Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aCultureWarrior]

Pay attention Sandy, Judge Roy Moore was persecuted for standing up for biblical principles, Donald Trump never stood up for a principle, let alone a biblical principle, in his long pathetic life.

Quite frankly, they are both repugnant. The only thing that makes Trump more dangerous is the fact that he holds a higher office. Though I will agree with you on "his long, pathetic life" comment.

Unlike Judge Roy Moore, there are several things that make Donald Trump palatable for sexual anarchists: That he's a rainbow flag waver and just recently sided with democrats to continue financial support of Planned Parenthood are two major reasons why they can live with him.

Trump’s Spending Deal with Democrats Is Funding Planned Parenthood
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=5098676&viewfull=1#post5098676

And yes Sandy, I do acknowledge that you're a anti abortion sexual anarchist...(how that is possible, I do not know).

To be fair, no politician is likely to back one that would infringe on human rights...

That supposed "right" was made 'legal' in the United States by a body of judges who also said that killing your unborn baby is a "right".

Why don't you ask your buddy Sandy how she feels about that latter "right".

Regarding your "no politician is likely to back" comment:

Judge Roy Moore Endorsements
https://www.roymoore.org/Endorsements/

 

[Rusha]

And yes Sandy, I do acknowledge that you're a anti abortion

Agreed ...

sexual anarchist...(how that is possible, I do not know).

Only in reference to consenting ADULTS ...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Only in reference to consenting ADULTS ...

Which would also make you amongst other things: in favor of adultery, incest (and since you didn't say consenting human adults) bestiality.

Why not admit that God is His Wisdom knew what He was talking about when He said: One man, one woman, united in matrimony.

 

[Rusha]

Which would also make you amongst other things: in favor of adultery, incest (and since you didn't say consenting human adults) bestiality.

No ... that is just the typical misleading argument used by those such as yourself who do not have a relevant argument against homosexuality. I have already stated my disapproval of adultery and my support of laws against bestiality and any type of sexual, physical contact that harms non-consenting adults.

Why not admit that God is His Wisdom knew what He was talking about when He said: One man, one woman, united in matrimony.

:think: For starters, I am not currently a believer. Should that ever change, I would not trust your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Which would also make you amongst other things: in favor of adultery, incest (and since you didn't say consenting human adults) bestiality.

No ... that is just the typical misleading argument used by those such as yourself who do not have a relevant argument against homosexuality.

Other than God saying that homosexuality is wrong and that I've shown that it is a disease ridden/psychological and spiritual destroying behavior that often times brings early death, and that the political movement behind homosexual behavior is a child molesting/indoctrinating movement that oppresses religious freedom and destroys everything that it touches (invaluable institutions included), you are correct, I have no relevant argument against homosexuality.

I have already stated my disapproval of adultery and my support of laws against bestiality and any type of sexual, physical contact that harms non-consenting adults.

Then you aren't a real sexual anarchist Sandy, in fact you're borrowing off of what God says in Holy Scripture when it comes to abortion, adultery, bestiality and (if you're against consenting adults who are related having sex) incest.

My my Sandy, did you know that you're a theocrat?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Why not admit that God is His Wisdom knew what He was talking about when He said: One man, one woman, united in matrimony.

For starters, I am not currently a believer. Should that ever change, I would not trust your interpretation of the Bible.

It's all in here Sandy:

https://lh3.ggpht.com/H11OWkoHZpAbs2sL8lIl-Y3tYATrbgC6SzRl_xu-SKGoxe-va089AvrlqNsSNEMtEDc=w300

 

[Arthur Brain]

That supposed "right" was made 'legal' in the United States by a body of judges who also said that killing your unborn baby is a "right".

Why don't you ask your buddy Sandy how she feels about that latter "right".

Regarding your "no politician is likely to back" comment:

Judge Roy Moore Endorsements
https://www.roymoore.org/Endorsements/

I already know how Rusha feels about abortion. She's been consistently anti abortion since she joined, as she has in supporting people's rightful freedoms to have consenting adult relations, be that straight, gay or bi. Unlike you she doesn't dishonestly conflate the two and isn't gay obsessed. Face it Connie, nobody wants pompous, puritanical closet cases governing which other adults they can be 'allowed' to have relations with. Draconian laws have been rightfully abolished along with ones that denied women the vote etc etc.

Oh, and I'm aware that certain folk may well endorse Moore but they ain't gonna back up his views on homosexuality if they wanna get anywhere in power in politics. Surely that should compute even for you...

 

[Rusha]

I already know how Rusha feels about abortion. She's been consistently anti abortion since she joined, as she has in supporting people's rightful freedoms to have consenting adult relations, be that straight, gay or bi. Unlike you she doesn't dishonestly conflate the two and isn't gay obsessed. Face it Connie, nobody wants pompous, puritanical closet cases governing which other adults they can be 'allowed' to have relations with. Draconian laws have been rightfully abolished along with ones that denied women the vote etc etc.

Yep, that covers it. The only thing that I see as similar in regards to pro-abortion and anti-homosexuality, is that advocates of both are dismissing the right to life and liberty to the unborn and homosexuals. I am standing up for the rights of the unborn and homosexuals (as I always have).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
That supposed "right" was made 'legal' in the United States by a body of judges who also said that killing your unborn baby is a "right".

Why don't you ask your buddy Sandy how she feels about that latter "right".

Regarding your "no politician is likely to back" comment:

Judge Roy Moore Endorsements
https://www.roymoore.org/Endorsements/

I already know how Rusha feels about abortion. She's been consistently anti abortion since she joined, as she has in supporting people's rightful freedoms to have consenting adult relations, be that straight, gay or bi.

I'm well aware that in Sandy's make believe world she thinks that somehow people should be allowed to do with their body as they please, but not when it comes to "reproductive rights" (and adultery, incest and bestiality for that matter). As I'd shown a few pages back, lesbians disproportionately get pregnant and disproportionately have abortions; maybe Sandy should wander out in the LGBT so-called "community" and tell them that killing their unborn is wrong?

Unlike you she doesn't dishonestly conflate the two and isn't gay obsessed.

Take it up with the sexual anarchist movement who knows that if laws are enforced saying that you can't be in charge of your own "reproductive rights", laws will also be enforced saying that you can't sodomize what'shisname. While you're at it, take it up with SCOTUS who has used the supposed "right to privacy" as the basis for every decision that deals with human sexuality for the past 50 years.

Face it Connie, nobody wants pompous, puritanical closet cases governing which other adults they can be 'allowed' to have relations with.
Draconian laws have been rightfully abolished along with ones that denied women the vote etc etc.

Yes, laws against killing one's unborn child and sodomizing what'shisname have been abolished; how soon will those "draconian laws" against having sex with one's parent/brother/sister, having sex with children and having sex with animals be abolished Art?

Oh, and I'm aware that certain folk may well endorse Moore but they ain't gonna back up his views on homosexuality if they wanna get anywhere in power in politics. Surely that should compute even for you...

So much for your stance that "no politician" is going to back someone who stands for traditional family values. As shown in the link, many people are.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm well aware that in Sandy's make believe world she thinks that somehow people should be allowed to do with their body as they please, but not when it comes to "reproductive rights" (and adultery, incest and bestiality for that matter). As I'd shown a few pages back, lesbians disproportionately get pregnant and disproportionately have abortions; maybe Sandy should wander out in the LGBT so-called "community" and tell them that killing their unborn is wrong?

All you've shown in this five year plus blog is that you're obviously in the closet, far from objective and frankly, none too intelligent.

Take it up with the sexual anarchist movement who knows that if laws are enforced saying that you can't be in charge of your own "reproductive rights", laws will also be enforced saying that you can't sodomize what'shisname. While you're at it, take it up with SCOTUS who has used the supposed "right to privacy" as the basis for every decision that deals with human sexuality for the past 50 years.

There's nothing to "take up". Rusha is honest in her stances on both homosexuality and abortion whereas you are dishonestly obsessed with the former. All you do on this borefest of a blog is act like a guy who's obviously gay himself and tries to hide it with a whole load of pompous hot air and hopes nobody notices.

Yes, laws against killing one's unborn child and sodomizing what'shisname have been abolished; how soon will those "draconian laws" against having sex with one's parent/brother/sister, having sex with children and having sex with animals be abolished Art?

Hmm, well considering how the laws in regards to the abuse of children are a lot tighter than when homosexuality was still considered a "crime" then you do the math there aCW. The facts are not on your side and it's just yet another 'slippery slope' fallacy that has nothing of substance in support. The laws in regards to abuse of children are stringent, as you know. So, again, nobody wants pompous, closeted little cranks and hyper zealot nutballs policing their adult lives and relations inside the laws as they are. Don't like it? Either get out the darned closet or bog off somewhere that persecutes gays.

So much for your stance that "no politician" is going to back someone who stands for traditional family values. As shown in the link, many people are.

No politician who values their career in politics as a viable force is going to support the measures either you or Moore advocate dude. You think Cruz would have pushed for homosexuality to be re-criminalized if he had a chance of becoming POTUS? Dream on...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm well aware that in Sandy's make believe world she thinks that somehow people should be allowed to do with their body as they please, but not when it comes to "reproductive rights" (and adultery, incest and bestiality for that matter). As I'd shown a few pages back, lesbians disproportionately get pregnant and disproportionately have abortions; maybe Sandy should wander out in the LGBT so-called "community" and tell them that killing their unborn is wrong?

All you've shown in this five year plus blog is that you're obviously in the closet, far from objective and frankly, none too intelligent.

Since you can't say that homosexuality is morally wrong (or even tell an innocent child that homosexuality is morally wrong for that matter), it would be pretty difficult for you and Sandy to tell others that their immoral behavior is wrong.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Take it up with the sexual anarchist movement who knows that if laws are enforced saying that you can't be in charge of your own "reproductive rights", laws will also be enforced saying that you can't sodomize what'shisname. While you're at it, take it up with SCOTUS who has used the supposed "right to privacy" as the basis for every decision that deals with human sexuality for the past 50 years.

There's nothing to "take up". Rusha is honest in her stances on both homosexuality and abortion whereas you are dishonestly obsessed with the former. All you do on this borefest of a blog is act like a guy who's obviously gay himself and tries to hide it with a whole load of pompous hot air and hopes nobody notices.

Either society goes with the Libertarian ideology that you own your body and you can do with it as you please, or it goes with Judeo-Christian doctrine which says that there are moral absolutes and even though you have free will, you can choose between right and wrong. A society can't have it both ways.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, laws against killing one's unborn child and sodomizing what'shisname have been abolished; how soon will those "draconian laws" against having sex with one's parent/brother/sister, having sex with children and having sex with animals be abolished Art?

Hmm, well considering how the laws in regards to the abuse of children are a lot tighter than when homosexuality was still considered a "crime" then you do the math there aCW. The facts are not on your side and it's just yet another 'slippery slope' fallacy that has nothing of substance in support. The laws in regards to abuse of children are stringent, as you know. So, again, nobody wants pompous, closeted little cranks and hyper zealot nutballs policing their adult lives and relations inside the laws as they are. Don't like it? Either get out the darned closet or bog off somewhere that persecutes gays.

Wasn't it a few pages ago
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-4&p=5098837&viewfull=1#post5098837

that amongst other child molesting/indoctrinating things that the LGBTQ movement does, I reminded you how the pedophiles of the LGBTQ movement just loved this little 8 year old boy erotically dancing in front of them at a 'gay' pride parade? So much for "stringent laws that protect children".

http://www.newnownext.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/boy.jpg.jpg

Regarding your use of the term "slippery slope": The LGBTQueer movement would have to show that they are morally superior to those who engage in incest, bestiality and/or pedophilia in order for them to be at the top of an imaginary "slope".

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
So much for your stance that "no politician" is going to back someone who stands for traditional family values. As shown in the link, many people are.

No politician who values their career in politics as a viable force is going to support the measures either you or Moore advocate dude. You think Cruz would have pushed for homosexuality to be re-criminalized if he had a chance of becoming POTUS? Dream on...

Not to worry Art, a Roy Moore US Senate seat won't effect homosexual supposed 'rights' in England.

 

[Rusha]

I'm well aware that in Sandy's make believe world she thinks that somehow people should be allowed to do with their body as they please,

THEIR bodies. Yep. Just THEIR's. Unfortunately you have been unwilling or incapable of providing an adequate reason to deprive them of their rights.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

THEIR bodies. Yep. Just THEIR's. Unfortunately you have been unwilling or incapable of providing an adequate reason to deprive them of their rights.

Therein lies the major difference between the follower of Christ and the Libertarian/pagan/atheist.

The Christian tells the person having sex with someone of the same gender, the person having sex with his brother, sister, mother or father, the person having sex with an animal, the cohabitating male and female, the drug addict, the pornographer, the prostitute, etc. etc. etc. that even though they have the free will to choose to engage in immoral behavior that is physically, psychologically and spiritually destructive, that God has a better way for them. That same follower of Christ, because he loves his neighbor as he loves himself, also puts that love into righteous legislation which tells all of the above that society doesn't approve of their immoral and destructive behavior.

The Libertarian/pagan/atheist, in their ever so simplistic (and in many cases evil) mind, says "it's my body and I can damn well do with it as I please!"

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who wisely stated:

"No one has the right to do what is wrong."

God has a better way for you Sandy.

Before I "move on..." I would like to address one of the biggest lies that people of faith (or people who pretend to have faith) are responsible for spreading:

"Christians can't expect non-believers to act the same as them."

Of course we can! Why do you think a society has laws?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I want to take this opportunity to put a plug in for a man named Jeff Simunds of Tower of Light Ministries here in the Seattle area. He's a great speaker and also does counselling for those who have amongst other things, same sex desires.

Check out Jeff's website and contact him if you or a loved one have same sex desires or if you simply want to attend one of his seminars that talks about homosexuality and transgenderism.

http://www.store-worldministries.org/images/detailed/0/DVD12140913343571364f88ac90495ee.jpg

http://toweroflightministries.org/

 

[SabathMoon]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/514WCZENP9L._SX299_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Warning: The book doesn't understand the separation of Church and State. I hope you are not obsessed with calling Rand Paul thus a 100 percent libertarian, and hate him for believing in the separation of Church and State which protects Catholicism and other tyrannical forms of religion.

Furthermore, it is a saving grace that Ludwig Von Mises, that Mises really altered to be like a male. I am tired of their cherade. Ludwig Von Mises job skills were weak compared to a skilled hard laborer; and her understanding of economics are basic business skills. This shouldn't be embarassing either.

It isn't especially scandalous. What is most scandalous is that she was ambivalent about free market capitalism; and the nature of government/state business regulations.

 

[SabathMoon]

I am surprised he *doesn't* back Moore. Something about two peas in a pod ...

The religous right such as Pat Robertson like Trump more than Trump likes them. And Trump never studies any political issues carefully.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Warning: The book doesn't understand the separation of Church and State.

David Barton, his credentials, and his vast knowledge of the Founding Fathers are in this thread:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ad-of-All-Founding-Fathers-Threads&highlight=

...Furthermore, it is a saving grace that Ludwig Von Mises, that Mises really altered to be like a male. I am tired of their cherade. Ludwig Von Mises job skills were weak compared to a skilled hard laborer; and her understanding of economics are basic business skills. This shouldn't be embarassing either.

It isn't especially scandalous. What is most scandalous is that she was ambivalent about free market capitalism; and the nature of government/state business regulations.

While transsexuals and cross dressers are a big part of the Libertarian movement, to my knowledge one of it's economic icons wasn't one of them.

 

[SabathMoon]

David Barton, his credentials, and his vast knowledge of the Founding Fathers are in this thread:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ad-of-All-Founding-Fathers-Threads&highlight=

Barton has made the mistake long ago of saying there is no separation of church and state. I have also seen misquotes of popular forefather by RR people, and I think it is from Barton. Warning: Use cautiously and at your own risk.

 

[SabathMoon]

In your link, you give Barton saying the 3-5ths clause was anti-slavery, which is absolutely false. aCW, why do you recommend Barton's worthless book?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Barton has made the mistake long ago of saying there is no separation of church and state. I have also seen misquotes of popular forefather by RR people, and I think it is from Barton. Warning: Use cautiously and at your own risk.

Feel free to refute any information I've provided in the appropriate thread.

In your link, you give Barton saying the 3-5ths clause was anti-slavery, which is absolutely false. aCW, why do you recommend Barton's worthless book?

See my above comment. BTW, you made reference to one of the economic icons of the Libertarian movement (Ludwig Von Mises) being born a female. Granted, the Libertarian movement consists of misfits, so nothing would surprise me, but would you like to back that with evidence?

 

[SabathMoon]

See my above comment. BTW, you made reference to one of the economic icons of the Libertarian movement (Ludwig Von Mises) being born a female. Granted, the Libertarian movement consists of misfits, so nothing would surprise me, but would you like to back that with evidence?

Von Mises forehead is too big to a males. There are several ways to distort the icon. I can not help the fact that the dead and short Austrian-Jewish economists look like they had sex changes. This is older than you think, and caused by welfare. But the institute starts with her students such as Rothbard.

It's a minor scandal, but why do they need to be so serious? It is not as if Lew was originally a female.