It looks as though you are looking for some sexy, scintillating, titillating, naked pictures of American actress Anna Kendrick.
Pass the mouse on top of the picture, and right hand click three times.
Well, the light was not on, sorry. You should be ashamed, though. Leave poor ANNA alone and go take a cold shower on the trot. Would you like to have your naked pictures posted on the internet? Most likely not. I know not all celebrities are what one can call saints, however, the situation is so bad that know the photoshop the face of known actresses to bodies of other women, often in very lewd position. And you, mr. Pervert, make this possible. In other words, don’t be a pervert and a sucker. Don’t believe 1% of the naked pictures of celebrities you see around.
SINCE YOU MUST READ ON!
While I have your attention, let me share some thoughts as to why it isn`t a good idea do redefine marriage. I will not bore you with the details that although the gay population in the USA is allegedly four million, apparently, only about 150 thousand gay couples live in marital arrangements, and not a huge proportion of these have actually gotten married in states where this has been allowed. So, it seems, this was not really a big deal even for the gay community at large. One would expect droves to be filing for licenses and whatnot. It seems that it caters to the desires of a few people within that community. Most gays seem to be content living their lives as they always did. And I don’t mean this in any demeaning or disrespectful way.
There is a problem when we start catering to the desires and pleasures of x and y community. I suppose contractual arrangements would do just as good as far as ensuring insurance and inheritance coverage for gays, however, marriage has been redefined.
There might by a number of other people requiring re-definitions of certain concepts, based on things such as their desires and pleasure. For instance, our laws prohibit a child marrying his-her parent. If we use the paradigm of desire and pleasure, plus mutual consent, then this should be admitted, if there is desire, pleasure and mutual consent!!! Most would say ~it is immoral~, however, the same was said of gay marriage. Look what happened.
Additionally, we have `legal ages’ in our laws that determine when a person can make decisions on his-her own. Among such decisions, is getting married, or even having sex. Supposedly, a ~child~ of 13 cannot really express consent, especially if the lover happens to be an `adult`. Well, if we start redefining things based on pleasure, desires and consent, then we have a problem. Soon, people wishing to redefine marriage will force a reduction of this ‘age of consent’ for sexual relations between minors and adults. All very hypocritical, for the laws say nothing about minors having sex with minors, procreating and aborting at a wholesale scale.
Our laws also forbid plural marriage or polygamy. Again, if pleasure and desire and consent are our benchmarks for defining things, very soon there will be voices proposing the approval of polygamy, as long as the parties involved are able to sustain themselves.
One might say, “hogwash”, the gay population is more than 1% of the US population. Well, consider not the gay population per se, but rather, the smallish proportion of gay folks who actually took the step and did get married. The number will probably approximate possible proponents of polygamy, reduction of age of consent, maybe not incest relations.
A DIFFERENT TAKE
Published with authorization from http://legaltranslationsystems.com/blog/blog3.php
Whether one likes or not, there is a war raging between science and religion, each claiming to have higher moral grounds than the other. It is a fact that the definition of science is rather broad, in fact, a lot of what is called science is not really science – and the definition of what is called religion is narrow, and a lot of things that should be called religion – like atheism and humanism – are not called so.The basic premise of scientists, or rather those that claim that science has a higher moral ground – note that a lot of people on this side of the fence are not scientists, in fact, are rather ignorant and uneducated – is that science reports things as they are, based on beyond a reasonable fact evidence. This would be an acceptable reason, except that a lot of what we know as science is based on evidence that is at best circumstantial, theories that have not and might never be proven. So that science, as a whole, is not the precise mathematical thing many folks purport to be.Religion, on the other hand, is based on trust on a higher being(s), that either controls or manipulates things. As there are a number of religions and religious views in the world, and the purpose of this post is not discussing them, it is very naive at best to put them all inside a cauldron – for historical reasons, for instance – and saying they are all the same. It is like women saying “men are all the same”. For instance, a lot of people blame the Protestants for the Inquisition and Crusades, but the Inquisition and Crusades were carried out by the Catholics, and the Protestants had nothing to do with them. In fact, did not exist for most of the time this was being done.Be that as it may, one of the major complaints of people than antagonize religion (such as humanism, although they seem to fail to understand that humanism is a type of religion, where the human race as a whole is a god) is that it breeds intolerance and ignorance. Again, they fail to notice that a lot of people became literate through religion, there are thousands upon thousands of religious schools, colleges and universities worldwide. As for the claim of intolerance, everybody is, to a certain extent, intolerant. A person that believes only in the scientific method, by definition, is intolerant of everything else. So there it goes.By breeding intolerance and ignorance, the atheists, humanists and agnostics of the day blame religion for many of the world wars. This is a terrible simplification. The fact that a Pope, or Iman, or Religious leader here or there has led or caused wars through history, does not mean that religions are the cause for all or most wars. The fact is that most religious leaders, the overwhelming majority of religious leaders in the world are proponent of peace.Would scientists like to be lumped in the same category as the scientists that created the atomic bomb or agent orange? I think not. Thus, they better stop using the stereotype, lest they lose their credibility.At the end of the day, humanity is a very simple, yet very complex deal. It is as simple as you want it to be, and as complex as you want it to be. There are good and bad people in all walks of life, and there is room for science and religion in every one of us. The more pugnacious and polarized we get about this matter, the further we get from the moral ground we claim to belong to.