Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarior
Why is there so much hate, bigotry and discrimination in San Francisco?

Because no matter where you go there are people like you.

One would think since Christians are the ones being bullied by homosexuals in San Fransicko, that they'd be the ones committing suicide.

Chased out of the Castro

Quote:
Youth suicide highest in San Francisco
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=4815

Study Reveals Terrifying Statistics About LGBT Youth And Suicide

hmmmm....here's a clue...

And let's not forget those Christian homophobic bigots that lovingly tell sexually and gender confused youth that "Jesus has a better way for you." (Can't cha just feel the HATE in those words?)

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Local LGBT suicide data

A survey released last summer of 616 LGBT San Francisco residents aged 60 to 92 years old found that 15 percent had "seriously considered" committing suicide...

Wait...I thought that those horrible gayz had a life expectancy of only 42 years

46.6 if they take their HAART meds daily.

On that note: I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you too don't want gender confused people using the restroom/locker room of the opposite sex. I would call you a transgender bigot, but that word gets used enough in this thread already.

 

[TracerBullet]

One would think since Christians are the ones being bullied by homosexuals in San Fransicko, that they'd be the ones committing suicide.

Chased out of the Castro

you never want to talk about what they were doing to warrant getting chased out in the first place

Quote:
Youth suicide highest in San Francisco
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=4815

Study Reveals Terrifying Statistics About LGBT Youth And Suicide



And let's not forget those Christian homophobic bigots that lovingly tell sexually and gender confused youth that "Jesus has a better way for you." (Can't cha just feel the HATE in those words?)

One can sense the hate in all of your posts and in all the false claims you put up here.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It appears that this ad has Houston's lesbo mayor's boxer shorts in a bunch.

Baseball great Lance Berkman, No on Prop 1

Astros great Berkman riles Houston mayor after making ad blasting LGBT law
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/1...n-ad-to-oppose-houston-lgbt-law/?intcmp=hpbt4

 

[drbrumley]

Interesting perspective coming from a Libertarian.

http://karendecoster.com/about

Just goes to show sweeping everyone under one rug is not the way to go. Maybe one day you will stop with the nonsense. We shall see.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Just goes to show sweeping everyone under one rug is not the way to go.

If one sweeps Libertarian vermin under a rug, eventually the stank will rise (cults belong in a container that has a metal handle that flushes).

Regarding the Karen De Coster article that you copied and pasted:

Other than complaining about a gender confused 17 year old kid and government run schools (plus using foul language), I didn't see where De Coster has a solution for the LGBTQ problem here in western civilization. Maybe it can be found in the Libertarian Party Platform?

"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
http://www.lp.org/platform

Maybe one day you will stop with the nonsense. We shall see.

Anytime that you want to debate me on how you think people can be both a Libertarian and a Christian, you know where to find me.

 

[drbrumley]

Anytime that you want to debate me on how you think people can be both a Libertarian and a Christian, you know where to find me.

Whenever your game big fella.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Whenever your game big fella.

Now seems like as good of time as any. I'll start off by asking how you can believe in Libertarian doctrine (as seen in the LP platform: http://www.lp.org/platform ) and still believe in Matthew 22:36-40.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The culture war is far from over:

Legal Scholars Rise Up Against the Supreme Court’s Judicial Despotism

Oct. 12, 2015

By Michael Brown

I’ve been saying that 2015 is the year of pushback, and this might be the most significant act of pushing back so far: A group of legal scholars, most of them university professors, have declared that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage this past June 26th is not “the law of the land,” and they are calling on all office holders, together with all presidential candidates, to join them in rejecting the Court’s decision.

Make no mistake about it: This is really big news.

These scholars, who teach at schools like Princeton and Oxford and Notre Dame and Boston and Boston College and Michigan State and Kansas State and Vanderbilt and Hillsdale and the University of Toronto and the University of Nebraska, state that the Court’s decision “has no more claim” to being the law of the land “than Dred Scott v. Sandford had when President Abraham Lincoln condemned that pro-slavery decision as an offense against the very Constitution that the Supreme Court justices responsible for that atrocious ruling purported to be upholding.”

They note that “Lincoln warned that for the people and their elected leaders to treat unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court as creating a binding rule on anyone other than the parties to the particular case would be for ‘the people [to] have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’”

They also cite James Madison, who in 1788 had this to say about the balance of powers: “The several departments being perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”

But these professors and lawyers are not simply making a philosophical statement about the Court’s Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling.

They have issued a call for action, reminding “all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.” They also call on “all federal and state officeholders” to “refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.”

They urge these officeholders to recognize the right of each state to define marriage, to “pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons,” and to “open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.”

Read more: http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...-courts-judicial-despotism-n2064245/page/full

Vote in the right people and kiss Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade goodbye.

 

[drbrumley]

Now seems like as good of time as any. I'll start off by asking how you can believe in Libertarian doctrine (as seen in the LP platform: http://www.lp.org/platform ) and still believe in Matthew 22:36-40.

AcWQ1-How you can believe in Libertarian doctrine (as seen in the LP platform: http://www.lp.org/platform ) and still believe in Matthew 22:36-40.

DRBA1-So you post a scripture with the implication that this scripture and being a libertarian are in direct contradiction. So here's the text:

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Ok, and Jesus is right. Sounds very LIBERTARIAN if you ask me. Maybe I read this thru the eyes of liberty. :idunno:

Anyway, let me ask these questions so we can get a baseline so we don't talk past each other.

DRBQ1-Would you agree that there is a difference between coercing someone and persuading someone? If so, why do YOU believe it is ok to pick up a sword (government) and enforce your morality upon others when noone is being harmed by aggression?

DRBQ2-In regards to abortion, which I know you will bring it up speaking about the LP platform...Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in the womb or unlibertarian to oppose such killing?

Thanks.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now seems like as good of time as any. I'll start off by asking how you can believe in Libertarian doctrine (as seen in the LP platform: http://www.lp.org/platform ) and still believe in Matthew 22:36-40.

AcWQ1-How you can believe in Libertarian doctrine (as seen in the LP platform: http://www.lp.org/platform ) and still believe in Matthew 22:36-40.

DRBA1-So you post a scripture with the implication that this scripture and being a libertarian are in direct contradiction. So here's the text:


36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Ok, and Jesus is right. Sounds very LIBERTARIAN if you ask me.

If God were an anarchist, you'd be correct. But since He's not...

Anyway, let me ask these questions so we can get a baseline so we don't talk past each other.

DRBQ1-Would you agree that there is a difference between coercing someone and persuading someone? If so, why do YOU believe it is ok to pick up a sword (government) and enforce your morality upon others when noone is being harmed by aggression?

So Karen De Coster just wants to persuaaaaade a 17 year old gender confused youth to not use the little girls room at his high school (an act that hasn't been aggressive in any way), not to pick up a sword (government) and enforce laws that prohibit it?

Why is it ok to use government to enforce God's morality?

Because the Bible tells me so.

Romans 13:4

DRBQ2-In regards to abortion, which I know you will bring it up speaking about the LP platform...Why should it be considered libertarian to kill a baby in the womb or unlibertarian to oppose such killing?

Thanks.

It's just a matter of looking at the Libertarian Party Platform on abortion in order to answer that question:


1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
http://www.lp.org/platform

If you are an anti-abortion Libertarian you would "persuade" people not to abort their unborn child, not use the sword (civil government laws) to hinder them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And your slippery slope argument is ineffective, as I alluded to in the part you clipped.


No. Pedophilia will not be recognized as normal, and if acted upon, the action will remain a criminal act.

There's no connection between criminal sexual crimes against children and legal relationships between consenting adults.

He's doing his usual stock in trade of baiting.

The 'slippery slope' fallacy is just that. Unless anyone thinks rape would become acceptable and tolerated in society?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

... Unless anyone thinks rape would become acceptable and tolerated in society?

Terry does.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Terry does.

Oh, an unsubstantiated case of one individual an argument makes for all of society does it? When did that happen?

Get a grip, or something resembling a handle at least...

 

[Christiano]

And transgender people (including transgender kids, like the ones interviewed by Barbara Waters) should be killed in public squares to serve as examples.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Unless anyone thinks rape would become acceptable and tolerated in society?

And so did homosexual pioneer Harry Hay.

(I could go on and on and on Art. Like all debates with me, you're not going to win this one either).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And transgender people (including transgender kids, like the ones interviewed by Barbara Waters) should be killed in public squares to serve as examples.

Only after arm wrestling them first (I read your freaky blog).

 

[Arthur Brain]

And so did homosexual pioneer Harry Hay.

And? You do realize that what certain nutcases advocate doesn't reflect on what society tolerates as a whole right? What am I saying, this is you so of course you don't...

:freak:

(I could go on and on and on Art. Like all debates with me, you're not going to win this one either).

:rotfl:

Could?! You already do go on and on and on...and dude, you couldn't even win a debate with yourself ya big loon.

 

[ok doser]

Oh, an unsubstantiated case of one individual an argument makes for all of society does it? When did that happen?

Get a grip, or something resembling a handle at least...

google

don't be afraid

Sex abuse accusation[edit]

On November 19, 2014, Terry Bean was arrested on charges of sodomy and sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy. Law enforcement sources said Bean was charged with "two counts of sodomy in the third degree, a felony, and sex abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor." He was arraigned in Lane County, Oregon, where the crimes allegedly occurred in 2013.[26]

On September 1, 2015, when the alleged victim refused to testify, a judge dismissed the sex-crime charges against Bean. In a statement, Bean wrote "I take some measure of comfort that the world now knows what I have always known — that I was falsely accused and completely innocent of every accusation that was made."[27] However, Lane County Circuit Court Judge Jay McAlpin gave prosecutors the option to refile charges if circumstances change, The Register-Guard reported. Prosecutor Erik Hasselman said Bean rented the room and witnesses put him there during the alleged sexual encounter. Hasselman said the boy never wavered in his description of a three-way sexual encounter with Bean and Lawson. "The prospect of testifying about very intimate details of a one-night relationship that he had with these men in front of a group of strangers, in front of the media ... was extremely detrimental to his mental health," Hasselman said. Bean and the boy proposed a civil compromise, an option under Oregon law that allows the case to be resolved without a criminal conviction. A judge rejected their proposal. Prosecutors revealed Tuesday that the deal involved Bean paying the boy more than $200,000, the Register-Guard reported.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And so did homosexual pioneer Harry Hay [promote "man-boy love"]

And? You do realize that what certain nutcases advocate doesn't reflect on what society tolerates as a whole right? What am I saying, this is you so of course you don't...

Surely you're not calling the pioneers of the modern day LGBTQueer movement (Bean, Hay, Milk, etc. etc. etc.) "nutcases" are you Art? (LGBTQueer blasphemy!).

 

[Arthur Brain]

Surely you're not calling the pioneers of the modern day LGBTQueer movement (Bean, Hay, Milk, etc. etc. etc.) "nutcases" are you Art? (LGBTQueer blasphemy!).

I'm saying that anyone who advocates having sex with children is a nutcase and worse. I'm also saying that society would never tolerate child molestation and rape, something you continually dance around.