Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[alwight]

I'm sure you can - on the reflection of your monitor.

I wonder why you can't address and justify your own sleaze and lies? How come?

aCW will use whatever seems to assist with his objective to troll.:troll:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you play your cards right Stan, you too can join the forefaires of the 'gay' christian* movement and be in the Gay Christian Movement Watch "False Teacher Hall of Shame".

You're quite a card aCW...you aught to be DEALT WITH.

In what way Stan?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Er, no Connie, but then I haven't got a lisp either even though for some bizarre reason you seem to fantasize about me having one. Why is that?

:think:

aCW will use whatever seems to assist with his objective to troll.:troll:

If you boyz can step away from your drama queen party for a moment, perhaps you can answer why UK homosexual activist Ian McKellen was against pedophile checks?

"He says, “People are all there for the love of it – that’s what amateur means. It’s a very family atmosphere and there has never in the last 50 years been any hint of wrongdoing, and so it’s trying to put right a problem that doesn’t really exist. If children are no longer allowed, as it were, to perform with amateur groups the loss is everybody’s.” '
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4357502&postcount=8649

Why would children not be allowed? Would the 8, 9 and 10 year olds not likely pass a sex offender background check or perhaps there are so many pedophiles in the entertainment industry that very few of them would get clearance?

 

[alwight]

If you boyz can step away from your drama queen party for a moment, perhaps you can answer why UK homosexual activist Ian McKellen was against pedophile checks?

"He says, “People are all there for the love of it – that’s what amateur means. It’s a very family atmosphere and there has never in the last 50 years been any hint of wrongdoing, and so it’s trying to put right a problem that doesn’t really exist. If children are no longer allowed, as it were, to perform with amateur groups the loss is everybody’s.” '
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4357502&postcount=8649

Why would children not be allowed? Would the 8, 9 and 10 year olds not likely pass a sex offender background check or perhaps there are so many pedophiles in the entertainment industry that very few of them would get clearance?

I am quite sure that there is no reason at all to suspect that Ian McKellen is a paedophile or has any agenda to facilitate paedophile behaviour.
Just being a gay man is not such a reason.

Adults who don’t comply face a fine of up to $8,000 and a criminal record, which McKellen maintains is unnecessary in the world of amateur theater.

If there is a perceived risk of litigation or of fines for amateurs for not complying with laws set up mainly for formal professional organisations then I for one can see Ian McKellen's point, that they would be forced to play safe and not allow children to perform.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you boyz can step away from your drama queen party for a moment, perhaps you can answer why UK homosexual activist Ian McKellen was against pedophile checks?

"He says, “People are all there for the love of it – that’s what amateur means. It’s a very family atmosphere and there has never in the last 50 years been any hint of wrongdoing, and so it’s trying to put right a problem that doesn’t really exist. If children are no longer allowed, as it were, to perform with amateur groups the loss is everybody’s.” '
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4357502&postcount=8649

Why would children not be allowed? Would the 8, 9 and 10 year olds not likely pass a sex offender background check or perhaps there are so many pedophiles in the entertainment industry that very few of them would get clearance?

I am quite sure that there is no reason at all to suspect that Ian McKellen is a paedophile or has any agenda to facilitate paedophile behaviour.
Just being a gay man is not such a reason.

Whether or not homosexual activist Ian McKellen, like so many other homosexuals, has a 'taste' for little boys isn't the issue here Al, the question is why does he oppose background checks to make sure that child actors are safe from pedophiles?

Based on your answer below, I get the feeling that it's a financial issue?

If there is a perceived risk of litigation or of fines for amateurs for not complying with laws set up mainly for formal professional organisations then I for one can see Ian McKellen's point, that they would be forced to play safe and not allow children to perform.

Surely dishing out a fee bucks for a background check can't be that devastating on amateur actors, especially if it means keeping pedophiles away from children (and as we've seen throughout this 3 part thread, the entertainment industry is overrun with child molesters, be it homosexual pederasts like X Men Director Bryan Singer:

Or heterosexual teenage (13 year old girl) rapist Roman Polanski:

Heck, with all of the money that Ian McKellen has, the old fag could donate $$$ for background checks to ensure that child actors are safe from pedophiles.

 

[StanJ]

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'm still waiting for an answer Stan:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJ
You're quite a card aCW...you aught to be DEALT WITH.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4357690&postcount=8662

In what way do I need to be "DEALT WITH"?

 

[StanJ]

I'm still waiting for an answer Stan:
In what way do I need to be "DEALT WITH"?

 

[alwight]

Whether or not homosexual activist Ian McKellen, like so many other homosexuals, has a 'taste' for little boys isn't the issue here Al, the question is why does he oppose background checks to make sure that child actors are safe from pedophiles?

The issue was that this particular gay man, just like all gay men, according to you aCW, is a paedophile, but now comes the bait and switch I see and now it wasn't about that at all.

Based on your answer below, I get the feeling that it's a financial issue?

The issue is that having to worry about litigation would discourage some amateur people from simply spontaneously getting on with it and enjoying themselves in "am dram".

Surely dishing out a fee bucks for a background check can't be that devastating on amateur actors

If they don't comply with the law they would risk a heavy fine apparently, but some people just want to go and have fun not worry about corporate responsibilities. There is no history of paedophilia in amateur dramatics at least.

Heck, with all of the money that Ian McKellen has, the old fag could donate $$$ for background checks to ensure that child actors are safe from pedophiles.

Like you actually care aCW, as once again your Christian love and tolerance comes shining through. :doh:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Whether or not homosexual activist Ian McKellen, like so many other homosexuals, has a 'taste' for little boys isn't the issue here Al, the question is why does he oppose background checks to make sure that child actors are safe from pedophiles?

The issue was that this particular gay man, just like all gay men, according to you aCW, is a paedophile, but now comes the bait and switch I see and now it wasn't about that at all.

Review the first post Al: GCMW and I questioned why this particular proud and unrepentant fag gay man wouldn't want pedophile background checks done on all people who worked around children.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Based on your answer below, I get the feeling that it's a financial issue?

The issue is that having to worry about litigation would discourage some amateur people from simply spontaneously getting on with it and enjoying themselves in "am dram".

If they don't comply with the law they would risk a heavy fine apparently, but some people just want to go and have fun not worry about corporate responsibilities. There is no history of paedophilia in amateur dramatics at least.

Even though every institution and organization that has adult-child interaction (education, the Church, youth mentor groups) has a problem with pedophilia/pederasty, for some reason (according to homosexual activist Ian McKellen), an industry that is notorious for pedophilia/pederasty is immune to it at the amateur level?

On that note: You've shined your LGBTQ colors once again on this topic Al, I say we let the head drama queen take a shot at it (that is if he can take his mind off of Phil Robertson quotes taken out of context Holy Scripture verses taken out of context long enough to do so).

 

[alwight]

So we can perhaps agree then that there is no reason to conclude that gay men are any more defined by paedophilia than straight men, yes?

Some well intended methods of protecting children don't always coincide with all aspects of how good people choose to enjoy life.

 

[TracerBullet]

I am quite sure that there is no reason at all to suspect that Ian McKellen is a paedophile or has any agenda to facilitate paedophile behaviour.
Just being a gay man is not such a reason.

Of course there is no reason but the false accusation has to be made, Connie knows that you can't promote hate and discrimination by telling the truth.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So we can perhaps agree then that there is no reason to conclude that gay men are any more defined by paedophilia than straight men, yes?

If I were to disregard all of the evidence shown in this 3 part thread (homosexual pedophilia/pederasty in the Catholic Church, in the Boy Scouts; pedophile/pederast organizations founded by homosexuals; quotes praising pedophilia/pederasty by homosexual icons; underage lovers of well known homosexuals: Milk, Bean, etc.), then yes, we could agree.

But since I'm not into disregarding the truth...

Some well intended methods of protecting children don't always coincide with all aspects of how good people choose to enjoy life.

Those "well intended methods" aren't put into place because of "good people" Al, they are put into place because of people who are terribly sexually confused and often times write their own moral code.

 

[alwight]

Of course there is no reason but the false accusation has to be made, Connie knows that you can't promote hate and discrimination by telling the truth.

His agenda always seems to be more important to him than honesty.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

His agenda always seems to be more important to him than honesty.

On that note: Al makes an exit stage left.

 

[Arthur Brain]

On that note: You've shined your LGBTQ colors once again on this topic Al, I say we let the head drama queen take a shot at it (that is if he can take his mind off of Phil Robertson quotes taken out of context Holy Scripture verses taken out of context long enough to do so).

But you've already had your say...:liberals:

Al's summed it up quite aptly so no need to add.

Sorry to burst your bubble again on the latter but Robertson is actually on film saying what he did so nil points there.

Not exactly sure how the passages in question can actually be taken out of context and despite being asked you seem very reticent to address that. I was simply asking you if the bible condones making up lies and sleazy innuendo is all.

Really not sure why you haven't just answered that?

:idunno:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

But you've already had your say...:liberals:

Al's summed it up quite aptly so no need to add.

Sorry to burst your bubble again on the latter but Robertson is actually on film saying what he did so nil points there.

Not exactly sure how the passages in question can actually be taken out of context and despite being asked you seem very reticent to address that. I was simply asking you if the bible condones making up lies and sleazy innuendo is all.

Really not sure why you haven't just answered that?

:idunno:

I'll expect a well detailed report on the 1 Corinthians 13 commentaries that I'm linking.

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=46&c=13&com=mhc

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=013

http://www.biblestudytools.com/comm...set-brown/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-13.html

(If the homosexualist pagan wants to talk about Christianity, we'll talk about Christianity).

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'll expect a well detailed report on the 1 Corinthians 13 commentaries that I'm linking.

http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=46&c=13&com=mhc

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=013

http://www.biblestudytools.com/comm...set-brown/1-corinthians/1-corinthians-13.html

(If the homosexualist pagan wants to talk about Christianity, we'll talk about Christianity).

Have you actually read these links yourself or have you just googled them up and pasted them? There's nothing in them to suggest that I've taken the passage out of context as you would suggest. The overriding sentiment is that if we act without love then no matter how charitable an act it's empty if devoid of it.

Now perhaps you can answer how I've taken it out of context and whether the bible condones lies and innuendo?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Have you actually read these links yourself or have you just googled them up and pasted them? There's nothing in them to suggest that I've taken the passage out of context as you would suggest. The overriding sentiment is that if we act without love then no matter how charitable an act it's empty if devoid of it.

Now perhaps you can answer how I've taken it out of context and whether the bible condones lies and innuendo?

You didn't have time to read all three commentaries, but that's insignificant when it comes to what I'm about to say (listen very carefully Art).

When it comes to someone who SPITS on God's Word regarding His design for human sexuality, I don't discuss other aspects of Holy Scripture with that person, especially when that person has no desire to learn the Truth taught in that wonderful Book.

Now that you've had your fun here, go "get tested".

Moving on...

 

[alwight]

If I were to disregard all of the evidence shown in this 3 part thread (homosexual pedophilia/pederasty in the Catholic Church, in the Boy Scouts; pedophile/pederast organizations founded by homosexuals; quotes praising pedophilia/pederasty by homosexual icons; underage lovers of well known homosexuals: Milk, Bean, etc.), then yes, we could agree.

But you have simply piled up stuff where homosexuals are involved, you never seem to consider being balanced and fair, or accept that heterosexuals can be just as culpable.

But since I'm not into disregarding the truth...

No you are usually knowingly trying to be misleading about what is true, so you can't actually disregard it.

Those "well intended methods" aren't put into place because of "good people" Al, they are put into place because of people who are terribly sexually confused and often times write their own moral code.

I'll agree that not everyone derives their moral code from an ancient scripture as you do aCW.