain sexual substitutes (homosexual) get special legal consideration. Sexual substitutes (ie anal sex, filled with medical risks) is the only thing that distinguishes a homosexual relationship from a platonic relationship.

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where homosexual fetish marriage has been supported, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 200504.pdf

Some in the homosexual fetish activist group have bluntly admitted that their eventual goal is to normalize pedophilia and inappropriate adult-child sexual relations.

Many have been harassed by the homosexual fetish herd, without public notice, but some have been public, like Chick Filay and a Miss America contestant, both who voiced their support for marriage between a man and a woman.
Other examples include...
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.

[Fiannan]

Why does there seem to be that LDS people who proclaim to be gay are almost exclusively male? I have seen groups from other religions and they are either slightly more male or even in numbers.

Just curious.

[DarthVernacular]

I've thought to myself if I was ever in a situation where I had to vote or take a political and moral stand on whether or not to support same-sex marriage, I'm not quite sure what exactly to do. For the sake of the topic, let's assume I am obligated to make a decision between voting for or against same-sex marriage in Alaska (tried to think of the most arbitrary state) and a law was being proposed to make same-sex marriage legal for Alaska. And I don't live in Alaska or a state in this dilemma.

I've thought of it this way: If I was to "vote" against same-sex marriage, I think I would be standing up for principles of truth and righteousness and the natural order of things as our Father has created it and desires in a world where this standard is quickly disappearing.

But on the flip side, if I were to "vote" against same-sex marriage in an attempt to preserve my beliefs and tradition and to stand up for truth in that state, technically I would be voting against the agency of those homosexuals that would gain the legal freedom and god-given right (through the exercise of agency) to marry whomever they desired. Don't they have the right to exercise their agency in any way they want, regardless of whether it is right or not? If the vote was vetoed and did not pass, wouldn't those who voted against the law allowing same-sex marriage be violating the god-given agency and rights that homosexuals have to choose whatever they want? It seems that we have no right to disallow men and women to marry whomever they wanted, or in other words, to vote against pro-gay laws because by not voting against pro-gay laws, it would be preserving their legal agency, if not our traditionalist desires.

See the loop I seem to have stuck myself in? Anyone got any input?

I guess I am wondering what conclusions you have come to that support your belief.

There is a history of laws restricting people from marrying whomever they want: cousins; siblings; uncle-niece; aunt-nephew; and so forth. Bigamy, polyandry, and polygyny are also outlawed and these laws have been upheld by the men in black robes. The homosexual "marriage" movement is about nothing but the destruction of marriage and the dissolution of the family, and the overturning of the 1st and 10th Amendments and religious freedom and states' rights. The Family: Proclamation to the World gives you everything you need to know about what marriage and family is and is not.

[braingrunt]

I have another anecdotal story to share which leads me to believe that there is nothing natural about SSA etc. I have to be vague to protect myself and others.

I know a girl who identified as lesbian for many years. Suddenly she changed gender identity, with hormones at least, and is now partners with a homosexual man. Now I don't know if "she" is gay or straight. I don't know what repentance would even look like for this "girl".

All I can say is, dude, that is MESSED up. It is my conviction that all along, this girls sexual preference can only be labeled "perversion" and nothing else. She prefers perversion whether in the form of lesbianism, or whatever you call what she's doing now... It's a mental and spiritual illness; and was brought about by circumstances, and her countless little choices which surrendered her to that spirit of perversion. That spirit of perversion was also what was battling with me in my youth.

[StriplingWarrior]

see viewtopic.php?f=19&t=35182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it's not an old thread. Lots of responses to your query.

ps I just loved how you called it a God given right for homosexuals to marry. Not.

I wasn't really saying they had a god given right to be gay and marry gay, I was saying they had a god given right to exercise their agency and use that agency to choose homosexuality.

You have the God-given right to choose any form of evil you want, so what's your point?

Homosexuality is not something inborn - it's been studied over and over and there is NO "gay gene."
The studies that did find some brain differences were found to be illegitimate because they were studying AIDS patients, which causes brain abnormalities.
A quick look at Human Development reveals that we are born with brains only 25% developed, so we can better adapt to environmental stimuli. Sexual preference is something learned - one way or the other. Although there are various dynamics that contribute to homosexual preferences, studies show that child sexual abuse is one significant one, as well as gender identity problems that may come from a particularly negative experience with the opposite sex, especially with parents and/or a obsessive adoration/longing for of the same sex parent.

Moreover, this is not just about religious freedom - but also about whether it's ok for judges in higher courts to dictate their will over and above the people's voiced desire through democratic vote. The homosexual groups have stampeded over the democratic process - and for what - just so they can legally force Americans to accept that certain sexual substitutes (homosexual) get special legal consideration. Sexual substitutes (ie anal sex, filled with medical risks) is the only thing that distinguishes a homosexual relationship from a platonic relationship.

Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where homosexual fetish marriage has been supported, these rights have been infringed upon...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 200504.pdf

Some in the homosexual fetish activist group have bluntly admitted that their eventual goal is to normalize pedophilia and inappropriate adult-child sexual relations.

Many have been harassed by the homosexual fetish herd, without public notice, but some have been public, like Chick Filay and a Miss America contestant, both who voiced their support for marriage between a man and a woman.
Other examples include...
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.

Thanks for your insight. Those facts are highly disturbing though lol

[BrotherOfMahonri]

What if the truth is that some spirits are gay?

Spirits are never Gay -
Read point 5 on this blog. Insightful and I feel true.

http://uncleanspirits.blogspot.com/2012 ... irits.html