Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
For those who might have missed it, tell us again why those who engage in the behavior known as homosexuality (a changeable behavior by the way) should have special "rights".

So you've changed your tune from several pages back where you stated that "gays" should should have certain rights (employment, housing, etc. etc.).

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4223448&postcount=5700

A different day a different personality GFR7?

Those are negative rights , not special rights. The right to employment , housing means anonymity - Don't ask, don't tell. NO SPECIAL RIGHTS. I am consistent, you fail to see this.

Are you saying that in order to have housing or be gainfully employed that a person who proudly and unrepentantly engages in homosexuality should keep quiet about it, i.e. be in the closet?

Where's the "dignity" in engaging in a sexual perversion if those who do it can't be "proud" about it GFR7?

Nice try, but if one's sexually deviant behavior is hidden, then they don't need any rights to protect that behavior.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

This coming from a guy who is recorded telling two children that "homosexuality is acceptable as long as the people involved love one another"?

Here it is again Art for your conveniently fading memory:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3736474&postcount=3976

Still not seeing your mistake are you? I know exactly what I'd said in response to your hypothetical and as I'd stated above I'd try to steer any such conversation away from anything sexual but in principle I stand by what I said. How appalling to promote the values of love and respect...

....and perversion to innocent children.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
In today's sick culture children are exposed to things that would cause them to ask those sort of questions. How an adult answers those questions shows whether or not that adult is someone who cares for these innocent children's physical, emotional and spiritual well being or is a pervert.

Which are you Art?

I daresay there's only one "right" form of response in your world but my ^ is what I'd be going with or variations thereof. Perhaps I should tell any young boys that when they get older they should only get girls when they're 15/16 so they'll ripe for subservience?

How about you start with the basics and acknowledge that homosexuality is an inherent perversion, one that brings misery, disease and often times early death to those who engage in it? After that you can worry about people like John Luke Robertson marrying at 19 years old.

Quote: Originally posted by aCuiltureWarrior
Regarding your obsession with Phil Robertson: Been there, had that conversation before.

it's time to move on...

In other words you've been put on the spot, your transparent deflection tactics haven't worked and you can't answer without looking like just as much of a crank as Robertson or being forced to criticize one of your heroes?

If Phil Robertson did indeed promote lowering the age of sexual consent, then I'd be the first to criticize him. But we really know what your rant is all about don't we Art? It's about a devout Christian who has a wildly popular televison show that had the audacity to speak out against homosexuality and tell it like it is. Being that the homosexual movement had to use anything they could to make that devout Christian look like a nutcase, they took words from a speech and took them out of context.

Speaking of criticism Art: when will you start criticizing the LGBTQueer movement and all of it's major icons who have promoted and continue to promote kiddy indoctrination and sex?

If you don't answer these very straightforward questions then what other conclusion is there to draw apart from your support for 15 years old being wed along with a very strange idea of 'honouring' women and children? Why so shy aCW?

Here they are again:

"Phil advocates 15 as acceptable. Do you agree with him? Should be easy enough to answer".

Show me a speech (not taken out of context) or any proposed legislation where tv reality star Phil Robertson "advocates 15 years of age as an acceptable age to marry".

"How about instead you explain how Robertson's remarks were "honouring" women and girls exactly? Do please enlighten us".

Surely these two at least should be easy enough for you to address?

If you have some evidence where Phil Robertson doesn't honor his wife or his daughter-in-laws as a Christian man should, then please bring it forward Art.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If homosexuality was such an "abomination" worthy of "recrimminalization," perhaps "aCultureWarrior" could enlighten us as to why it was never mentioned in the Gospels.

While I know that this is yet another one of your drive-by rants and you won't return to continue this conversation, I'll keep it short.

In the event that you do return to continue this so-called conversation: show us where Jesus Christ rescinded what He said in the Old Testament and made homosexuality an acceptable sexual behavior in the New Testament.

Oh and jgarden:

Hey to little Mattie Vines:

 

[alwight]

I'm here to show people what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized. An extremely well organized movement with huge financial and political backing created an agenda which has been fulfilled beyond their wildest dreams (mentoring youth, who would have thought a supposed civilized society would let sexual deviants anywhere near children?).

"Monkey see monkey do" or perhaps they're just fighting hell fire with some fire of their own, as is their right in a democratic society?

So here's your chance again Al, either you're for or against the LGBTQueer agenda. Which is it?

I've no idea what it is and don't really care tbh. I don't think that any group represents all gay people, nor does whatever they do advocate make all gay people somehow culpable. If you have issues with them then I sure that your particular homophobic hate group will no doubt be more than able to be heard above the din.

So we can agree that a 15 year old with unnatural sexual desires should be helped to overcome them?

Once we have established what actually is "unnatural sexual desires" we can see if that still applies to any specific case. Some of us here however rather think that you just might have some rather "unnatural sexual desires" yourself. lain:

Do you have dementia Al?

Younger men than me have succumbed, I hope not, but life isn't remotely fair and just, we must each work with the genetic hand we were dealt and with whatever life throws up.

So it's not the fact that the unnatural sex act causes these diseases, the real problem is that those who engage in them aren't taking proper precautions to prevent things like HIV/AIDS, anal cancer, gonorrhea and syphillis?

Any form of sexual intercourse can be reasonably safe or not as mechanical process anyway. The love between two people is not apparently restricted to gender nor by diseases imo.

Then until I hear otherwise, alwight approves of the term "gay youth" aka "homosexual children".

Adolescent people are probably rather more acutely aware of sexual attractions than are more jaded and dementia addled adults like me. Shame, it might be nice if there actually was a loving god to look after us all struggling to deal with the hand we were dealt?:think:

BTW Al, have you ever been to a "therapist that helps people with their unwanted same sex attractions"? (While I'm not counting on it, maybe Al will be honest with us at least once in his life and say "yes, but it didn't work").

No, never felt the need, you?

The only openly homosexual person that has come forward recently (or at all in this 3 part thread) is good ole Persephone66, aka Chuck. I'm pretty certain you see Chuck as a happy person in a "happy relationship" (I'm sure that they'll be happier once Chuck's boyfriend gets his genital mutilated).

Clearly you are missing him aCW, I am a very poor substitute I know. You can always visit him on YouTube of course. I respect people who can clearly find a way to deal with the hand they were dealt and come smiling through.

If you don't want to talk about Chuck we could talk about Mr. and Mrs. Dan Savage. Better yet, why don't you show us a "gay couple in a reaonably happy relationship"?

Why? Would that help with this thread's topic?
What happens if their kids all turn out to be straight, you'll need a rethink of your shtick perhaps?

 

[Arthur Brain]

....and perversion to innocent children.

Er, nope.

How about you start with the basics and acknowledge that homosexuality is an inherent perversion, one that brings misery, disease and often times early death to those who engage in it? After that you can worry about people like John Luke Robertson marrying at 19 years old.

No, I think I'll just stick with a similar approach as I've described should the occasion arise and leave the claptrap to people such as yourself. Providing the guy isn't marrying an underage girl because of some loony state loophole then why would I worry about 19 year olds marrying exactly?

If Phil Robertson did indeed promote lowering the age of sexual consent, then I'd be the first to criticize him. But we really know what your rant is all about don't we Art? It's about a devout Christian who has a wildly popular televison show that had the audacity to speak out against homosexuality and tell it like it is. Being that the homosexual movement had to use anything they could to make that devout Christian look like a nutcase, they took words from a speech and took them out of context.

He's on video and in print for saying just that very thing - along with apparently 'honouring' women and girls with his "reasons" as to why. lain:

Nobody took him out of context or put a spin on his words/quote mined him or the like. Granted, he looked like a nutcase for saying what he did but that was all on himself. Nobody forced him to say what he did and nor did they doctor his words to make him appear to be saying something he didn't. Simple fact is nobody needed
to.

Speaking of criticism Art: when will you start criticizing the LGBTQueer movement and all of it's major icons who have promoted and continue to promote kiddy indoctrination and sex?

I have no truck with people who abuse children although I'm sure you'll spin that to any delusion your mind feverishly invents.

Show me a speech (not taken out of context) or any proposed legislation where tv reality star Phil Robertson "advocates 15 years of age as an acceptable age to marry".

As above, else show how he was "taken out of context" exactly. Was his speech dubbed or something? :AMR:

If you have some evidence where Phil Robertson doesn't honor his wife or his daughter-in-laws as a Christian man should, then please bring it forward Art.

Not the question asked as you know. Please show how his comments were 'honouring' women and girls instead of being disparaging.

 

[intojoy]

Percy is one ugly drag queen. If that was his pic. Yuk

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm here to show people what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized. An extremely well organized movement with huge financial and political backing created an agenda which has been fulfilled beyond their wildest dreams (mentoring youth, who would have thought a supposed civilized society would let sexual deviants anywhere near children?).

"Monkey see monkey do" or perhaps they're just fighting hell fire with some fire of their own, as is their right in a democratic society?

Societies that allow and promote sexual perversion don't last long Al. History has shown us that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So here's your chance again Al, either you're for or against the LGBTQueer agenda. Which is it?

I've no idea what it is and don't really care tbh. I don't think that any group represents all gay people, nor does whatever they do advocate make all gay people somehow culpable. If you have issues with them then I sure that your particular homophobic hate group will no doubt be more than able to be heard above the din.

The LGBTQueer movement does represent individuals who identify with that acronym Al.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So we can agree that a 15 year old with unnatural sexual desires should be helped to overcome them?

Once we have established what actually is "unnatural sexual desires" we can see if that still applies to any specific case. Some of us here however rather think that you just might have some rather "unnatural sexual desires" yourself.

My sexual desires are "unnatural" in the world that you live in Al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Do you have dementia Al?

Younger men than me have succumbed, I hope not, but life isn't remotely fair and just, we must each work with the genetic hand we were dealt and with whatever life throws up.

If it makes you feel better you're just as loony now as you were almost 3 years ago when this thread started.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So it's not the fact that the unnatural sex act causes these diseases, the real problem is that those who engage in them aren't taking proper precautions to prevent things like HIV/AIDS, anal cancer, gonorrhea and syphillis?

Any form of sexual intercourse can be reasonably safe or not as mechanical process anyway. The love between two people is not apparently restricted to gender nor by diseases imo.

The CDC has shown us that one form isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Then until I hear otherwise, alwight approves of the term "gay youth" aka "homosexual children".

Adolescent people are probably rather more acutely aware of sexual attractions than are more jaded and dementia addled adults like me. Shame, it might be nice if there actually was a loving god to look after us all struggling to deal with the hand we were dealt?

Don't be angry at God just because He dealt you an unfair hand Al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
BTW Al, have you ever been to a "therapist that helps people with their unwanted same sex attractions"? (While I'm not counting on it, maybe Al will be honest with us at least once in his life and say "yes, but it didn't work").

No, never felt the need, you?

If I ever found myself defending perverts and perversion in an internet forum, then I'd seek some kind of therapy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The only openly homosexual person that has come forward recently (or at all in this 3 part thread) is good ole Persephone66, aka Chuck. I'm pretty certain you see Chuck as a happy person in a "happy relationship" (I'm sure that they'll be happier once Chuck's boyfriend gets his genital mutilated).

Clearly you are missing him aCW, I am a very poor substitute I know. You can always visit him on YouTube of course. I respect people who can clearly find a way to deal with the hand they were dealt and come smiling through.

Chuck wasn't really open when it came to talking about his perversion, he was just good about physically showing it (darn, all the evidence has been deleted).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you don't want to talk about Chuck we could talk about Mr. and Mrs. Dan Savage. Better yet, why don't you show us a "gay couple in a reaonably happy relationship"?

Why? Would that help with this thread's topic?
What happens if their kids all turn out to be straight, you'll need a rethink of your shtick perhaps?

Being that two people of the same gender cannot biologically reproduce, that would be literally impossible. Do you mean that if their trophy children should turn out to be sexually normal? I addressed that in an earlier post (God blessed them even though they were dealt a bad hand when it came to supposed "parents").

Not that this little chit chat with my favorite Brit hasn't been nice, but it's that time again Al...

to move on.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Percy is one ugly drag queen. If that was his pic. Yuk

Have you bothered to look at your avatar lately?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Brain
Still not seeing your mistake are you? I know exactly what I'd said in response to your hypothetical and as I'd stated above I'd try to steer any such conversation away from anything sexual but in principle I stand by what I said. How appalling to promote the values of love and respect...


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
....and perversion to innocent children.

Er, nope.

You do realize that your response could have come out of the NAMBLA handbook don't you Art?

"As long as people love and respect one another..."

Quote:
How about you start with the basics and acknowledge that homosexuality is an inherent perversion, one that brings misery, disease and often times early death to those who engage in it? After that you can worry about people like John Luke Robertson marrying at 19 years old.

No, I think I'll just stick with a similar approach as I've described should the occasion arise and leave the claptrap to people such as yourself. Providing the guy isn't marrying an underage girl because of some loony state loophole then why would I worry about 19 year olds marrying exactly?

i.e. Art refuses to call homosexuality a perversion.

Quote:
If Phil Robertson did indeed promote lowering the age of sexual consent, then I'd be the first to criticize him. But we really know what your rant is all about don't we Art? It's about a devout Christian who has a wildly popular televison show that had the audacity to speak out against homosexuality and tell it like it is. Being that the homosexual movement had to use anything they could to make that devout Christian look like a nutcase, they took words from a speech and took them out of context.

He's on video and in print for saying just that very thing - along with apparently 'honouring' women and girls with his "reasons" as to why.

Nobody took him out of context or put a spin on his words/quote mined him or the like. Granted, he looked like a nutcase for saying what he did but that was all on himself. Nobody forced him to say what he did and nor did they doctor his words to make him appear to be saying something he didn't. Simple fact is nobody needed
to.

If you had listened to Phil Robertson's speech at CPAC, you'd realize that he talks a lot about sexual promiscuity. What he said in the video that you took out of context is that in today's day and age if you want a sexually pure spouse you have to find one that is young.

Do tell us how your secular humanist values of out of wedlock sex, STD's and abortion are not "disparaging" to women and teenage girls?

Quote:
Speaking of criticism Art: when will you start criticizing the LGBTQueer movement and all of it's major icons who have promoted and continue to promote kiddy indoctrination and sex?

I have no truck with people who abuse children although I'm sure you'll spin that to any delusion your mind feverishly invents.

Then you had better distance yourself from this thread as far as you can get Art, because it's looking like you're defending the child indoctrinators/molesters of the LGBTQueer movement by defending the decriminalization of homosexuality and saying things to children that have "pervert" written all over them.


Quote:
Show me a speech (not taken out of context) or any proposed legislation where tv reality star Phil Robertson "advocates 15 years of age as an acceptable age to marry".

As above, else show how he was "taken out of context" exactly. Was his speech dubbed or something?

i.e. you have nothing else on Phil Roberston.


Quote:
If you have some evidence where Phil Robertson doesn't honor his wife or his daughter-in-laws as a Christian man should, then please bring it forward Art.

Not the question asked as you know. Please show how his comments were 'honouring' women and girls instead of being disparaging.

I try not to pay too close of attention to your rants Art (I have to delouse after I read what Art says to innocent children). What exactly did Phil Robertson say that was "disparaging" to the female gender?

Oh and Art, make it short cuz I've lost interest in this smokescreen of yours some time ago.

 

[Eeset]

Speaking of frosted flakes are you missing Percy?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Speaking of frosted flakes are you missing Percy?

Chuck didn't live up to my expectations of him Judy. While it was helpful to show what perversion is up close (I know it was painful for many of TOL's Christians to see, as they're not exposed to that kind of perversion in their lives), he wasn't very good at debate and defending the LGBTQueer movement.

I'm thinking that with a 50 point ban that Chuckaroo is gone buh-bye forever on TOL?

 

[intojoy]

Yea that pic turned me to an acw fan

 

[jgarden]

While I know that this is yet another one of your drive-by rants and you won't return to continue this conversation, I'll keep it short.

In the event that you do return to continue this so-called conversation: show us where Jesus Christ rescinded what He said in the Old Testament and made homosexuality an acceptable sexual behavior in the New Testament.

Oh and jgarden:

Hey to little Mattie Vines:

Leviticus 20: 7-27

7 “‘Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God.
8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
22 “‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
24 But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
25 “‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you.
26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”

I presume that "aCultureWarrior" is referring to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 20:13.

In John 8:1-11, the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adutery before Jesus in an attempt to "entrap" Him.

According to Leviticus 20:10, adultery like homosexuality was a "stoning" offense, but Jesus responded that whoever was free from sin should cast the first stone.

It should be noted that it was Jesus, the only one free from sin, that took compassion on the woman and chose not to enforce the Mosaic Law by casting the first stone.

The crowd slowly dispersed and the woman was allowed to leave.

History repeats itself and the modern day equivalents of those self-righteous teachers of the Law and Pharisees are alive and well - more concerned with persecuting others than examining their own hearts.

It was not the homosexuals, adulterers, robbers and thieves who insisted that Jesus be crucified - it was none other than those same self-righteous chief priests, teachers of the Law and Pharisees.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You do realize that your response could have come out of the NAMBLA handbook don't you Art?

"As long as people love and respect one another..."

Not in context it couldn't have but then you knew that already.

i.e. Art refuses to call homosexuality a perversion.

Or I'm just not that fixated on it and accept that some people simply are homosexual.

If you had listened to Phil Robertson's speech at CPAC, you'd realize that he talks a lot about sexual promiscuity. What he said in the video that you took out of context is that in today's day and age if you want a sexually pure spouse you have to find one that is young.

Oh, I've heard a lot more than that particular segment of his speech but nothing was taken out of context. His own words are as clear as day and for sure, he advocates finding a female spouse while young - at 15 no less. Wait till they're twenty they'll just end up 'picking yer pocket' right? lain:

Do tell us how your secular humanist values of out of wedlock sex, STD's and abortion are not "disparaging" to women and teenage girls?

What on earth are you on about? Some wild leap you've got going on there and not even one that makes sense...

Then you had better distance yourself from this thread as far as you can get Art, because it's looking like you're defending the child indoctrinators/molesters of the LGBTQueer movement by defending the decriminalization of homosexuality and saying things to children that have "pervert" written all over them.

Hmm, nice little tirade there even if not exactly grounded in reality. I don't support any 'movement' and I don't say things to children that would warrant your silly tag.

i.e. you have nothing else on Phil Roberston.

What else was needed? On film in his own words no less. The prosecution rests m'lud.

I try not to pay too close of attention to your rants Art (I have to delouse after I read what Art says to innocent children). What exactly did Phil Robertson say that was "disparaging" to the female gender?

Oh and Art, make it short cuz I've lost interest in this smokescreen of yours some time ago.

The irony here being that you're the one ranting but then projection seems to be a consistent trait with you I guess.

Here's a longer segment of the speech Robertson made, so do please explain how any of it was respectful towards girls/women.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While I know that this is yet another one of your drive-by rants and you won't return to continue this conversation, I'll keep it short.

In the event that you do return to continue this so-called conversation: show us where Jesus Christ rescinded what He said in the Old Testament and made homosexuality an acceptable sexual behavior in the New Testament.

Oh and jgarden:

Hey to little Mattie Vines:

I presume that "aCultureWarrior" is referring to the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 20:13.

God clearly points out what His expectations for sexual relations are beginning in Genesis. Throughout the Old Testament and even in the New Testament He continues to talk about that theme.

In John 8:1-11, the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adutery before Jesus in an attempt to "entrap" Him.

According to Leviticus 20:10, adultery like homosexuality was a "stoning" offense, but Jesus responded that whoever was free from sin should cast the first stone.

It should be noted that it was Jesus, the only one free from sin, that took compassion on the woman and chose not to enforce the Mosaic Law by casting the first stone.

The crowd slowly dispersed and the woman was allowed to leave.

History repeats itself and the modern day equivalents of those self-righteous teachers of the Law and Pharisees are alive and well - more concerned with persecuting others than examining their own hearts.

It was not the homosexuals, adulterers, robbers and thieves who insisted that Jesus be crucified - it was none other than those same self-righteous chief priests, teachers of the Law and Pharisees.

Don't forget God (remember that Jesus was "born to die").

So somewhere in that rant are we to believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God/God in the flesh rescinded the moral code against not only homosexuals but adulterers, robbers and thieves?

Back to little Mattie Vine's school of perversion for you jgarden, as you need to work on your con.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You do realize that your response could have come out of the NAMBLA handbook don't you Art?

"As long as people love and respect one another..."

Not in context it couldn't have but then you knew that already.

I didn't see the word "adults" in your original post Art. As I recall, the two children that you were supposed to babysit on New Years Eve were around 8 and 11? While that is a bit old for HRC standards, I bet that they'd give you a job as one of their child indoctrinators if you showed them your resume'.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
i.e. Art refuses to call homosexuality a perversion.

Or I'm just not that fixated on it and accept that some people simply are homosexual.

Either homosexuality is a perversion or it's not Art.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If you had listened to Phil Robertson's speech at CPAC, you'd realize that he talks a lot about sexual promiscuity. What he said in the video that you took out of context is that in today's day and age if you want a sexually pure spouse you have to find one that is young.

Oh, I've heard a lot more than that particular segment of his speech but nothing was taken out of context. His own words are as clear as day and for sure, he advocates finding a female spouse while young - at 15 no less. Wait till they're twenty they'll just end up 'picking yer pocket' right?

Poor Art, was your little feminazi feelings hurt by Phil Robertson's sense of humor? (my wife roared with laughter when she watched the video).

Quote:
Do tell us how your secular humanist values of out of wedlock sex, STD's and abortion are not "disparaging" to women and teenage girls?

What on earth are you on about? Some wild leap you've got going on there and not even one that makes sense...

Don't be shy Art, if you can tell innocent children that homosexuality is acceptable as long as there is "love and respect" involved, surely you can talk about out of wedlock heterosexual relationships too.


Quote:
Then you had better distance yourself from this thread as far as you can get Art, because it's looking like you're defending the child indoctrinators/molesters of the LGBTQueer movement by defending the decriminalization of homosexuality and saying things to children that have "pervert" written all over them.

Hmm, nice little tirade there even if not exactly grounded in reality. I don't support any 'movement'

Then you won't be posting in this thread in opposition to the recriminalization of homosexuality which will in turn cause the destruction of the so-called 'advances' that the LGBTQueer movement have made since homosexuality was decriminalized?

and I don't say things to children that would warrant your silly tag.

Are you prepared to be fitted with a millstone around your neck when you meet God? Matthew 18:6


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
i.e. you have nothing else on Phil Robertson.

What else was needed? On film in his own words no less. The prosecution rests m'lud.

We could talk about Robertson's faith in God and how he always holds up the Bible in practically every if not all speeches that he gives.

But then that wouldn't fit into your agenda would it Art?


Quote:
I try not to pay too close of attention to your rants Art (I have to delouse after I read what Art says to innocent children). What exactly did Phil Robertson say that was "disparaging" to the female gender?

Oh and Art, make it short cuz I've lost interest in this smokescreen of yours some time ago.

The irony here being that you're the one ranting but then projection seems to be a consistent trait with you I guess.

Here's a longer segment of the speech Robertson made, so do please explain how any of it was respectful towards girls/women

GASP! Marry a woman that knows how to cook and clean your ducks for you?"

Bigot! Racist! Homophobe!

Now that I've jumped on your feminazi bandwagon, do you approve of me now?

 

[GFR7]

Papa Daddy aCW: Your opinion is very much wanted on the Dolce & Gabbana tread:


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4263129&posted=1#post4263129

 

[alwight]

The LGBTQueer movement does represent individuals who identify with that acronym Al.

Good for them, are all gay people aware that their interests are all taken care of by them?

My sexual desires are "unnatural" in the world that you live in Al.

In my world gay people are now accepted as worthwhile people who are no longer unjustly criminalised by society for doing what they choose to do together in private.
If you personally want to call what they do "unnatural" then that's your business, not theirs nor society's.

If it makes you feel better you're just as loony now as you were almost 3 years ago when this thread started.

Thanks aCW, I really can't tell you quite how much that means to me.

Don't be angry at God just because He dealt you an unfair hand Al.

Trust me I don't blame your God nor anyone else's non-extant supernatural deity for anything aCW.

If I ever found myself defending perverts and perversion in an internet forum, then I'd seek some kind of therapy.

I might suggest that you do that anyway but not from a quack therapist.

Chuck wasn't really open when it came to talking about his perversion, he was just good about physically showing it (darn, all the evidence has been deleted).

He may not have reinforced your stereotypical presuppositions then aCW?

Being that two people of the same gender cannot biologically reproduce, that would be literally impossible. Do you mean that if their trophy children should turn out to be sexually normal? I addressed that in an earlier post (God blessed them even though they were dealt a bad hand when it came to supposed "parents").

Gay people nevertheless have just the same ability to contribute biologically to a new human life as anyone else and can be just as good at being a parent as anyone else too.

Not that this little chit chat with my favorite Brit hasn't been nice, but it's that time again Al...

to move on.

A moving target gathers no moss?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I didn't see the word "adults" in your original post Art. As I recall, the two children that you were supposed to babysit on New Years Eve were around 8 and 11? While that is a bit old for HRC standards, I bet that they'd give you a job as one of their child indoctrinators if you showed them your resume'.

You wouldn't have seen the word hexadecimal either and the context was obvious. Your usual nuttiness has been noted...

Either homosexuality is a perversion or it's not Art.

Or people simply have an inherent attraction to their own gender, not that that will compute with you of course...

Poor Art, was your little feminazi feelings hurt by Phil Robertson's sense of humor? (my wife roared with laughter when she watched the video).

Hmm, making 'jokes' about marrying children has never struck me as particularly funny aCW, especially when there's nothing to suggest he didn't mean every word. Presumably the betrothal of minors is also something you have no problem with either. Telling.

Oh, and I suspect it was your own 'roaring laugh' you heard as your "wife" is likely as imaginary as your cop badge.

Don't be shy Art, if you can tell innocent children that homosexuality is acceptable as long as there is "love and respect" involved, surely you can talk about out of wedlock heterosexual relationships too.

What relevance does this actually have to anything? This was about how Robertson's comments somehow show 'honour' to women so how about you explain just how that is?

Then you won't be posting in this thread in opposition to the recriminalization of homosexuality which will in turn cause the destruction of the so-called 'advances' that the LGBTQueer movement have made since homosexuality was decriminalized?

Well of course I will be, when I feel like it although we both know you'll never see the premise of your thread come to reality. You do know that don't you?

Are you prepared to be fitted with a millstone around your neck when you meet God? Matthew 18:6

Not especially.

We could talk about Robertson's faith in God and how he always holds up the Bible in practically every if not all speeches that he gives.

But then that wouldn't fit into your agenda would it Art?

Whether or not he holds a bible up or not is irrelevant but rather the words he spoke.

GASP! Marry a woman that knows how to cook and clean your ducks for you?"

Bigot! Racist! Homophobe!

Now that I've jumped on your feminazi bandwagon, do you approve of me now?

I think like you the word 'crank' would sum him up rather aptly. Thanks for confirming you support the marriage of minors though. Ya gotta get em when they're 15' right Connie?

 

[GFR7]

Papa Daddy aCW: Your opinion is very much wanted on the Dolce & Gabbana tread:


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4263129&posted=1#post4263129

WWWWWWWWeeelllllllllllll???????????:madmad: :madmad: