TASK DEFINITION: Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.
PROBLEM: This is just another of Nathan's veiled defenses of homophobia. My gay friends can't be holy unless they go straight or celibate.  This isn't a "challenge" this is prejudice pure and simple.

Imago Dei = Westboro Church without the colorful signs.  

Having said that, let's all have a moment of silence for Jules Bailey's political career.  May it rest in peace.  Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, defeat on election day.

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: Regarding your Fred Stewart story, you need to ask yourself how certain you are before you print a story that absolutely destroys the candidacy of someone who has served his community well.   Do you really know Fred's relationship with his ex-wife -- no you don't.   Do you know if she is telling the truth when you quote her -- no you don't.   Does this one incident of disagreement and physical confrontation with his daughter disqualify Fred?   Is there more to the story -- a young woman stuck between a feuding Mother and Father and choosing her Mother -- in a not so surprising situation?  Is the Grant High School student's story reflective of the whole context and therefore should be used.   As someone who has edited hundreds of WW stories, I would say that this is tabloid journalism at its worst.   
If I were Terry Bean, Jordan Schnitzer, Jefferson Smith, Eileen Brady, or Fred Stewart, I would be thinking about the private lives and motivations of Mark Zusman and Nigel Jaquiss.

SOLUTION: No

PROBLEM: ...and remember in November when you vote.  NO INCUMBENTS!
but alas you will see the same people doing the same stuff after the election it never ends.

SOLUTION:
No