Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aCultureWarrior]

gayCultureWarrior keeps blabbing

http://aintnogod.com/ipb/uploads/gallery/album_19/gallery_146_19_40210.gif

On a side note: I'm reading about a possible Donald Trump- Vladimir Putin connection in the Democratic National Committee email leak.

If this story does turn out to be true, it could mean doomsday for your orange haired misogynist who by the way has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl 20 years ago.

More Trump-Putin connection later.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Bend over Bain


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Uh...you're just a nutcase dude.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

I believe we left off in another thread where you were making a joke about recriminalizing co-habitation laws (which I had shown are a major factor behind abortion and fatherless homes) and how in order for that to happen the US must first be a theocracy.
Care to share your brilliant reasoning with the followers of this popular 4 part thread Art?

The only type of society that would impose laws against homosexuality, unmarried cohabitation etc would be a totalitarian one.

So you've moved the goalposts from societies that enforce laws against sexual sins like cohabitation, homosexuality, incest, pornography and bestiality being "theocratic" (i.e. creating a 'state religion') to totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

But Art, when the US had laws against homosexuality, cohabitation, incest, pornography and bestiality, even those people who engaged in those behaviors still were protected under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps you explain yourself better when you use the word "totalitarian".

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

I believe we left off in another thread where you were making a joke about recriminalizing co-habitation laws (which I had shown are a major factor behind abortion and fatherless homes) and how in order for that to happen the US must first be a theocracy.
Care to share your brilliant reasoning with the followers of this popular 4 part thread Art?



So you've moved the goalposts from societies that enforce laws against sexual sins like cohabitation, homosexuality, incest, pornography and bestiality being "theocratic" (i.e. creating a 'state religion') to totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

But Art, when the US had laws against homosexuality, cohabitation, incest, pornography and bestiality, even those people who engaged in those behaviors still were protected under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps you explain yourself better when you use the word "totalitarian".

The fact that you're using the term 'sexual sins' only underlines yet further that what you advocate is a theocracy - on everyone regardless. You would deny homosexuals or any consenting adults the rights to have relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage. Does this really need to be explained to you in further detail?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Perhaps you explain yourself better when you use the word "totalitarian".

The fact that you're using the term 'sexual sins' only underlines yet further that what you advocate is a theocracy - on everyone regardless.

So when HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean has umpteen of his underage boy toys over to his condo and is later arrested for raping one of them, that means that HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean will all of the sudden have to acknowledge that the United States has a 'state religion'?

Perhaps you could explain yourself better when you use the word "theocracy" Art.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Perhaps you explain yourself better when you use the word "totalitarian".



So when HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean has umpteen of his underage boy toys over to his condo and is later arrested for raping one of them, that means that HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean will all of the sudden have to acknowledge that the United States has a 'state religion'?

Perhaps you could explain yourself better when you use the word "theocracy" Art.

No, laws protecting children have nothing to do with the implementation of laws that would deprive consenting adults the rights to have relationships outside of the heterosexual marriage paradigm - such as you advocate enforcing.

Keep up...

 

[patrick jane]

On a side note: I'm reading about a possible Donald Trump- Vladimir Putin connection in the Democratic National Committee email leak.

If this story does turn out to be true, it could mean doomsday for your orange haired misogynist who by the way has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl 20 years ago.

More Trump-Putin connection later.

Ha - what else can the Demoncrats do but try to blame Trump - there is no conspiracy or Putin connection - it's deflection

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
So when HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean has umpteen of his underage boy toys over to his condo and is later arrested for raping one of them, that means that HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean will all of the sudden have to acknowledge that the United States has a 'state religion'?

Perhaps you could explain yourself better when you use the word "theocracy" Art.

No, laws protecting children have nothing to do with the implementation of laws that would deprive consenting adults the rights to have relationships outside of the heterosexual marriage paradigm - such as you advocate enforcing.

Keep up...

I'm trying Art, I'm just wondering when you are going to explain that legislating laws that help protect children from immoral behaviors and sexual predators like HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean, why those laws would create a theocracy and/or a totalitarian state.

(I've had my fun with this pathetic little weasel, now it's time to get serious).

As shown in your thread where you and your fellow sexual anarchists mock everything good and decent, the decriminalization of cohabitation laws have been very detrimental to society's most vulnerable: the unborn and children.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

[Cohabitating] was illegal and highly frowned upon by society until the US got 'civilized' back in the early 1970's.

After becoming 'civilized', non-marriage cohabitation brought wonderful things to society (wonderful if you're a secular humanist like the people joking about it in this thread are) like abortion on demand.

Chart: Abortion Rate Highest Among Cohabiting, Lowest with Married

http://liveaction.org/blog/chart-abortion-rate-highest-among-cohabiting-lowest-with-married/

If the female cohabitant decided to keep the baby, off the male cohabitant went because he wasn't ready for that commitment (hence children from non-marital cohabitation were raised in single parent homes).

Cohabitation: Bad for Men, Worse for Women, and Horrible for Children
http://catholicexchange.com/cohabitation-bad-for-men-worse-for-women-and-horrible-for-children

Oh and Art, remember all of those times in your anal retentive posts you talked about laws that prohibit children from sweeping chimneys at 3 o'clock in the morning?

Child Labor: White Slavery

Children were perhaps the most mistreated people in England.

Thousands of our fellow creatures … are this very moment existing in a state of slavery." So wrote evangelical Richard Oastler in his damning indictment of 1830s Britain. He charged the nation with sacrificing its children at the altar of avarice. Thousands of children between the ages of 7 and 14 were daily being compelled to work in the Yorkshire worsted mills from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with only one 30-minute break.

As this situation became known, Christians, especially a group of Yorkshire evangelicals, began campaigning vigorously for reform.

Industrial-strength exploitation

Young children had traditionally been employed in large numbers in agriculture and domestic work. But in the 1800s, they began working in stiflingly hot and unbearably noisy factories with their soulless discipline and order. There were no safety regulations, and financial penalties and beatings were imposed for the slightest slip or misdemeanor. Accidents and deaths were all too common.

Children were not, however, exploited only in England's "dark, satanic mills." They worked in gangs in the fields, often traveling miles in order to get to work. They were used in coal, tin, and copper mines, crawling on all fours like animals, pulling heavy loads. They also made bricks. The use of young boys as chimney sweeps is well known. Many returned from work with their arms and knees bloody, and deaths from suffocation in the chimney were not unknown.

Lace making provided employment for girls. Many started to learn at the age of 5 or 6. They worked in confined spaces, in suffocating heat in summer and miserable cold in winter. Payment in goods was a widely accepted practice, forcing the girls to use the employer's shop, paying high prices for inferior goods.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-53/child-labor-white-slavery.html


Christianity and Judeo-Christian laws have not only been very good for children, they've been very good for society in general.

Moving on...

 

[glassjester]

The fact that you're using the term 'sexual sins' only underlines yet further that what you advocate is a theocracy - on everyone regardless. You would deny homosexuals or any consenting adults the rights to have relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage. Does this really need to be explained to you in further detail?

So up until last year's SC ruling, you truly believed the US government was totalitarian?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

...On a side note: I'm reading about a possible Donald Trump- Vladimir Putin connection in the Democratic National Committee email leak.

If this story does turn out to be true, it could mean doomsday for your orange haired misogynist who by the way has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl 20 years ago.

More Trump-Putin connection later.

Ha - what else can the Demoncrats do but try to blame Trump - there is no conspiracy or Putin connection - it's deflection

I've never been a democrat and never will be one, but as I said in an earlier post, I am interested in the truth.


To Democrats, Email Hack Suggests Trump Has New Supporter: Putin

June 25, 2016

WASHINGTON — As Donald J. Trump prepared to take his beauty pageant to Moscow in 2013, he relished the participation of one man above all: President Vladimir V. Putin. “Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow — if so, will he become my new best friend?” he wrote on Twitter.

Mr. Putin did not attend — in fact, Mr. Trump has yet to meet him, by all accounts — but his admiration for the Russian leader, shared by some of his campaign advisers, is clear. It stems from an affinity for brash, swaggering politics and business dealings in Russia that has overturned decades of Republican orthodoxy about Russia and its leader as an aggressive authoritarian whose values are inimical to those of the United States.

...Now the question has emerged in the United States election campaign whether Mr. Putin has opted — directly or covertly — to throw Russia’s support behind Mr. Trump. The conclusion by cybersecurity experts that Russian intelligence agencies breached the Democratic National Committee and released thousands of emails on the eve of the party’s convention prompted accusations from Democrats and some Republicans that Mr. Trump was a kind of “Siberian candidate,” bolstered from abroad to undermine the nation.

“Given Donald Trump’s well-known admiration for Putin and his belittling of NATO, the Russians have both the means and the motive to engage in a hack of the D.N.C. and the dump of its emails prior to the Democratic convention,” Representative Adam Schiff of California, a Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement on Monday.

“That foreign actors may be trying to influence our election — let alone a powerful adversary like Russia — should concern all Americans of any party,” he added.

...As his [Trump's] campaign took shape this year, he turned to advisers who shared his views on Russia. Mr. Manafort [Dondald Trump's campaign manager] has had extensive financial and political dealings with business executives in Russia and Ukraine.

...Mr. Manafort also had business investments in the region, some of which were detailed in a lawsuit filed in New York in 2011 by Mr. Yanukovych’s rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. Although the suit was dismissed, it detailed connections with a Ukrainian gas middleman, Dmytro Firtash, and a reputed kingpin of the Russian mob, Semyon Y. Mogilevich, as well as with another Russian tycoon, Oleg Deripaska.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Tymoshenko claimed that Mr. Manafort had helped Mr. Firtash in a project to use illicit proceeds from gas deals to buy and redevelop the former Drake Hotel on Park Avenue in Manhattan. The United States tried to extradite Mr. Firtash from Austria, but the request was turned down in 2015.


Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...has-new-supporter-putin/ar-BBuRthU?li=BBnb7Kz

http://truthcdm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trump-and-Putin.png

More on Putin's brutal and corrupt history with the KGB later...

 

[Rusha]

...On a side note: I'm reading about a possible Donald Trump- Vladimir Putin connection in the Democratic National Committee email leak.

If this story does turn out to be true, it could mean doomsday for your orange haired misogynist who by the way has been accused of raping a 13 year old girl 20 years ago..

Of course not ... Trump's appeal can be summed up with his own statement:

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm trying Art, I'm just wondering when you are going to explain that legislating laws that help protect children from immoral behaviors and sexual predators like HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean, why those laws would create a theocracy and/or a totalitarian state.

Oh, trying you certainly are and when it comes to the protection of children then firm laws regarding molestation/abuse/violence etc are already in place. What you're proposing has squat to do with children but simply a desire to impose your own brand of 'morality' on adults through 'religious' means denying them the rights afforded in the modern West. You'd usurp those rights and force all citizens to adhere to your version of what should be illegal would you not?

(I've had my fun with this pathetic little weasel, now it's time to get serious).

If only you could be taken seriously. Acting like a pompous windbag who's invented so much sleazy innuendo and lies about people over the years hardly qualifies you frankly.

As shown in your thread where you and your fellow sexual anarchists mock everything good and decent, the decriminalization of cohabitation laws have been very detrimental to society's most vulnerable: the unborn and children.

It's rather more a case of mocking puritanical zealots who sit on some puffed up moral high horse under the guise of actually caring. If you think that having laws that force any couple to marry would benefit any potential offspring then to call you shortsighted would be an understatement.

Oh and Art, remember all of those times in your anal retentive posts you talked about laws that prohibit children from sweeping chimneys at 3 o'clock in the morning?

That you consider it anally retentive to point out how children were atrociously treat in the past only reflects very badly on you doofus. I'm well aware of how appalling things were in England on that score and others without your 'education' on the matter. There was a bad need for societal reform that thankfully happened, hence the introduction of child labour laws et al.

Christianity and Judeo-Christian laws have not only been very good for children, they've been very good for society in general.

Moving on...

I'm sure there were plenty of decent Christian people actively involved in changing society for the better, along with many others. Dickens highlighted the problems in a scathing fashion in many of his novels and Samuel Chadwick developed public health legislation that led to a vast improvement of pollution and street sewers. You don't do any of that. You are just a colossal pompous bore who wants to police the lives of adults based on his own obsession and ego.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So up until last year's SC ruling, you truly believed the US government was totalitarian?

Er, no.

 

[glassjester]

The only type of society that would impose laws against homosexuality, unmarried cohabitation etc would be a totalitarian one.

There were bans on homosexual marriage in many states prior to Obergefell v Hodges.

Those bans would qualify as "laws against homosexuality," wouldn't they?

 

[Arthur Brain]

There were bans on homosexual marriage in many states prior to Obergefell v Hodges.

Those bans would qualify as "laws against homosexuality," wouldn't they?

It could be classed as a restriction on homosexuals in as far as same sex marriage wasn't passed but a totalitarian state wouldn't allow a public sway of opinion to swell in order that such a law could be overturned.

 

[glassjester]

It could be classed as a restriction on homosexuals in as far as same sex marriage wasn't passed but a totalitarian state wouldn't allow a public sway of opinion to swell in order that such a law could be overturned.

Ok, good clarification.

Then, if public opinion swayed in the opposite direction, would it be the responsibility of the government to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok, good clarification.

Then, if public opinion swayed in the opposite direction, would it be the responsibility of the government to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges?

Highly unlikely that it would as general public opinion is in favour of freedom and liberty which is why we've seen laws allow women the vote, child labour laws introduced, an end to slavery and racial segregation etc. From a technicality standpoint I suppose a government would be put under pressure to reverse such a ruling but it seems somewhat moot.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I'm trying Art [to stay up with your theocracy/totalitarianism scare tactics], I'm just wondering when you are going to explain that legislating laws that help protect children from immoral behaviors and sexual predators like HRC founder and accused pederast Terry Bean, why those laws would create a theocracy and/or a totalitarian state.

Oh, trying you certainly are and when it comes to the protection of children then firm laws regarding molestation/abuse/violence etc are already in place.

(Still no explanation of theocracy and totalitarianism, maybe Art should try new scare tactics?)

Maybe you should quit looking only at the pictures of naked men at 'gay' pride parades and make note of the children that are being exposed to by LGBTQ exhibitionists as well as being subjected to all kinds of moral depravity. We've been over how the LGBTQ movement is taking away parental rights when it comes to abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism; we've been over how the LGBTQueer movement indoctrinates children, ignoring CDOM (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) laws; we've been over how 'gay' youth are contracting deadly STD's and are disproportionately committing suicide, we've been over how current laws in many states allow cross dressing males (and those who aren't in drag but "identify as a woman") to use women's locker rooms, fitting rooms and restrooms, where innocent children are, etc. etc. etc., there's no need to go over those topics again.



Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
As shown in your thread where you and your fellow sexual anarchists mock everything good and decent, the decriminalization of cohabitation laws have been very detrimental to society's most vulnerable: the unborn and children.

It's rather more a case of mocking puritanical zealots who sit on some puffed up moral high horse under the guise of actually caring. If you think that having laws that force any couple to marry would benefit any potential offspring then to call you shortsighted would be an understatement.

The truth is the truth Art, your secular humanist laws are responsible for dead unborn babies and children that grow up without a dad in their home, often times turning to drugs and crime. Some of these children are sexually confused and turn to homosexuality.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Oh and Art, remember all of those times in your anal retentive posts you talked about laws that prohibit children from sweeping chimneys at 3 o'clock in the morning?

I'm sure there were plenty of decent Christian people actively involved in changing society for the better, along with many others...Dickens highlighted the problems in a scathing fashion..

"Many others" weren't mentioned in the article Art; besides, in your constant anal retentive rants about chimney-sweeping children, you acted as if it were Christians who were responsible for these atrocities.

Regarding Charles Dickens: Scholar and author Dr. Gary Colledge has studied the legendary 19th century English writer extensively. The Akron, Ohio, native even studied in the United Kingdom, earning a Ph.D. at the prestigious University of St. Andrews for his work on the faith of Dickens...
During his research, Colledge discovered that Dickens was a Christian and his faith in Jesus Christ surfaces throughout his works -- in the themes and characters.

Colledge read a letter from Dickens to one of his critics:

"'All my strongest illustrations are derived from the New Testament. All my social abuses are shown as departures from its Spirit. All my good people are humble, charitable, faithful, forgiving, over and over again. I claim them in expressed words as disciples of the Founder of our religion.'"
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/December/God-and-Scrooge-Finding-the-Faith-of-Charles-Dickens

Again, it's you secular humanists that are killing and making the lives of societies most innocent miserable, it's we Christians and those who stand up for Judeo-Christian laws that are attempting to defeat you sick and evil degenerates.

 

[MrDante]

Ok, good clarification.

Then, if public opinion swayed in the opposite direction, would it be the responsibility of the government to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges?

the government reverse Obergefell v. Hodges because such a thing would require a constitutional amendment

 

[MrDante]

Maybe you should quit looking only at the pictures of naked men at 'gay' pride parades and make note of the children that are being exposed to by LGBTQ exhibitionists as well as being subjected to all kinds of moral depravity. We've been over how the LGBTQ movement is taking away parental rights when it comes to abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism; we've been over how the LGBTQueer movement indoctrinates children, ignoring CDOM (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) laws; we've been over how 'gay' youth are contracting deadly STD's and are disproportionately committing suicide, we've been over how current laws in many states allow cross dressing males (and those who aren't in drag but "identify as a woman") to use women's locker rooms, fitting rooms and restrooms, where innocent children are, etc. etc. etc., there's no need to go over those topics again.

I've read through the threads here on these things you've been over and in each case your position has been shown to be wrong. Since its all preserved here for anyone to read do you really think you are fooling anyone when you present the same false information?