Sadly, there is a part of me that fears "fifty or a hundred years" is far too optimistic; people work very hard to rationalize their conveniences.

(Actually, I suspect that there will never be complete resolution. Assuming Christ waits long enough, there will be artifical wombs and perfect birth control long before we resolve the issue.)

Agreed, Well said, I can add no more!

Actually, the Jews desperately wanted their state run by their religious leaders, but they had to placate their pagan conquerors. They caused enough riots on their own to provoke Roman ire; the ones present whom you quote were paying lip service to their governor to achieve their own end: getting rid of the upstart carpenter-turned-cult-leader.
Surely Kerry has all the markings of a manufactured politician who deliberately stirs in a little American old-time religion for the sake of his public image, but I cannot judge his heart. Furthermore, his professed moral objection to abortion does not automatically equate hypocrisy with his political stance: that our government should not regulate morality or withhold the right for anyone to undergo a medical procedure of any kind.

Fey,
I don't suggest we judge Kerry's heart, but we can judge his actions. Further, his political stance is not that we cannot regulate morality, for he is foursquare in favor of laws against rape, murder, etc. Presumably his stance is that abortion is a "personal" matter, meaning that only one person in the equation matters, a position reached when one defines out of existence the person to be executed.

Good post, and good answer Tony.

I don't see how it is possible to claim both faith and yet independence from that faith on the big moral questions that one's faith is supposed to inform. Without being a charlatan, of course.

Bingo!

Per usual, you have eloquently put into words what so many of us feel. And I would like to suggest that it won't take 50 to 100 years. Keep up the good work.

I have to confess I really miss hanging out in the right wing/conservative debate room known as SitG. I always liked being one of the only libs here where the debate doesn't dissolve into the typical silly stupid ranting that many other sites, both lib and con, usually turn into.

I really don't want to go thru a whole abortion debate because I have no desire to sway your mind and I doubt you'll sway mine... However -

There are plenty of laws on the books that, while you may not like how some take advantage of it, you feel that the principle of the law is so fundamentally essential that it must be upheld with strict adherence. You have to take the good and the bad in this world, and getting rid of it would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water (bad analogy here, but you get the idea). Right about here I started writing something with flowery prose about "inalienable rights endowed by the creator", but I'm gonna save it since it's midnight & I have to be up early tomorrow morning.

The first amendment - I hate that Neo-Nazis, The KKK and many others who say hateful things and yet the freedom of speech is so fundamental that to allow judges and juries to tamper with it can only lead to uglier things. I personally find proselytizing to be downright offensive, but I still think you deserve the right to speak your mind... You know, that whole Voltaire thing.

I would prefer to see more of the separation of personal (i.e. religious) versus political belief for many reasons. However my stomach would not be so queasy if it those who proclaim to uphold their respected religious doctrine would follow it with a little more orthodoxy. Most of the people I am referring to usually bend and mold the doctrine to suit their purposes when convenient, and then casually ignore it or even toss it away when it becomes an obstacle to something they want.

I find Kerry's stance not just admirable, but even more so the right ethical standard to uphold in a country where we have freedom of religion. I wish more politicians would show this restraint when weighing personal vs. political beliefs when voting on legislation. I find the current President's complete lack of this concept rather disturbing, and what's more his (as well as many others) bending of his supposed faith in the word of God as deeply troubling when certain doctrine is overlooked or cast aside in order to achieve his political goals.

"Kerry claims personally to oppose abortion. So let's sum up this man's position: I believe this is wrong; my church teaches that it is murder; and (?)a majority of Americans oppose it in most circumstances(?) (Ed-oh really?) -- but I will use my political power not only to protect it, but to expand its practice."

"Kerry wishes to position himself as faithful to the American tradition, but the reality is that brave acts in this country have frequently been informed by religious belief: the abolition of slavery comes to mind, as does the advancement of civil rights and our opposition to totalitarianism abroad."

I have to say Tony you could not have picked a more appropriate issue than Slavery. It is true that for most abolitionists the Bible was the quintessential text that helped make up their minds. It should also be noted that on the other side of the Mason Dixon line many adherents to the very same faith and readers of the very same book used the passages regarding the Bible's permission of slavery as justification for the practice. Few things piss me off more than people who talk about the end of slavery and it's indebtedness to the influence the Bible. The same people are either ignorant to the fact (or worse neglect to mention) that it was also used to defend slavery. Last time I checked it was all those in the Bible belt who fought to maintain slavery (under the states rights banner) while those godless heathen Yankees up north were the ones who were doing the liberating.

And like I said before about those who "bend and mold doctrine" to suit their purposes, it should be noted that there are a host of laws governing the taking of slaves i.e. how to treat them, how long you could own them, etc. The supposedly religious people who upheld the Bible as proof that God himself gave humans permission to keep people like property could not be bothered to read just a little further in the same damn book on how God said that could not kill a slave, that they were required to treat their slaves with some level of dignity and respect. Apparently none of the blowhards could be bothered with that crap. Slavery would still been terrible even if these people upheld biblical doctrine regarding slavery, but at the very least you could say that they held fast to all of their beliefs.

And there are a host of things in the Old Testament that are at least banned on some level, including things like that foundation of capitalism, the practice of charging interest. A whole bunch of these supposed people with "religious conviction" refer to the Old Testament when discussing the issue of Gay marriage. I've never hear any of those supposed religious politicians do anything about the practice of egregious usury. And if you want to split hairs, last time I checked there is plenty of prose about "man laying with another man as a woman" but absolutely nothing about the opposite, as in woman with woman. As much as I dislike Rosie O’Donnell, by certain people's interpretation what she does in her bedroom does not violate the literal word of God. I'm wincing now, because if I were God I might go for a rewrite on that one. Nothing about lesbianism but rather something forbidding Rosie from laying with anyone, period.

"Thank God -- to practice the opposite of Kerryesque statesmanship -- that, at our moments of greatest national moral and physical peril, there were men and women brave enough to let their religious convictions guide them past the political exigencies of the day.

"What's more, for every Martin Luther King there have always been a hundred John Kerry's lurking in the halls of power, clucking their tongues about unseemly displays of religious conviction. Kerry imagines himself a progressive liberal, but his intellectual tradition is more in keeping with the oppressor than the liberator.

There may be truth in the first highlighted statement, but your myopia is very distressing. For every Martin Luther King there have also been hundereds if not thousands of GW Bush's (and Tom Delays, and so on) cruising the halls of power, paying homage to a messiah that, for all faith they claim to have in the Lord, they seem completely oblivious to the wisdom that their supposed savior has commanded they uphold. Some of these slimeballs have caused little more than rancor and distress. Others have left a heaping pile of bodies in their wake. With all the religious inference aside (like the line about 'messiah') just about every religion can lay claim to at least a handful of violators, and mountains of carcasses to boot. Christianity is by no stretch of the imagination the most egregious perpetrator of this violation, at least not in this century.

I'll leave you with this one last thought, in it is very much the flipside of abortion debate coin and a perfect retort regarding religion and politics - most of the people (that I know anyway) that are strongly opposed to the right to have an abortion also seem to hold the same conviction regarding the ability to impose the death penalty. I am not a big fan of the death penalty, but I can certainly understand the value with someone who has no chance of being rehabilitated and may still be a threat even behind bars, as in a serial killer or a murderous dictator like Saddam. And the bible does in fact prescribe the death penalty as punishment for killing another human being. BUT it would serve all of you to read a little more carefully regarding the subject in your favorite book. Biblical Jewish law permitted the death penalty, but only under very strict circumstances; it required no less than two credible eyewitnesses, and use of circumstantial evidence in judgement was not permitted. How many of those cases of those under Governor Bush would have gone to the electric chair if those two simple requirements were followed?

One of the death row inmates that the previous Governor here in Illinois set free was convicted of setting an apartment on fire and killing the inhabitants. That jury reached it's decision based on the testimony of two people - The first was a woman who was later found to be coached by the police into ID'ing the man in a lineup. She later said she was not sure this was the man she saw leaving the building minutes before the fire broke out. Not only was she not sure if this is who she saw, she never saw him actually set the fire. The other person to testify was a convicted criminal who got more lenient treatment after his testimony. On these shaky ground he was sentenced to death. It took a Republican (George Ryan, currently under investigation for totally different reasons) to have the courage to pardon him from the chair.

It would have been a lot easier to let the relatives of the victims believe that this man who was the guilty individual to blame for their pain and suffering, and to let him die so they could acheive some satisfaction of justice. It is courage to correct a horrible error such as this and bring up so much pain for these grieving families that, while deserving closure, should receive it at the expense of an innocent man

As a matter of fact the most recent Ill gubernatorial election (2002, Jim Ryan, no relation to George Ryan) the GOP nominee was the prosecuting attorney in one of the 10+ cases that eventually led to at the time Governor George Ryan to put a halt to and re-examine the entire death penalty process. This was in a case where the police came to GOP Gov. Jim Ryan nominee, then prosecuting attorney in the case, to tell him the man he was trying, Rolando Cruz, that "This isn't the guy". He ignored them and went on with the case. He even hid evidence that would be used used to exonerated Mr. Cruz. Did I mention Jim Ryans is a self proclaimed faithful and religious Catholic, staunchly opposed to abortion in nearly all circumstances including rape? He got a conviction, although it was later overturned. All that time wasted prosecuting someone who was innocent while the guilty offender is still out there, all for appearances.

I'm not gonna touch the whole lying issue with Jim Ryan regarding the prosecution, or the pride that blinded him into following thru even though he must have suspected he was innocent. I would not be shocked if Jim Ryan convinced himself this guy, Rolando Cruz, was guilty. I'm not saying it was right, or that he should not be punished for his actions, just that I could see where someone could let their pride get in the way. This is not what this post is about.

What drives me mad is how someone could refer to their strict adherence to their faith for guidance on one issue and just ignore or violate it on the other. This is a completely self righteous and flat out delusional JOKE. I really have to ask myself sometimes what some of the religious zealots truly believe. All those commandments about treating others the way you want to be treated, giving to charity, so many of those people have become so deluded or self righteous in their judgment and steadfast belief that becuase of their faith, one would think they are somehow exempt from the very law they demand we uphold.

Last time I checked the Pope and the whole Church was against the death penalty (and the war while we're at it). I realize our Prez is not Catholic, but at the very least if our Commander in Chief is going to cite the Bible as the most influential text in his life the very least the guy could do actually read the damn thing. Spare me the rhetoric, Bush expanded the use of capitol punishment, and the only way he could have done that faithfully is by maintaining his 'religious conviction' separate from his personal beliefs about the word of God and his political power not only to protect it, but to expand its practice to let 'em hang (or fry).

I can't remember his name, but there used to be a GOP Senator from somewhere in the South (also a preacher) who was steadfast in his opposition to both abortion and the death penalty. I may not agree with all his political positions, but I have to say that I have a whole lot of respect for him. To stand up to your own party and even your own constituents on an issue that you truly believe is morally equivalent and your faith demands it - that is the definition of true courage.

I don't see anyone here lauding Kerry for his vote granting the President the power to go into Iraq while mainting his separation between his political beliefs of the threat Saddam posed versus the Church's opposition to the mess we have on our hands now. Even if you disagree with the application in this instance, to advocate for an across the board compliance is contrary and contradictory to the political convictions of most of the readers here at SitG.

Ugh... 3am, what have I done? Hope four hours of sleep is enough to get me thru work tomorrow. And I hope this book report is not for naught, that someone is still paying attention. 3 hours of typing and editing, if no one would read this it would be a pity. Also please stop by the BMA, I have commenting ability and a quandary for all you anti tax conservatives to ponder.

PS - the line regarding "oppressor...liberator" is at best a huge stretch and at worst a cheap shot.

It's easiest to deal with Palmer's arguments by breaking them up. Palmer, if I mischaracterize you at any point, please let me know:

1) Respect for the rule of law requires us to accept the good with the bad.

Stability in the law is important, but it is trumped by the need to protect the lives of all human beings, including the unborn. The debate on abortion, of course, turns on whether the child in the womb actually "counts" as a human being.

2) Do a majority of Americans really oppose abortion in most circumstances?

Yes, as this compilation of surveys reveals. It's maintained by a pro-life group, but each survey is from a reputable agency, and can be independently verified. For some reason, you won't find all of this survey data maintained in one place, except on pro-life sites. Perhaps I should be searching a little harder on the NPR site?

3) Sure, slavery opponents relied on the Bible to inform their beliefs, but so did slavery supporters, thus undermining your claim that politicians should rely on the Bible.

People interpret scriptures wrongly, just as judges interpret the Constitution wrongly. The alternative is to make decisions based on one's personal preferences. At least if we push decision-makers to rely on some broadly supported set of principles and texts, then there is a space for debate.

4) GW Bush and Tom DeLay don't follow the teachings in the Bible any more than Kerry.

I'll need more evidence on that. It's a bit of a non sequitur in this discussion, though, because I was talking about the moral and religious vision of John Kerry. Naming other people whom you believe to be hypocrites doesn't negate my point.

5) If Christians are going to be consistent, they also have to oppose the death penalty, because the Bible says you need two witnesses and can't use circumstantial evidence.

There is a difference here between the policy and practice of the death penalty. All evidence, by the way, is circumstantial. I've seen nothing in the Bible to conclude that people can only be put to death when there are eyewitnesses to the crime.

6) You didn't complain when Kerry went against the Catholic church in his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

You have me here, because I originally wrote:

"Kerry claims personally to oppose abortion. So let's sum up this man's position: I believe this is wrong; my church teaches that it is murder; and a majority of Americans oppose it in most circumstances -- but I will use my political power not only to protect it, but to expand its practice."

I should have left out the reference to his church, because what matters is not what the church teaches, but what the scriptures teach (to echo the cry that once gave bishops heartburn: "Sola Scriptura!").

7) "the line regarding "oppressor...liberator" is at best a huge stretch and at worst a cheap shot".

I wrote:

"Kerry imagines himself a progressive liberal, but his intellectual tradition is more in keeping with the oppressor than the liberator."

I stand by that. Kerry is a modern American progressive, which I defined in a post months ago as "someone who opposes reform of taxes, the legal system, education, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, health insurance, environmental regulation, and workplace rules, all in the name of being forward-looking." What's more, he wholeheartedly contributes to a system that extinguishes millions of lives a year. No amount of liberal do-goodery will wash away that much blood.

1 - this is a debate that isn't going to go anywhere...

2 - I'm not going to research this one, stats go both ways, although based on what I've seen recently I would say that the trends are in your favor, but your point of view is still significantly behind by many estimates.

I think that's pushing it to say in most cases. And we're going under the assumption that if the people think it's right then that makes it okay. Are you sure you want to go in that direction, as in if people are in favor of it / oppose it then it must be right?

3 - "People interpret scriptures wrongly, just as judges interpret the Constitution wrongly. The alternative is to make decisions based on one's personal preferences. At least if we push decision-makers to rely on some broadly supported set of principles and texts, then there is a space for debate."

This was the main point of the whole post and you missed it. My point is people interpret the Bible either wrongly or at least manipulatively all the time. I am not here say the Bible has a mistake it, just that humans take liberties with the Bible. Who is to judge when someone interprets the Bible incorrectly. Christians have been citing the "turn the other cheek" phrase for centuries and yet I don't see anyone here citing that for America's enemies. When is it appropriate?

The rest of the points made can be boiled down to this;

A)Catholic Church scripture forbids abortion

B)A good Catholic needs to follow Catholic scripture

C)John Kerry, while supporting this belief in his own life, does not believe it should be the law of the land

D)Kerry is a coward for not following his "religious convictions".

Does following one's religious convictions make one brave? Even in a nation with a separation of Church and State? As far your line about "interpretting the Bible wrong" you seem to be inferring that there is one only one way to interpret it. Which way is that?

Does his personal convictions versus his political policy make you angry? There are times when he follows those "religious convictions" like the death penalty, does he get or deserve credit for that?

Do faithful Catholic politicians who ignore the Death Penalty issue receive the same treatment and scrutiny? You don't have to answer that one....

What about people who claim to hold the teaching of the Church as their justification for opposing abortion, while defying the very same teachings when they weigh in on the death penalty?

What about people who claim to be of the faith and the book? What happens when they use it for their advantage when to their advantage and ignore it when it is convenient? That list is very very long. Heck it says in the 10 Commandments to keep the Sabbath holy, and yet if someone were to propose a law bannign all work on Sundays I highly doubt you'd be lauding them for their "religious convictions"...

I'm not Catholic, but even if you are not would someone please illuminate me as to when Christians regard the Old Testament as to be taken literally? When can be ignored or cast aside? What parts are to be followed and observed and what parts are negotiable? What about the New Testament?

What pisses me off most is that you apply a standard and principle to Kerry on one issue, and yet there are literally thousands of politicians who do the same thing on a variety of issues that you Tony would probably be very happy with.

If you dislike Kerry for being pro choice then fine. But is this your justification? I'm saying that it falls short when applied across the board.

this post is about to be banished into archiveland... you're still reading this one right? You get an email when these things are posted, right?

"This was the main point of the whole post and you missed it."

Might it be fairer to say that this was the intended point of your post, but that you didn't communicate it well? I ask that because it doesn't appear that you meant to communicate what I said, which was:

"People interpret scriptures wrongly, just as judges interpret the Constitution wrongly. The alternative is to make decisions based on one's personal preferences. At least if we push decision-makers to rely on some broadly supported set of principles and texts, then there is a space for debate."

My point is that the alternative, relying on politicians and judges to make decisions based on their personal preferences, is a very bad idea, because it removes decision-making from the realm of sound underlying principles. Thus if we are not to rely on the foundational scriptures of our society, primarily English common law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bible, then we will be at the mercy of whatever tripe that fills the heads of elitists who happen to attain the reins of power.

I already conceded your A-D points. I shouldn't criticize Kerry for being a bad Catholic, because I disagree with Catholic belief that the Pope's word is final. I believe I can criticize Kerry for being an unrepentantly hypocritical Christian, however, because he claims to espouse a belief, but refuses to act on it because of some imagined veil between Church and State that allows a professing Christian not to lift a finger in the face of murder.

Following one's religious convictions, if they are sincerely held, is not a matter of bravery. It is simply a matter of doing what one has no other choice but to do, if one is sincere in heart.

The correct way to interpret Scriptures is in totality, with attendance to the meaning of the original language.

The rest of your post reverts to your original protestation, which is more rage than argumentation. Yes, others sin. Is Kerry's position noble or defensible in light of this fact? No. Why did I focus on Kerry's position instead of the others? Because I believe that to sanction abortion is to sanction the murder of innocents, and I despise the notion that one can hold to Christian belief on this point yet think it alright to allow and extend the practice.

"This was the main point of the whole post and you missed it."

Might it be fairer to say that this was the intended point of your post, but that you didn't communicate it well?

I'd say that is very fair. I guess it seemed obvious to me in my egocentricity. And maybe a little rage.

more is coming....

by the way I'd really love to get an answer on this one:

would someone please illuminate me as to when Christians regard the Old Testament as to be taken literally? When can be ignored or cast aside? What parts are to be followed and observed and what parts are negotiable? What about the New Testament?

The Old Testament is not to be "ignored" or "cast aside." It's context. The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament law. That is not to say the O.T. does not provide sound guidance, just that the N.T. principles override the O.T. "letter of the law." A good example is Peter's writing regarding eating unclean things.

If you want a sort of modern secular analogy, English Common Law would roughly equate to the O.T. and the U.S. Constitution to the N.T. (at least in the U.S.). Common Law is the context on which the Constitution is founded. Common Law does not overrule the Constitution.

What does the NT say regarding the death penalty? Abortion? Usury?

Last time I checked there was some leeway in the OT regarding abortion, that a woman may have one only if it is out of serious duress, but not financial duress.

The OT calls for no less than 2 eyewitnesses, and no not everything is considered circumstantial evidence. The exact example given in biblical law is "two men walk into a cave, one comes out with a bloody knife and the other is found inside, dead" Under these circumstances the OT prohibits the DP.

Tuesday, May 4th, 2004

There is currently a discussion among some Catholic bishops about refusing the sacraments to Democratic Sen. John Kerry for not opposing abortion, thus doing the Republican National Committee's work for it.

But the Pope and the national hierarchy also have condemned the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Are these bishops willing to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support the death penalty or the Iraq war? And if not, why not?

Moreover, will they tell Catholics that it is a sin to support an unjust war and to vote for a candidate who is responsible for such a war? And, again, if not, why not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, denouncing abortion will get you attention in the Vatican. Attacking the death penalty and the war are not likely to promote your career. Second, the rules are different for Democrats and Republicans. It is curious, to say the least, that 30 years after Roe vs. Wade, the issue of denying the sacraments would be raised during this election year.

Bishops also threaten political leaders who support civil unions between homosexuals. Given their tolerance for sexual abusers in the priesthood, that looks a bit hypocritical. I have never heard any of them criticize gay bashing. Followers of Jesus cannot tolerate hatred of anyone, especially since the church now teaches that the homosexual condition is not freely chosen.

Finally, some bishops have doubts about permitting women to participate in the washing of feet during the Holy Thursday services. These men will tolerate women distributing Communion only when it is absolutely necessary. They are uneasy about females serving Mass. Such sentiments doubtless also will promote their careers. Yet, unless I've missed it, they haven't spoken out against rape. It is estimated that 12% to 13% of all women are victims of rape in this country. Why is the Catholic Church so silent on the subject? Why do Catholic leaders seem unaware of just how routine the abuse of women is, not merely at the service academies and in the military and on college campuses, but everywhere in our society? Why are they so obsessed with keeping women out of the sanctuary and so uninterested in the constant danger of their violation?

I realize that church leaders from Peter and his colleagues on down have not been all that brilliant or all that courageous. I understand that with some exceptions the current crowd is not much better. At least Peter and his bunch had the decency to apologize. Those in the current crowd don't apologize that much and, when they do, their words lose credibility because of their actions (such as the current campaign led by Edward Cardinal Egan to undercut the American bishops' National Review Board for the Protection of Children & Young People, a campaign that can only convince Catholic parents that their children are not safe on church premises).

I subscribe to the consistent ethic of life that the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin enunciated some years ago. I believe abortion is wrong. I believe the death penalty is wrong. I believe preemptive war is wrong. I will take seriously the "pro-life" enthusiasts when they are ready to protest against and denounce the death penalty. I will take them seriously when they also denounce criminally unjust wars.

Nylon legs nylon sex stocking stories. Stockings pics sheer pantyhose pantyhose pictures girls in stockings. Vintage nylons stocking stories SExY stOCkINgS pAnTyHoSe womEN. Pantyhose for men sex in stockings PICTURES PANTYHOSE. Pantyhose women pantyhose photos sex in stockings. Sexy stockings upskirt pantyhose men wearing pantyhose stockings mania. Sexy pantyhose rht stockings WOMEN IN PANTYHOSE MATURE STOCKINGS. Pantyhose women nylons legs NYLOnS lEgS. Girls in stockings women in pantyhose RHT STOCKINGS. Free pantyhose girls in stockings PANTYHOSE PICS. Compression stockings pantyhose pussy teens in pantyhose. Sex in pantyhose stocking tops WHITE STOCKINGS. Body stockings pantyhose legs bLack PaNTYhosE pANTYhOsE UPSKIrt. Sex in stockings nylons legs STOCKING MOVIES. Stocking sex pantyhose porn paNtyhOSE WoMeN. Girls in stockings teen pantyhose pANtyHoSE bONDAge. Seamless pantyhose teen pantyhose teen pantyhose stockings mania. Men's pantyhose stocking tease pantyhose legs nylon sex. Pantyhose women stocking movies Nylon StOCking NyLon paNties. Seamless pantyhose pantyhose men GALLERY PANTYHOSE. White stockings galleries gallery pantyhose SToCkINgS Sex nyLoN STOCKings rhT. Free babe stockings pantyhose feet ViNtaGE NylOns MatUrE pANTYhOse. Stocking sex gallery pantyhose pics pantyhose. Pantyhose women wet pantyhose PAntyhoSE feEt. Silk stockings pantyhose videos pantyhose models pics pantyhose. Seamed stockings pantyhose videos stockings pictures. Girls in pantyhose nylon feet nylon pics. Pantyhose models pantyhose video PANTYHOSE PHOTO ART. Nylons pantyhose stories PAnTyHosE fetIsh ShEer paNTYhOSe. Stocking fetish free pantyhose pics STOCKING PICTURES. Seamless pantyhose stockings mania MAture PAnTYhOse. Compression stockings men wearing pantyhose SEXY PANTYHOSE FREE PANTYHOSE PICTURES. Pantyhose fetish stocking mania nylon legs sheer pantyhose. White stockings babes in stockings PANTYHOSE UPSKIRT BODY STOCKINGS. Pics pantyhose stocking sex pantyhose video. Pantyhose girls free pantyhose STockinG fevER. Pantyhose women stocking fetish PANTYHOSE FOR MEN. Gallery pantyhose pantyhose women StocKing pICs. Compression stockings men wearing pantyhose pantyhose stories stocking tops. Stocking mania men wearing pantyhose pantyhose teens nylon stocking. Pantyhose pussy free pantyhose WOMeN iN STOCkINgS seXy PanTYHOSe. Stocking pictures stocking pics BLAck STOCKinGS TeenS iN PantyHose. Amateur pantyhose black pantyhose NYLON STOCKINGS. Compression stockings stocking tops SEAMED STOCKINGS. Stocking pictures nylon sex giRlS iN paNtyhoSe pAnTyhoSe vIDEO. Pantyhose pussy nylon feet stoCKINg MaNIa. Pantyhose movies pics pantyhose pAntYhOse mEN. Stocking mania nylons and pantyhose pictures WET PANTYHOSE. Nylons seamed stockings white stockings galleries pantyhose photos. Pantyhose movies pantyhose legs paNTyhoSE PhOTOs. sexy stockings

Smoking fetish gay bondage SEX TORTURE. Teen bondage bdsm stories bondage pictures. Rubber fetish sexual bondage bdsm stories. Gay fetish gay bondage bDsM. Asian bondage bondage wizard FEMALE DOMINATION. Torture drawings bondage photos PENIS TORTURE. Fetish sex torture Sock fEtish. Torture devices bondage furniture FOOT FETISH. Sock fetish feet fetish FEMDOM STORIES. Gay bondage female torture shoe fetish bondage pictures. Cock torture bondage videos MASOCHISM. Tentacles sexual torture bONdAGE vidEOs PUsSy torTURE. Cock torture bondage fairies FREE BONDAGE PICTURES BDSM ART. Self bondage torture WATER BONDAGE. Rubber fetish tickle torture FETISH CLOTHING TICKLE TORTURE. Enema fetish bondage toys TORTURE. Bdsm free femdom boNdaGE EQuipMENT. Tickle torture medieval torture ROPE BONDAGE SEX TORTURE. Feet fetish bondage fairies FETISH SEX BALL TORTURE. Latex fetish photography bizarre insertions boNDaGE Art. Bondage pics latex fetish FeMDom sTrapoN fEtISH clOThiNg. Tit torture penis torture tOrtUrE draWINgS. Female domination japanese bondage seXUAL BondagE. Nipple torture femdom stories fEMale toRtUre. Torture devices tickle torture fRee BDsM BdSM. Male bondage free femdom BREAST BONDAGE. Enema fetish femdom stories BondAGe wizaRd waTEr BONDAge. Balloon fetish panty fetish fetish bank. Fetish clothing bondage toys SELF BONDAGE. Femdom drawings water bondage bondage fairies. Diaper fetish sadism BONDAGE PHOTOS. Self bondage latex bondage BREAST TORTURE. Tentacles free bondage pictures BONDAGE TOYS. Femdom stories male bondage female domination stories. Gay bondage bdsm art fETisH. Nipple torture bizarre insertions outdoor bondage. Free bondage movies fetish bank free bondage movies ball torture. Torture drawings femdom drawings GAY FETISH FREE BONDAGE PICTURES. Bizarre insertions foot fetish smoking fetish latex bondage. Bondage toys bondage art sex bondage femdom stories. Torture free bdsm wOmeN in BONdAgE. Bondage equipment sex bondage MEDIEVAL TORTURE BONDAGE PHOTOS. Femdom drawings female torture FEMDOM. Free bondage movies domination LATEX FETISH. Enema fetish bondage videos sado sex torture. Free femdom lesbian bondage bizarre. Bizarre insertions free bdsm FEtIsh stOrIes. Female domination bondage girls BalLOOn fEtiSh FeMale BondagE. Femdom water bondage feet fetish. Femdom art femdom art TEEN BONDAGE. sex torture

Golden rain pissing teens GoldEn RAIn. Drinking piss piss sex pissing girl free golden showers. Pissing girls drinking piss DriNkINg pIsS. Teen pee pee stories piss videos pissing woman. Free pissing videos golden showers OUTDOOR PISSING. Free pissing stories girls pissing pUBLic pisSing. Free pissing movies free pee pics piss. Public pee lesbian pissing PISS MOVIES PISS STORIES. Pissing sex free piss videos PisS PaNts. Golden shower pics pee pants PEE PORN FREE PISS. Pissing girl girl piss piSS STorIeS. Girl pissing free pissing pantY PISsInG PiSs on me. Piss pics pee video pee lover pee video. Free pissing stories girl pissing pIss on me. Pissing cunts pee hole FREE PEE. Piss panties free pissing pictures pissing woman teen pissing. Adult watersports pissing pussy PISsing video FREE pISSINg. Pee porn pissing porn PISSING CUNT. Pissing women outdoor pissing piss porn piss pictures. Piss pictures teen pissing girl pee. Pissing sluts piss pants frEE piSsiNG StoriEs. Woman pissing piss pissing sex. Pee porn golden shower PEE GIrl. Pissing pics pee fetish PISS DRINKERS. Women pissing piss in mouth PISSING PUSSIES. Piss pants pissing panties PANTY PEE. Pee pics pissing pussies piSsING gaLlErieS PEe LOvER. Pissing panties watersports OutdoOr peE teen PeE. Free piss videos free piss pics PIsS in mOuth. Lesbian watersports piss pictures LESBIAN WATERSPORTS PISSING CUNTS. Piss drinkers pissing cunt giRLS Pee. Free pee pics pee panties PISSING PORN. Free golden showers free pissing stories LESbIAn PisS puBLIC pee. Pee videos pee drinkers PissIng VIDeos. Free golden showers pissing woman pISSinG GAlLEry. Pissing cunts pissing teens FREE GOLDEN SHOWERS FREE PISS PICS. Piss panties drinking piss golden shower free golden showers. Free pee women pissing FREE PISSING VIDEOS. Female pee pissing pictures PISSIng pUsSY. Free pee free pissing stories GiRLs PIsSinG. Female pee girls pee PISSING IN PUBLIC FREE PISSING. Golden shower golden rain PEE ON YOU. Piss pants pissing videos PISSING TEENS. Lesbian watersports pissing lesbians teens pissing outdoor pissing. Pee fetish pissing woman pEe VIDeOS. Free piss pics free pissing movies pee video. Piss movies pee videos watersports. Lesbian watersports pee drinking free piss woman pissing. Pissing pictures pee stories PISSING LESBIANS. Pissing teens piss videos public pee piss movies. piss panties