Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[Arthur Brain]

So which is it? Does noguru like watching two homosexuals having sex or doesn't he?

Hmm. Let me break this down for you...

A common male heterosexual fantasy involves glamorous women...

I would say 'do the math' but you'd probably end up being confused...

So...

If you're a straight man then you have zero interest in any sort of male oriented homosexual activity. You can be a straight man and have no interest in any female oriented activity either but like it or not it's a common part of a heterosexual man's fantasy as explained prior, and it really shouldn't require much of an explanation as to why. If you think that's 'exaggeration' then by all means please explain yourself as to why it's such a prominent part of glamour/porn. I mean - you're the expert on all things sexually deviant right?

The answer's pretty obvious if you were honest about it.

Nog already answered you on this, honestly and without any sidestepping, something which you'd do well to learn from...

What he still feels is something you should address to him directly if you're honest on the matter, which would be a first but hey...

 

[alwight]

It would seem that aCW is rather uncomfortable discussing one of the most commonplace heterosexual male fantasies, perhaps because it doesn't concern talking about homosexual men or even straight ones...

Uncomfortably we are perhaps assisting in aCW's own version of voyeurism and "forbidden fruits"? :shocked:

 

[noguru]

The answer's pretty obvious if you were honest about it.

Nog already answered you on this, honestly and without any sidestepping, something which you'd do well to learn from...

What he still feels is something you should address to him directly if you're honest on the matter, which would be a first but hey...

:rotfl:

I already explained my past and present in regard to this behavior/sin quite clearly. I find it strange that ACryingWimp likes to get up all in other people's business about their sin, but never ever divulges any information about his own sins.

Perhaps, the man is sinless.

Oh no wait, the man currently bares false witness quite consistently. I wonder how deep that rabbit hole goes.

 

[Nazaroo]

I have to be honest about my personal preferences as well. I find male/male sexual activity to be repulsive. However, I do not feel the same about female/female sexual activity. I think most male heteros feel the same way. So I am careful not to let my personal bias dictate what I think criminal legislation should be.

I think it is absurd to expect society to police people's bedrooms. As long as they are not knowingly transmitting STDs, and it is between consenting adults. This does not mean that people cannot incorporate a more strict sexual moral code on them self if they chose to based on either their theology, other moral code, or their personal preference. People will still have the freedom to amend their morality above and beyond that which is enforced by law.

Deceit and lying is not illegal in many places/professions/, but people are free to incorporate their own standards in that regard that go above and beyond the law.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3862094&postcount=6889

So which is it? Does noguru like watching two homosexuals having sex or doesn't he?

Aren't we straying off-topic?

You believe voyeurism of female homosexuality is a perversion.

Undoubtedly you are right.

Others have observed that its common.

Undoubtedly they are right.

Male homosexual gang-rape was apparently common in Sodom.

Nogoru has stipulated that he is aware that personal weaknesses
or sinful tendencies might introduce bias and has made an effort
not to allow personal preferences to alter his views of right and wrong.

This seems like an honest and difficult confession,
which many similar people will identify with who
have their own sin problems, in other areas.

In a similar way, repentant Christians here have taken a stand
against their own sinful past, and this is to be encouraged, if not
respected.

Aren't you off-track, focussing on Noguru,
and how is it assisting an understanding of sin, right and wrong,
and what is the goal?

I'll admit Noguru can be very annoying, especially when he defends
idiocy like Evolution.
But I do think he is trying to be honest, for what thats worth.

It even seems that he would be in agreement that homosexual behaviour
should be regulated by government and courts.

So where is this going now?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So which is it? Does noguru like watching two homosexuals having sex or doesn't he?

Hmm. Let me break this down for you...

A common male heterosexual fantasy involves glamorous women...

I would say 'do the math' but you'd probably end up being confused...

So...

If you're a straight man then you have zero interest in any sort of male oriented homosexual activity. You can be a straight man and have no interest in any female oriented activity either but like it or not it's a common part of a heterosexual man's fantasy as explained prior, and it really shouldn't require much of an explanation as to why. If you think that's 'exaggeration' then by all means please explain yourself as to why it's such a prominent part of glamour/porn. I mean - you're the expert on all things sexually deviant right?

The answer's pretty obvious if you were honest about it.

Nog already answered you on this, honestly and without any sidestepping, something which you'd do well to learn from...

What he still feels is something you should address to him directly if you're honest on the matter, which would be a first but hey...

Uncomfortably we are perhaps assisting in aCW's own version of voyeurism and "forbidden fruits"? :shocked:

:rotfl:

I already explained my past and present in regard to this behavior/sin quite clearly. I find it strange that ACryingWimp likes to get up all in other people's business about their sin, but never ever divulges any information about his own sins.

Perhaps, the man is sinless.

Oh no wait, the man currently bares false witness quite consistently. I wonder how deep that rabbit hole goes.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3862094&postcount=6889

Aren't we straying off-topic?

You believe voyeurism of female homosexuality is a perversion.

God does. I'm just acknowledging His Word.

Undoubtedly you are right.

He's never wrong.

Others have observed that its common.

Undoubtedly they are right.

Perhaps we should have some heterosexual males come forward and tell us if they enjoy watching acts of homosexuality:

Art Brain, come on down (Art's a heterosexual, he told us 7 times in one post in part 1 that he is).

Alwight the atheist, come on down (Al's the George Clooney of Great Britain, except that Al is waiting to marry when he's 105).

Aaron, aka WizardofOz, come on down (unblock me first).

Anyone else that proclaims to be a heterosexual who enjoys watching homosexual acts come on down and share with us why (after all, it is quite common).

Male homosexual gang-rape was apparently common in Sodom.

Nogoru has stipulated that he is aware that personal weaknesses
or sinful tendencies might introduce bias and has made an effort
not to allow personal preferences to alter his views of right and wrong.

This seems like an honest and difficult confession,
which many similar people will identify with who
have their own sin problems, in other areas.

In a similar way, repentant Christians here have taken a stand
against their own sinful past, and this is to be encouraged, if not
respected.

Aren't you off-track, focussing on Noguru,
and how is it assisting an understanding of sin, right and wrong,
and what is the goal?

I'll admit Noguru can be very annoying, especially when he defends
idiocy like Evolution.
But I do think he is trying to be honest, for what thats worth.

It even seems that he would be in agreement that homosexual behaviour
should be regulated by government and courts.

When did he say that? (Theocrat! Theocrat! Theocrat!)

So where is this going now?

Question: What do you call a heterosexual male that enjoys watching acts of homosexuality?

Answer: A bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT etc. etc. etc. acronym).

I think we should all give noguru a break, since he did use a keyword that is at the heart of pornography:

"Desensitize".

(Sigh, now that he no longer enjoys viewing homosexual acts, hopefully someday soon we'll get him to the point where he no longer defends them).

And yes Naz, we are off track here because I'm currently working on the segment entitled "homosexual violence". Perhaps somewhere down the road I'll do an entire segment on "fetishes" (as there as so many of them, homosexual voyeurism is just one of many).

 

[Nazaroo]

God [is] never wrong.

Agreed.

(Theocrat! Theocrat! Theocrat!)

Yes.
I believe only a Theocracy has any authority or credibility,
in a world where the God of the Bible exists.

Question: What do you call a heterosexual male that enjoys watching acts of homosexuality?

Answer: A bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT etc. etc. etc. acronym).

Wrong.
Answer: confused. And corrupted. Desensitized is only part of the process.

Your answer is what the LGBT 'community' (cringe) may call them,
in an attempt to befriend them and lure them into worse,
as a recruiting strategy.

My answer is the correct one.

A heterosexual male fool who is lured into watching lesbians,
due to the strong biological tug of female nudity and
the even stronger tug of 'forbidden naughtiness' and curiosity,
is not an automatic member or supporter of the LGBT 'cabal'.

And yes Naz, we are off track here because I'm currently working on the segment entitled "homosexual violence".

Apology accepted.

Perhaps somewhere down the road I'll do an entire segment on "fetishes" (as there as so many of them, homosexual voyeurism is just one of many).

Please don't.

My concern is this:
Children, teens, and the naive, foolish, and otherwise vulnerable,
will be lured into finding out more about this topic from curiosity,
when in fact it should never be placed in their path.

I appreciate your discussion of the current topic, because of its blatant and
very visible evil and sinful and violent nature.
Few would think there are no consequences for extremely
bad and deviant behaviour.

The side-topics are less obviously as evil and dangerous,
and hence more alluring and perhaps dangerous.

As we should know, criminal careers begin with minor misdemeanours,
and build through boldness and lack of immediate consequences.

I would strongly advise against introducing the vulnerable to
seemingly minor or less harmful stupidity, since it leads to greater
and more harmful stupidity.

 

[GFR7]

Welcome back to the thread GFR7 Jr. For those of you wondering where our little pretend culture warrior went, he's posting brilliant ideas like this in other threads (note how the the pro abortion, pro homosexuality, pro recreational drug addict shagster01 is giving him accolades).

Quote:
Originally Posted by shagster01
I think you raise good points here GFR7.

So what do you propose to combat it?



Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. For those of you that are anti abortion and want to do something about the 57 million unborn babies murdered in the womb in the past 41 years:

"we can certainly NEVER return to the past. EVER.) History follows the Hegelian trajectory of thesis-antithesis-synthesis; it has been forever so and will continue on."


(So that's what they're talking about in gay bathhouses these days: the Hegelian trajectory of thesis-antithesis-synthesis).

1. Please stop the silly/paranoid idea that I am the other poster (Junior the Libertarian). The greater Metro New York City area is a vast region which includes northern New Jersey and suburban/ex-burbs of New York state. Just because you get 2 intellectual posters from that region does not mean we are one and the same. :doh: Kentucky does not give you a proper view of the United States. He and I have different ideas and philosophies, and I only came on board this month, while he was apparently on vacation. I am sure he does not like LaBarbera, Kierkegaard, and Spinoza. :rotfl:

2. The problem with you is that you don't know how to frame an argument, or engage in debate. I had quite a lot of respect for you a few weeks ago and then you started right in with the accusations and the nasty mouth. If you do NOT believe history follows a Hegelian trajectory, why not make an argument for why it does not? :think: Or don't you know how?

3. Since you do not, are you saying we can go backwards and return to the past? Then why haven't you done so? Can you go back and save all the aborted babies? Abortion is placing adults' private sexual interest over the unborn child, who intrudes on their privacy. It is terrible, and I have a child and would not have wanted him aborted. But short of an apocalypse, history must correct itself through synthesis. If not, just what are you proposing? As this is the political section, eschatology would appear out of place here. Unless we are looking for apocalypse or imminent total social collapse (which MAY yet happen under the right conditions, and would curtail all discussion and render any campaign unnecessary) then we have to speak of how changes are made in this country as it now stands.

4. I don't know anything about the bath houses; I thought they were closed now.

5. If you are inclined to reply (which is highly doubtful, and I am not holding my breath on it):

Please don't close with your threadbare, "You need psychological and spiritual help." I sought it, and he told me the problem was YOU. Just joking.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Hopefully this won't scare homosexuals away from doing what they do best:

Molesting children.

Police: Fla. father beats accused child abuser

July 18, 2014

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A Daytona Beach father beat an 18-year-old man unconscious after finding him sexually abusing his 11-year-old son early Friday morning, police said.

The father called 911 around 1 a.m. after he walked in on the alleged abuse, police said. When officers arrived, they found Raymond Frolander motionless on the living room floor. He had several knots on his face and was bleeding from the mouth.

"He is nice and knocked out on the floor for you," the father told the 911 dispatcher. "I drug him out to the living room."

The Daytona Beach News-Journal (http://bit.ly/1tZV6o9 ) reports that the father — who was not identified by police — told investigators he walked in as Frolander was abusing the boy.

When asked by the 911 dispatcher if any weapons were involved, the father said "my foot and my fist."

The father has not been charged with any crime.

"Dad was acting like a dad. I don't see anything we should charge the dad with," Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said. "You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times."

Frolander is charged with sexual battery on a child under 12. He is being held without bail. It was not immediately known whether he'd hired a lawyer.

According to the arrest affidavit, Frolander admitted the abuse.
http://news.yahoo.com/police-fla-father-beats-accused-child-abuser-193806138.html

I'm mortified! Violence is not the answer people! The father and mother should have sat down with said child molesting sodomite over a nice glass of Pink Chablis and explained to him that they were waiting until their son was 12 before they wanted him to engage in buggery.

hey, you from the international school of inbreeding, ACW, it's a stone cold fact more than 80% of child molesters were molested as children and as such don't realize what they are doing is wrong as we can tell it's wrong.

So, once a child is molested, why don't we start beating them then? It's almost a guarantee they will molest a child at a point to some degree, and it's dang near a given they will be promiscuous and partake of dangerous sex acts....

Might as well kill them all. If they are stupid enough to get molested, which means most likely they will be a child molestor, we should kill them, right?

 

[Heterodoxical]

I'm just pointing out the disproportionate amount of disease that those who engage in homosexual behavior contract. [/quote[

No your not. You are trying to draw a frame around their community and force an image in it you wish. DOn't be a coward if you are going to go out on a limb, OWN IT. Heterosexuality has more sexually dangerous people/% than lgbt do.
You can paint it how you wish, but the facts are the facts.

Refer to the table of contents regarding AIDS. Look for the entry that says "Matt Foreman states that AIDS is a gay disease" and then read on from there.

Bigoted morons is an inbred from the Kentucky hollar disease too. Do I presume you are from Kentucky? Cus 2 outta 3.....

 

[Heterodoxical]

Male homosexual gang-rape was apparently common in Sodom.

Ummm, the sin that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality. That was but a symptom of the sin. At least, that's what it says in the Bible for anyone who does more than look for snippets to bash people with that actually study for the truth of things will find.

 

[GFR7]

hey, you from the international school of inbreeding, ACW, it's a stone cold fact more than 80% of child molesters were molested as children and as such don't realize what they are doing is wrong as we can tell it's wrong.

So, once a child is molested, why don't we start beating them then? It's almost a guarantee they will molest a child at a point to some degree, and it's dang near a given they will be promiscuous and partake of dangerous sex acts....

Might as well kill them all. If they are stupid enough to get molested, which means most likely they will be a child molestor, we should kill them, right?

It is statistically true that most molesters are themselves molested children, grown up and repeating the trauma. I am surprised the Chief of Police said that Dad was "just being a Dad" as vigilantism is illegal. I can understand why a Dad would feel rage and horror - there is little else you could feel - but there has to be a civilized way of preventing/punishing offenders.

@aCW: Here is an example of a writer in the UK who has suspicions re depravity but states them as a concise argument:
He uses the expository method to get at his aim.

• He deals with the opposition;
• he makes his case;
• he states his concluding remarks without hysteria or undue malice:

As a former reporter for the Establishment media (Associated Press) I am particularly sensitive to indications that the media are using their power to subtly change minds and overcome traditional objections to forms of moral depravity. This usually begins with subtle changes and cues that emanate from executive editors at high levels of the corporate media.

Examine the clipping above. It was published in this morning’s (July 17, 2014) Spokesman-Review newspaper (Spokane, Washington), p. A3. The article concerns the arrest of child pornography supporters (“pedophiles”) including “doctors, lawyers” and ex-police officers.
The subtle processing is found in the second paragraph: “…sensational stories of the sexual abuse of minors regularly headline the tabloids, which some critics accuse of whipping up public hysteria over the issue.”

Notice the article doesn’t say child pornography is harmless; only that it has been “sensationalized” by disreputable “tabloids,” which “whip up public hysteria over the issue.”

Observe that the viewing of child pornography is described as an “issue,” not a crime. The article never refers to it as a crime. Apparently, viewing child pornography is not a sensational transgression in itself. It has been “sensationalized” by disreputable “tabloids.” Too much concern about child pornography is indicative of “hysteria.”

[. . . ]This article would seem to be the first step in a measured campaign to soften up the American people so that we will approve of the decriminalization of child pornography, just as we were softened up for the decriminalization of sodomy and the legal marriage of sodomites.
This processing is almost always gradual and understated, so as not to frighten the targets of the brainwashing into the realization that they are in fact being conditioned to abandon their traditional morality and “keep up with the times.”

(Hoffman, Michael: Revisionist History, Daily Stormer 2014)

http://www.dailystormer.com/media-caught-preparing-people-to-accept-child-pornography/

Also, this is the sort of political satire cartoon which helps the cause of counter-balance education:

And there does in fact seem to be a strong movement to protect children at the Pride Parades, both by keeping them from attendance, by warning parents about the dangers, and by police action (one wonders why it took so long.). There are still right-thinking people in this world, and these incidents are being noticed more and more, although much still needs to be done:

The United States desperately NEEDS moral people to stand up and say “NO MORE!” and put an end to these public displays of depravity. I want to know who you are so I can support you and spread the news that YOU are willing to do what no one else has yet done- protect children from gay pride parades!

In Dallas, Texas this past year, police attempted to enforce stronger laws against gay pride parade participants with the warning…

“anyone violating indecency laws in front of children could be charged with a felony.”

http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2014/01/banning-children-from-gay-pride-parades.html

And from last year:

Organizers Want This Year's Gay Pride Parade to Be Nudity-Free, Angering LGBT Activists

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/gay_pride_nudity_crackdown.php

There is no doubt that outrage is sparking debate and having its effect: The San Francisco Pride parade now bans public nudity, a step in the right direction. Aren't you glad LaBarbera and you and others exposed it all, and got people to notice? (btw, comments on many of these articles show that lots of gays want to "live straight" in every facet but the bedroom (middle class homes, cars, jobs, vacations). To me, this is almost more dangerous than the flagrant and flaming ones, for quite another reason.)

 

[Arthur Brain]

Perhaps we should have some heterosexual males come forward and tell us if they enjoy watching acts of homosexuality:

Art Brain, come on down (Art's a heterosexual, he told us 7 times in one post in part 1 that he is).

Alwight the atheist, come on down (Al's the George Clooney of Great Britain, except that Al is waiting to marry when he's 105).

Aaron, aka WizardofOz, come on down (unblock me first).

Anyone else that proclaims to be a heterosexual who enjoys watching homosexual acts come on down and share with us why (after all, it is quite common).

Well, I'm comfortable enough with being honest about my heterosexuality so if you have any doubts I don't particularly care frankly. It's not like you have any power to do anything so if I was homosexual I'd tell you easily enough as you'd be no threat whatsoever.

And it isn't 'quite common', it's very common among straight men. If it wasn't it wouldn't be reflected so heavily in the glamour industry, something that even you should be able to recognize...

Question: What do you call a heterosexual male that enjoys watching acts of homosexuality?

Answer: A bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT etc. etc. etc. acronym).

I think we should all give noguru a break, since he did use a keyword that is at the heart of pornography:

:doh:

Seriously, how can even you be this dumb?! :dizzy:

The only way a heterosexual could actually be bisexual is if they're attracted to homosexual activity between both sexes genius...for a heterosexual man the only source of arousal would be between women.

Unreal...

 

[resurrected]

And it isn't 'quite common', it's very common among straight men. If it wasn't it wouldn't be reflected so heavily in the glamour industry, something that even you should be able to recognize...

riiiight, because the glamour industry targets straight men :dizzy:


:mock:tardlyartie

 

[GFR7]

riiiight, because the glamour industry targets straight men :dizzy:


:mock:tardlyartie

True. And the glamour industry seems to be run by gay men. However, girl-on-girl is depicted constantly in pornography aimed at a straight male audience . . . :think:

 

[Arthur Brain]

True. And the glamour industry seems to be run by gay men. However, girl-on-girl is depicted constantly in pornography aimed at a straight male audience . . . :think:

What makes you think the glamour industry is run by gay men? :think:
You're absolutely right on the latter even if aCW is bizarrely confused as to what bisexuality actually is...

 

[GFR7]

What makes you think the glamour industry is run by gay men? :think:
You're absolutely right on the latter even if aCW is bizarrely confused as to what bisexuality actually is...

In the past, I had found that many of the producers, photographers were gay men (owing to their artistic and creative natures, not a bad thing in that sense). When my mother-in-law had America's top model on, it seemed photographers, judges, agents were gay males. Many fashion designers such as Versace and Klein have been gay or bisexual men.

 

[Arthur Brain]

In the past, I had found that many of the producers, photographers were gay men (owing to their artistic and creative natures, not a bad thing in that sense). When my mother-in-law had America's top model on, it seemed photographers, judges, agents were gay males. Many fashion designers such as Versace and Klein have been gay or bisexual men.

I've no doubt there'll be gay men involved in the industry but I highly doubt it's predominantly run by them. Hugh Hefner certainly isn't...

:chuckle:

 

[GFR7]

I've no doubt there'll be gay men involved in the industry but I highly doubt it's predominantly run by them. Hugh Hefner certainly isn't...

:chuckle:

Actually, Hefner is effeminate, IMO. But I see your point.

 

[noguru]

True. And the glamour industry seems to be run by gay men. However, girl-on-girl is depicted constantly in pornography aimed at a straight male audience . . . :think:

Female on female is certainly bisexual. ACW certainly has that right. I have met many women who admit to being bisexual. I am pretty sure this dynamic is not a novel phenomenon in current history, I think it goes back to past cultures. Is a man that is turned on by 2 women bisexual, is he anymore bisexual than a man who watches heterosexual pornography, is he more bisexual than a man who only looks at soft porn like Playboy? The point is that any type of pornography has the possibility to desensitize people from one on one heterosexual romantic relations. I think once one starts down that road and continues then sexual addiction can take over and they can mistake sex for love.

 

[GFR7]

Female on female is certainly bisexual. ACW certainly has that right. I have met many women who admit to being bisexual. I am pretty sure this dynamic is not a novel phenomenon in current history, I think it goes back to past cultures. Is a man that is turned on by 2 women bisexual, is he anymore bisexual than a man who watches heterosexual pornography, is he more bisexual than a man who only looks at soft porn like Playboy? The point is that any type of pornography has the possibility to desensitize people from one on one heterosexual romantic relations. I think once one starts down that road and continues then sexual addiction can take over and they can mistake sex for love.

I do agree with you, wholly, on that. Absolutely.