Perverting God’s Word: The Coming Legal Attack on the Holy Scriptures by the Gay Rights Movement

Ryan S. Walters | @ryanswalters73

In my previous column I wrote that the gay rights lobby would soon begin working to strip churches of their tax-exempt status as a non-profit organization if they speak out against homosexuality. I think there is little doubt that such a strategy will be the next big move to further their radical, fascistic agenda. Some of their fanatics are already saying this is only the beginning.

I have been thinking, praying, and reflecting upon how this might be done, legally speaking. And I think I might have stumbled upon a possible strategy they might employ – that is by re-intrepreting the Bible.

In a recent post at the Uber-liberal site Huffington Post, a self-professed Christian lesbian, Whitney Kay Bacon, who lives in Britain with her “spouse,” has informed us that she knows God’s Word better than those of us who hold “old beliefs,” to use Justice Samuel Alito’s phrase, and she knows how to better interpret it. She also advocates the use of government to ensure “equality” for gay people, as do all fascists, by forcing those who disagree with the lifestyle to embrace it.

She writes, “Christianity and gay rights will always butt-heads. Luckily, we have the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, where we’ve seen it in the favor of gay rights; e.g. where a gay couple were wrongly turned away from a B&B due to the owners Christian views, to in favor of Christianity; e.g. the nurse who was wrongly fired for telling her lesbian colleague she’s committing a sin.” [crappy writing in the original]

This shows us exactly where the “Big Gay Hate Machine” is headed. They want that same level of government intervention on our side of the pond and they will continue to agitate until they get it, that is if we let them. Of course we do have the First Amendment in America but that’s never stopped leftwing judges from setting it aside in favor of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”

Bacon continues to school us:

“If the sole reason you feel that gay marriage is wrong because it’s a sin, and the Bible tells you this is wrong, then I sure as hell hope you don’t have bacon with your eggs or indulge in shrimp. Oh, or better yet, do you have any tattoos? Ever been drunk, told a white lie or been divorced? Yep, whoops. Those are all sins, too. And all sins are equal, right? I don’t see anyone going off the handle because of any of these ‘sins’ and I most certainly don’t see protests or hurtful propaganda against those. Just because you disagree with something — and we all have the right to do so — it is an absolute disgrace to treat the LGBT community the way you do. What if we treated all sins in this way? Bacon eaters would be doomed.”

This is how almost all homosexuals, as well as their defenders, respond when challenged – with self-righteous condemnation. This is a clever ploy but not accurate nor factual. For you see, all sins are not the same. It’s one thing for me to eat a bowl of shrimp (which I don’t eat by the way, nor do I have any tattoos, etc.) or to use a curse word in a post (which I don’t do either), but quite another for me to commit murder or engage in an active homosexual lifestyle.

To engage in an act of homosexuality would be a sin, yes, one for which can be forgiven, just as one can receive forgiveness for eating crawfish or getting a divorce. But it’s a horse of another color all together to become a committed homosexual, just as it would to become a committed serial killer, thief, or adulterer.

Let’s face facts: God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because they were having crawfish boils, eating sausage, cheating on their taxes, and or getting tattoos. No, he destroyed it because of their sexual immorality, and, yes, most notably homosexuality (See Genesis 18 & 19). Where do you think the word “sodomy” comes from?

When God’s Angels visited Lot in Sodom, informing him to get his family out of the city because God was going to destroy it, a gang of men came to Lot’s door and began pounding on it. They wanted Lot to send his visitors out so that “we may know them.” The word “know” in Hebrew is the same one that means intercourse. It’s quite obvious that they wanted to gang rape them. Lot offered his virgin daughters instead but these wicked men did not want the girls, just the men. For their depraved efforts, they were struck blind. Lot and his family left and God then leveled the city to the point that it ceased to exist, and archeologists have never found any remains of it.

As for eating bacon or shellfish, Peter and Paul debated those issues, which you can find in the Book of Acts. Peter believed all Gentiles should become Jews and adopt Jewish ways, including circumcision and the dietary restraints. Paul, whose mission it was to bring the Gospel to the Gentile world, disagreed and won the argument. In fact, in 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul writes,

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”

That knocks out the bacon/shrimp argument right there. But unlike bacon cheeseburgers or a shrimp salad, homosexuality is a serious sin and must be repented of. You can’t engage in an active homosexual relationship, or live a gay life, anymore than you can live the life of a murderer and expect to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

The sin is listed in the Book of Leviticus, not once but twice. In Leviticus 18:22 it says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” That’s the most quoted passage. But in Leviticus 20 the prohibition is repeated yet adds a punishment, “If a man lie with mankind, as he lies with womankind, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” That, folks, is straight out of the mouth of God Himself.

And we know from Scripture (Malachi 3:6) that God said, “For I am the Lord, I do not change.” So that tells us that there is no New Testament approval of homosexuality either, even if it were not mentioned. But it is.

The latter part of Romans 1, written by the Apostle Paul, lays out God’s wrath for unrighteousness, specifically those that exchange God’s truth for the lies of this world. Verse 18-19: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.”

Picking up with Verse 22, it says,

“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man….

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

And if we continue, in Verses 28-32, we see that sexual immorality, which would include homosexuality, is listed right along with other vile sins:

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”

These people deserved death, said Paul, including those who approve of those who practice these wicked acts!

Paul brings up the same issue again in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

Yes, homosexuality is a sin, Paul writes to the Church at Corinth, but there is forgiveness in Christ Jesus!

In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Paul again brings up homosexuality as a sin against God:

“But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”

So it’s quite obvious that homosexuality is a sin against God, ranked right along with those sins that are not in dispute, like murder, lying, and all the rest. But this is where the gay rights crowd begins their work, namely by re-interpreting what Paul said in his Epistles.

Paul uses two Greek words for homosexuality, “arsenokoitēs” and “malakos,” which describe both the active and passive partner in a homosexual relationship. And it has always been interpreted that way. Bible scholar Robert A. J. Gagnon, who teaches at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and wrote the book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, has said these two words mean exactly that and nothing else.

Yet gay rights activists, who either falsely masquerade as Christians or who actually think they are righteous, are re-interpreting these two words to mean “morally weak” and “promiscuous.”

There also seems to be a movement to declare that the Apostle Paul was a homosexual, just as “scholars” have tried to paint Abraham Lincoln as gay. One Episcopal Bishop, John S. Spong, has been spouting such nonsense about Paul for decades. Any basic Google search will show you all you need to see in just a few minutes.

I believe the gay rights movement will use these “facts” in court cases against Christians, to say that it is Christians, not homosexuals, who are misinterpreting and bending the Scriptures in order to engage in hateful speech and actions. So in the future we are going to have courts interpreting the Bible for us. Mark my words, the Bible will be the next “hate speech” battleground.

And our plentiful unrighteous, leftwing judges will go along, gaining support from a variety of sources. The failed former President Jimmy Carter said this week that Jesus would approve gay marriage, although he admitted that he had no Scripture to back it up. That’s because there are none.

Other gay rights advocates seem to want to use the Lord’s silence as an endorsement. But Jesus not speaking out against it is not the same as approving of it. Jesus never spoke out against slavery either, so does that mean slavery is okay? Certainly not. For he said, in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

But, Biblically speaking, why would homosexuality be wrong? Let’s look at Genesis to find an answer. In Chapter 1, as God is creating the Heavens and the Earth, he sets out to create mankind on Day 6. Look at the commands he gives Man in verse 26-28:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

So notice the first thing God said to Man, in this case Adam, was to “be fruitful and multiply.” How can two men or two women do that? How can gays reproduce? They can’t, so they are in violation of the very first commandment God gave to Adam, the first human being he ever created.

God created the nuclear family, consisting of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Any manmade change in God’s Word is a perversion by the workers of iniquity.

In closing I will point out Ms. (or is it Mr. or Mrs.?) Bacon’s ending rant “So, my dear fellow Christians, from one Christian to another, please mind your own business and PLEASE make sure that your hands are clean before you point your finger at me and my community. Amen.” Again, more self-righteous indignation.

A year or so ago I had a liberal fanatic say something similar to me on social media. She said, “I wish you Republicans would leave gays alone.” I responded by saying, “Leave gays alone? When are they going to leave us alone?” This just shows how they are twisting the truth, by making us out to be the intolerant ones, all while they are forcing Christian businesses to serve them.

But we are not trying to impose our will on the gay “community.” We are commanded by our Lord to walk in love and all true Christians do.  All we want is to be able to freely practice our religious beliefs, and protect thousands of years of Christian and Western traditions. It’s the homosexuals who are trying to force us to accept their lifestyle. And that’s something no honest Christian should ever do, for the Word of God is on our side in this fight.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. David Frazier says:

    Hey Ryan:

    In his ground-breaking book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell provides a scholarly analysis of St. Paul’s concerns about same-sex activity by parsing the ancient Greek and Aramaic used in the earliest New Testament accounts. Based upon that language, Boswell suggests that St. Paul’s proscription against homosexual conduct applies only when such conduct is “unnatural to that particular person”. Thus, for heterosexuals like you and me, St. Paul did prohibit us from engaging in same-sex conduct. On the other hand, for people like Ted Haggerty, Phyllis Schlafly’s son, Rob Portman’s son, and countless others for whom same-sex attraction is perfectly natural for them as individuals, the New Testament proscription is inapplicable. If anything, it could be argued that it would be a “sin” for them to engage in heterosexual activities since their sexual orientation is homosexual. To be sure, we can learn to alter our sexual conduct to a limited extent, as was once attempted in the Exodus program which has since disbanded and shutdown.

    I must admit that when I first read Boswell’s book, I was initially suspicious that he was attempting to create a fictional issue. Like most evangelical Christians, I believed at the time that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. Therefore, I got with a friend who at one time had studied for the Catholic priesthood. As a part of his studies, he had focused on the ancient Greek language. Imagine my surprise when he told me that Boswell may very well be correct regarding St. Paul’s admonitions about same-sex conduct. Of course, this is not what the Church or any mainstream Protestant sects, or their seminaries seek to explain to the faithful. As you know, the human condition has been this way for thousands of years, and does not change. As a Christian, you call it “sin”.

    Also, Boswell discusses the Greco-Roman tradition of “buggery” where older upper class adults often kept younger, same-sex individuals (often as slaves) around for the specific purpose of engaging in same-sex activities when they wanted to “take a break from regular heterosexual intercourse.” Boswell explains that Paul condemned this kind of behavior since it was not natural to the individual, but also due to the fact that like prostitution, it involved a form of social, economic, and physical coercion that was therefore: 1) an assault against the victim; 2) harmful to the virtue of society; and 3) ultimately an affront unto God. Thus, the homosexual activity was not considered to be a natural act, but rather, a depraved and coerced act which went against the person’s individual natural sexual desires.

    Back in 2013 it was reported, “Research by the Christian Barna Group shows that the 43% of young people raised as evangelicals stop going to church once they grow up. The reasons that young people get disillusioned with the church track nicely to the reasons the religious right is such a danger to American democracy and freedom: They disagree with the homophobic and sexually judgmental teachings. They disapprove of the church’s attacks on science. They find conservative Christianity intolerant and stifling.” In addition, I have read a reference to a study by the Family Matters Survey which shows that American Evangelical Christians have a much higher level of intolerance towards others whose ideas and belief systems are contrary to theirs. These results appear to be consistent with those of the Christian Barna Group.

    As for that dedicated Christian to whom you referred yesterday, James Madison, let him set the record straight regarding his own thoughts of the corrupting influence of the the Christian Collectivist Community, and the misuse of the Bible by the CCC: “In no instance have… churches been guardians of the people.” * * * “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project.”

    Despite the concerns you raise, the protections under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is alive and well. Let me reassure your readers that so long as politicians seek re-election to Congress, the Christian Collectivist Community will never be required to worship and socialize with LGBT folks anymore than they are required to socialize and worship with the coloreds, injuns, Jews, Catholics, and other disparate groups who offend their tribal notions. Churches and religious institutions will continue to receive their tax exempt status in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause so long as their disparate treatment is because of “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

  2. Bill Smith says:

    Well, once again I have problems with what you both write. David, I have read some that new scholarship stuff on the NT and homosexual pratice, and my conclusion is that it seems to be a case of special pleading – or, to put it another way, a case of a cause in search of scholarship to support it. These assertions about the language of the NT and homosexuality do not seem to me to based on some breakthroughs in Greek etymology and usage, but rather on the desire to reinterpret the NT teaching to accomodate present day views of homosexuality. The NT teaching and the teaching of the church through two millennia has been pretty much the same. It seems to me easier on your view to say simply, “The Bible reflects ancient now discredited views of homosexuality.” Why not just dimiss the texts rather than argue with them? It’s not as though establishing that the texts mean what they seem clearly to mean is going to convince you.

    The fact is that the Bible and Christianity cannot be saved from themselves by the kind of arugments being made by revisionist scholars. The NT is unambiguous about homosexual practice. IN that sense the NT can be taken or left but it cannot be explained away.

    For what is is worth, here are a couple of paragraphs on the words Paul uses in 1 Corinthans and 1 Timoithy by a NT scholar.

    “Paul also speaks against homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. In both texts he used the term arsenokoitai to designate the sin of homosexuality.Paul’s use of the term represents its first occurrence in Greek literature. David Wright
    is likely correct in suggesting that Paul derived the term from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. When we look at both of these texts in the LXX, we can see the argument: kai meta arsenos ou gynaikos bdelygma gar estin (Lev. 18:22); kaihos an meta arsenos gynaikos bdelygma amphoteroi enochoi eisin (Lev. 20:13). What Wright argues, and other scholars have followed him here, is that the Pauline term arsenokoitai is a Pauline innovation deriving from the phrase, arsenos in the two texts from Leviticus. The termrefers, then, to those who bed other males. In other words, it is a vivid way of denoting same sex intercourse between males. The other word used to designate
    same sex relations in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is malakoi. This word refers to the passive partner sexually, an effeminate male who plays the role of a female. Both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, also proscribe homosexuality in general. Dale Martin suggests that the term arsenokoitai refers to those who exploit
    others sexually, but cannot be limited to same sex relations.
    Such a broadening of the term, however, does not fit with either the background of the term in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 or the basic meaning of the word: bedding a male. Furthermore, the pairing of arsenokoitai with malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 indicates that homosexual relations are in view. Paul could have used the more technical term (a pederast) if he had intended to restrict his comments to exploitative sex.

    Furthermore, if the only problem in view were sex that exploits others, there would be no need for Paul to mention the passive partner as well since he is the one being oppressed, and not the oppressor. Robin Scroggs suggests another interpretation. He argues that the word andrapodistais (slave-dealers) in 1 Timothy 1:10 intimates that arsenokoitai refers tothe slave dealers who sell boys and girls as slaves for brothel houses.Scroggs’s
    view is scarcely persuasive, it is hard to believe that kidnappers were exclusively involved in the sex-trade business. Moreover, the term for slave-dealers is lacking in the 1 Corinthians 6:9 context, and it can scarcely be imported there to explain the
    term arsenokoitai. Finally, there is no reason to think that the term slave-dealers casts any light on the meaning of arsenokoitai in the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:9–10.The sins listed represent particularly egregious violations of the ten commandments.Alternative explanations are provided for malakoi as well. Scroggs thinks the reference is to effeminate callboys and prostitution. In reply we can say that Paul’s
    indictment would include such activities, but there is insufficient evidence to limit what Paul says here to male prostitution. Dale Martin argues that effeminacy broadly conceived is in view, so that the malakoi adorn themselves with soft and expensive
    clothes, consume gourmet foods, are pre-occupied with their hair-style, wear perfume, engage in heterosexual sex excessively, masturbate, are gluttons, lazy, and cowards, and also accept phallic penetration by another male. Martin thinks such aview is misogynist and should not be endorsed in our day. The Pauline evidence, however, does not verify Martin’s view. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the word malakoi is paired with arsenokoitai, and the combination of the two terms indicates that same
    sex relations are in view, not heterosexual sex or effeminate behaviour in general. Paul, of course, in the very same verse says that those who live sexually immoral
    lives as heterosexuals will be excluded from the kingdom as well, but he does nothave such a notion in mind when he uses the terms arsenokoitai and malakoi.”

  3. Bill Smith says:

    Ryan, of course, you and I agree about homosexual practice and homosexual marriage I also have a good bit of respect for Prof. Gagnon whom you cite. He is a good scholar. It is interesting that he is a professor at at seminiary of a denomination that now allows homosexual oridnation and marriage.I also agree with you about the foolish stuff written by Whitney Kay Bacon. She does not make a good case for her position. It appeals more to some kind of emotional response,than to rational consideration.

    But, frankly I find some of your argumentation troubling.

    For one thing you give far too much away re the food laws These laws along with mamy similar laws re mixing of materials. etc. etc are pat of the Old Testament holiness code which was given to set Israel apart both objectively and psychologically form the other nations. They are not moral in nature and were never intended to be permanent.

    Second you are not accurate about Paul and Peter and the food laws. Jesus taught the abolition of the food laws. (Mark 7:14-23, esp v. 19). Peter was slow to learn this but he had learned it well before Paul came on the scene as the Apostle to the Gentiles and before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) God taught him this before sending him to the Centuriaion Cornelius. See Acts 10 and 11). See too what Peter said at the Jerusalem Council (15:6-11. The conflict between Paul and Peter occurred when Peter at Antioch acted, under pressure from the Jews, inconsisently with what he knew by stopping having table fellowship with the Genetiles, See Galatians 2: 11-14.)

    Also when you start listing passages in the NT which contain liist of sins as you rightly do from 1 Tim 1:8-10, you need to note first that Paul condemns all those sins in that list, not just homosexual practice. But you also need to note other lists such as Galatians 5: 19-21. There are some suprises in that list of things that exclude one from the kingdom – enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, envy are included.

    Then, I think you are mistaken that the courts will get involved in interpreting Scriptures. Courts are always laothe to get involved in the interpretation of Biblical texts. No, the pressure will come if they find clash between what they see the law requires and what a church says the Bible requires. If they find themselves in that situtation, which they might do when it comes to, say, employment they simply would say, We are not competent to tell you what the Bible says, but we will tell you what the law requires. That is where the danger is.

    Then I wonder if you are really willing to leave gays alone. I think what they do is evil. But I do not favor laws which carry civil penalties as used to be the case. We might have avoided the mess were are in now if we had not put up such a ruckus about civil partnerships. But are you really willing to live and let live?

    The point of gay marriage is to make a point. The vast majority of gays are not going to choose marriage once the newness wears off and the point has been made. (The question is whether marriage is going to survive among hetrerosexuals.) The challenge is going to come in terms of what the courts are likely to see as discrimination against gays and on what kinds of public speech will be tolearted. These are the things about which I am truly scared.

    • David Frazier says:

      Bill, you say to Ryan, “I think you are mistaken that the courts will get involved in interpreting Scriptures. Courts are always laothe to get involved in the interpretation of Biblical texts.” What you say has been historically correct. But don’t forget that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects persons engaged in “sincerely held religious beliefs” from State action. Therefore, if the laws’ constitutionality is somehow upheld as not being an infringement by the State on the First Amendment, you will indeed have secular judges making rulings on what actions, decisions, and objections of individuals are legitimate “sincerely held religious beliefs” based upon biblical interpretation. For example, if the military draft is ever reinstated, judges will have to be much more deferential to the defense of conscientious objector status, regardless of denomination or sect. This should be of concern to everyone, especially members of the Christian Collectivist Community.

    • You don’t think the courts will get involved in interpreting Scripture huh? How about this? Not quite there yet but it marches on! http://newsexaminer.net/crime/christian-sentenced-to-prison-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/

  4. Bill Smith says:

    That’s a prettly lame case, Ryan. For one thing there was not attempt to interpret Scripture. But further, this is a church? A “FOR PROFIT business that is a church whose only ministry is this guy performing wedding cereomonies? This makes a mockery of Christian faith.

    • Uh have you any concept of a political “slippery slope”? Obviously not! Try looking ahead!

      • Bill Smith says:

        Yes, I know about slippery slopes. But it’s important to look at the slope and what appears to be slippery in order to see what’s really there. When you look at this case of man who delcares himself a minister and opens a for profit weddiing business, you see this is not a case of court interferring in a church or interpreting Scripture. Chose your cases wisely if you want to make effective argument.

  5. David Frazier says:

    Bill, Are you suggesting that there are actually members of the Christian Collectivist Community who tell lies, spread false innuendos, and and fabricate stories in an effort to mislead a gullible public? Say it ain’t so! Telling lies and falsehoods is listed right up there with, “gulp”–homosexuality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: