Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Anyway, it's that time of the year where homosexuals temporarily leave their public restroom toilet stalls and public park bushes to congregate on city streets in masses and expose themselves to young children.

One would think that the two women recently posting (anna and Rusha), being born with that maternal instinct to protect the young,
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...ernal-instinct

would abhor such perversion.

I guess the times they are a changing ey Art?



My wife would go ballistic if she saw perverts like these exposing themselves to children:

naked_marcher1.jpg_645_430.jpg


naked_marcher4.jpg_645_430.jpg


Have anna and Rusha lost that natural maternal instinct (not to mention common decency) to protect children because they are so closely allied with the LGBTQueer movement?

Both anna and Rusha's maternal instincts are hardly in question although your sanity most certainly is. If only you could ally yourself with common sense and give up with your deluded and possibly closeted obsession...

:freak:
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Evil bastards

Child molesters (those who physically, spiritually and/or psychologically molest children) are the scum of the earth. Judeo-Christianized western civilization had always held child molesters with the greatest of contempt.

Jesus gave these child molesters a warning when He said to His disciples:

"It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."
Luke 17:2

millstone-232x300.jpg


The indoctrination (and hence molestation) of children is a huge part of the LGBTQueer movement. It's leaders were big advocates of pedophilia (Hay, Kameny, etc.) and many also engaged in pederasty (Milk, Bean, etc.) The founder of the North American Man Boy Love Association (David Thorstad) was a well known homosexual activist, so it's no surprise to see this kind of perversion in today's LGBTQueer movement.

Remember that these moral degenerates can't reproduce homosexuals, they have to recruit them and groom them into accepting sexual perversion as something normal.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Have anna and Rusha lost that natural maternal instinct (not to mention common decency) to protect children because they are so closely allied with the LGBTQueer movement?

Such drama. I've never been to a Pride parade nor have I taken my children to a Pride parade.

Obviously you know what kind of moral depravity goes on at these events and don't want yourself or your children to be exposed to it. What happened to 'gay pride' anna? Surely you're not ashamed of the culture that you defend here on the internet?

Having said that - you know very well neither you nor I nor anyone else can stop other parents from taking their children. You can disapprove, but you can't control them - they're not breaking the law.

Actually they are breaking numerous laws, as I've pointed out in earlier threads:

Lewd act in a public place
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor
Public nudity

to name 3.

If only you'd wring your hands the same over the children who are regularly beaten by their parents, who are molested by their heterosexual parents, who are told they're worthless, unwanted, unloved.

You don't help a sick society recover by accepting sexual perversion as something normal.

Fact is, aCW, whether you like it or not, there are people for whom nudity isn't obscene and they don't see the natural body as something to be ashamed of.

God created a thing of beauty when He created man and woman, so there is nothing to be "ashamed" of. That being said: Do you walk around nude in front of your children in your house anna? I don't. Do you answer the door in the nude anna? I don't. Do you have friends over and tell them to undress before you sit down to visit or dine? I don't. Genitalia is referred to as "private parts", not "public parts". Heck, even the moral degenerates of Sodomy and Gonorrhea South (San Fransicko) voted down a measure that would allow public nudity, (nudity is still allowed at 'gay' pride parades and other homosexual festivals (Folsom Street Fair, etc.) I guess the residents of San Franswishco disapprove of public nudity unless a huge audience is available (children included) to view it).

So why aren't you breaking down the doors of your local family-friendly nudist camp?
The whole rigid structure that holds you up is built on shame. People are different. They approach life differently. They have different spiritual beliefs, or none. They raise their children with unschooling, or home schooling, or private school, or public school, or military academy. They spank or they don't spank. Beat with a switch or maybe a belt. Let their teens drink alcohol with supervision (or look the other way) or they teach that alcohol is forbidden. They send their kids to summer camp or never let them sleep overnight anywhere. Let their kids roam all day unsupervised or won't let them go next door without permission. They do their best to protect their kids from porn or predators, but despite their best efforts, some of their children will be victims. Or... just maybe, (statistically far more likely than by a homosexual) the parents themselves are the predators. Maybe the predator marches his kids to church every Sunday.

Some parents don't have a problem with taking their kids to Pride parades. I'm not saying I agree with them. It's not something I'd have done, I consider it an adult event. I'm saying those parents are exercising their parental and constitutional rights and there's nothing you can do about it besides doing what you do: search for photos of naked parade participants. You're not reaching the parents here. You're not reaching the parade participants here. You're only feeding your obsession, and then trying to shift the heavy weight of that obsession onto other people by questioning their sexual orientation, their spiritual beliefs, and their maternal instincts.

The constitution of this country protects us from people like you who would take rights away from those whose beliefs are different from yours, and are breaking no laws. It was you who helped me see how important it was to stand against your vision of theocracy.

You can certainly exercise your right to stay far away from the Pride parade, and to resist scouring the internet for photos of gay men. Or - you can keep doing what you're doing. You have the right to do either and those you seek to criminalize have the very same rights as you, whether you like it or not. They didn't always.

That's it. You can respond to this with lots of drama and photos of gay men, but I won't be answering you.

That was quite a speech anna. If any of it addressed the indoctrination (and hence physical, spiritual and
psychological molestation) of innocent children to the ways of sexual perversion, then I must have missed it.

That being said: I wouldn't be doing my duty as a follower of Christ if I didn't tell you about all of the lesbian women that left their immoral lifestyle behind and through Christ, became whole again.

Many of their stories can be found in page 1's index.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
aCultureWarrior, Why have you aimed your guns at me? I am not one of your "homosexualists".

You gave yourself away when you 'thanked' annatebbenitti for this post:

In case it hadn't occurred to you, no one has to watch the parade, and no one has to take their children to the parade. It's called exercising parental judgment and/or freedom of choice (not to mention freedom of assembly). Those pesky freedoms... You can't stop people who want to march, and you can't stop people from watching the marchers. Those that don't want to watch - won't be in the area. You know, like conservatives say: "If you don't like what's on TV, turn the channel."

Of course anna is borrowing the abortion movement's favorite saying (something that they've been saying for decades) :

"If you don't like abortion, don't have one!"

In other words: if you don't approve of evil, just ignore it.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"If you don't like abortion, don't have one!"

In other words: if you don't approve of evil, just ignore it.

As usual, you have intentionally confused the two actions as a way to defend your position.

Abortion is done for ONE reason: to kill an unborn baby. Anyone who has an abortion or supports abortion know that the end result is the killing of an innocent, unborn baby.

Two, consenting adults (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual) are not having sex because they wish to kill another person. The only reason you make such an invalid comparison is because your *arguments* cannot stand on their own merit.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
I've never met anyone as afraid of the human body as aCW.

Yet you defend a movement that embraces males that dress and act like women, and even mutilate their genitals. Why are drag queens and transsexuals so afraid and ashamed of their body that they have to pretend that they're a member of the opposite gender?

Fifi-DuBois.jpg
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

"If you don't like abortion, don't have one!"

In other words: if you don't approve of evil, just ignore it.

As usual, you have intentionally confused the two actions as a way to defend your position.

Abortion is done for ONE reason: to kill an unborn baby. Anyone who has an abortion or supports abortion know that the end result is the killing of an innocent, unborn baby.

Two, consenting adults (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual) are not having sex because they wish to kill another person. The only reason you make such an invalid comparison is because your *arguments* cannot stand on their own merit.

(I just love it when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporters pretend that they're pro life).

Be careful Sandy, if we as a nation return to laws that tells a woman what she can and can't do with her body, we'll return to laws telling disease ridden/child molesting males and their lesbo counterparts what they can and can't do with theirs.

Pay attention Sandy: the Supreme Court rulings Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges were based on the same premise:

"The right to privacy".

How the Supreme Court’s gay ‘marriage’ ruling is tied to abortion and
contraception


"Over the last 50 years, the “right to privacy” has been used to cover every form of sexual practice, displacing the public's right to object on moral grounds – something contained in Kennedy's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling."

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Recriminalized!-Part-4&p=4420278#post4420278
 
Last edited:

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
(I just love it when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supporters pretend that they're pro life).

Oh, I only knew that you pretended to be prolife ... didn't realize you were a supporter of Obama and Clinton.

You will never find a thread or a post of mine supporting abortion for certain rape victims. As everyone knows, you cannot say the same.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...egally-Abort&p=3548047&viewfull=1#post3548047


Yes, Aaron, if an 11 year of girl (who must be less than 5 feet tall and probably weighs less than a hundred pounds) is forced through law to carry a baby to term, which most likely would kll her, that would be an immoral act.

Angel4Truth addressed that in Lighthouse's rape thread.

Do you want to be responsible for that little girls death Aaron?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

(I guess Sandy doesn't want to discuss how the abortion movement and LGBTQueer movement are one in the same).

Off topic ,,, though, I will answer. I will not enter into a discussion that begins with a dishonest statement/claim.

What was the "dishonest statement/claim", that


"Over the last 50 years, the “right to privacy” has been used to cover every form of sexual practice, displacing the public's right to object on moral grounds – something contained in Kennedy's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling."?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Since one of TOL's notorious "consensual moralists" has graced the thread with her presence, I should share an excerpt from an article that I posted earlier in the thread:

The limits of consent

Consent only has value when it is based on knowledge of what is truly good for us.

Oct 1, 2015

Earlier this year, an article in New York Magazine featured a story involving an eighteen-year-old woman who plans to marry and have children with her father. When the interviewer asked her to respond to those who might question her relationship, she offered the following reply:


I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy. We are two adults who brought each other out of dark places ... When you are 18 you know what you want. You’re an adult under the law and you’re able to consent.

Her reasoning is typical of contemporary liberal approaches to sexual morality, which are usually justified by appealing to mutual consent. So long as an activity is performed in private between consenting adults, it is argued, there can be nothing inherently objectionable about what they do. Why? Because they have given their consent, and consent is what matters most when it comes to one’s decision to engage in sexual activity.

The implications of this position are far-reaching. Many have invoked the consent principle to argue for the permissibility of polyamory and consensual incest. Once we view the morality of sex as being determined only by mutual agreement, then it becomes very hard to make any principled distinctions about the shape of sexual relationships...

The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends...

Read more: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=4472325&viewfull=1#post4472325
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What was the "dishonest statement/claim"

Your claim in how I have voted. With the exception of confirmation that I voted for Reagan, I have never stated who I will be voting for ...

Just quit with the intentional misrepresentation of others already ... if you are incapable of providing a direct quote, no one should take anything you say seriously.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

What was the "dishonest statement/claim", that

"Over the last 50 years, the “right to privacy” has been used to cover every form of sexual practice, displacing the public's right to object on moral grounds – something contained in Kennedy's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling."?

Your claim in how I have voted. With the exception of confirmation that I voted for Reagan, I have never stated who I will be voting for ...

Just quit with the intentional misrepresentation of others already ... if you are incapable of providing a direct quote, no one should take anything you say seriously.

(I guess that Sandy not only doesn't want to talk about the inseparable connection between the abortion/LGBTQueer movements, she doesn't want to discuss the article entitled "The Limits of Consent" ).

My humblest of apologies Sandy. So that we can clear up what obviously is a huge misunderstanding on my part, why don't you repeat the following?:

"I, Sandy, have never voted for that disgusting baby murdering/child molesting/sodomite loving Barack Hussein Obama and the baby murdering/child molesting/sodomite loving Democratic Party, nor will I vote for the baby murdering/child molesting/sodomite loving Hillary Clinton in this upcoming election."

Maybe after you state the above and this huge misunderstanding is finally laid to rest, we can talk about the sexual anarchist rulings of SCOTUS and/or "The Limits of Consent"?
 
Last edited:

shagster01

New member
Yet you defend a movement that embraces males that dress and act like women, and even mutilate their genitals. Why are drag queens and transsexuals so afraid and ashamed of their body that they have to pretend that they're a member of the opposite gender?

I embrace people being in control of their own bodies and lives, yes. It's called freedom and liberty.

Out of curiosity, has seeing gay/transgender people made you want to be gay/transgender? Has one raped you? Has one infected you with AIDS? What ill have you suffered? (Obviously looking at them doesn't bother you, as you google image them and post their pictures at an alarming rate).

I'm curious what you are affraid of. What ills you have suffered.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Throughout this 4 part thread I've posted many stories just like this:

[Openly homosexual] YouTube Star Faked His Own Assault, Police Say

June 29, 2016

An openly gay YouTube star claiming to be the target of a hate crime may have faked his own assault.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said Tuesday that Calum McSwiggan’s claims of assault were unsubstantiated and that he injured himself in prison after being arrested on suspicion of vandalism.

The self-proclaimed LGBT lifestyle YouTuber wrote on Instagram that he was brutally beaten by three men in West Hollywood after visiting a gay club following VidCon.

“The authorities should have been there to help and protect me but instead they treated me like a second class citizen,” he captioned a photo of himself bandaged in a hospital bed. “With three broken teeth and six stitches in my forehead, I’ve never felt so terrified to be a gay man in the public eye.”...

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/you...police-135339245.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

sub-buzz-15465-1467136538-1.png

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-s...ub-buzz-15465-1467136538-1.png?resize=625:406
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Yet you defend a movement that embraces males that dress and act like women, and even mutilate their genitals. Why are drag queens and transsexuals so afraid and ashamed of their body that they have to pretend that they're a member of the opposite gender?

I embrace people being in control of their own bodies and lives, yes. It's called freedom and liberty.

There ya have it Rusha: words from a real sexual anarchist ("It's MY body and I can damn well do with it as I please!")

Out of curiosity, has seeing gay/transgender people made you want to be gay/transgender?

No. That being said: You are aware that the movement that you defend recruits children and encourages them to "experiment" with different kinds of sexual practices?

How do you feel about child molesters shag, i.e. do you agree with me that they are the scum of the earth?

Has one raped you?

No. That being said: You are aware that rape is common in the lifestyle that you defend aren't you?

Has one infected you with AIDS?

No. That being said: You are aware that contracting HIV/AIDS is all too common in the lifestyle that you defend aren't you?


What ill have you suffered? (Obviously looking at them doesn't bother you, as you google image them and post their pictures at an alarming rate).

Are you ashamed of homosexual 'culture' shag?

I'm curious what you are affraid of. What ills you have suffered.

I'm guilty of believing in Matthew 22: 36-40
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top