Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[Greg Jennings]

I should point out that while Ted Cruz does stand for states rights, he also ardently is a defender of religious freedom. Cruz would back legislation that would protect people of faith from being persecuted solely because they stand for God's Word.

I slightly disagree with Mr. Cruz on that. But you're not going to 100% agree with any candidate.

Cruz stood by Kim Davis, the Kentucky Court Clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue faux marriage licenses to proud and unrepentant homosexuals, as well as standing by Iowans Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were forced to close their business because they refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony.

The Kim Davis situation he was wrong about imo because she's a servant of the state government, and she has no right to refuse her duties as such. On a private business having the ability to refuse service to anyone, I wholeheartedly agree. In the latter case, the market will decide whether the discriminatory business policy can stand or not

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I should point out that while Ted Cruz does stand for states rights, he also ardently is a defender of religious freedom. Cruz would back legislation that would protect people of faith from being persecuted solely because they stand for God's Word.

I slightly disagree with Mr. Cruz on that. But you're not going to 100% agree with any candidate.

Meaning that you think that people of faith should be fined, lose their businesses and even go to jail for refusing to kowtow to proud and unrepentant moral degenerates?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Cruz stood by Kim Davis, the Kentucky Court Clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue faux marriage licenses to proud and unrepentant homosexuals, as well as standing by Iowans Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were forced to close their business because they refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony.

The Kim Davis situation he was wrong about imo because she's a servant of the state government, and she has no right to refuse her duties as such.

Except that the citizens of Kentucky voted overwhelming (70+%) to make a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Kim Davis was enforcing the law of Kentucky. Had the citizens of Kentucky voted differently and she refused to abide by the law, you'd have a point.

On a private business having the ability to refuse service to anyone, I wholeheartedly agree. In the latter case, the market will decide whether the discriminatory business policy can stand or not

I don't care to return to the days where there are "whites only" signs in windows of businesses, but that's an entirely different thing than homosexuality, which is a behavior (a changeable one at that). Once righteous laws are once again legislated, coupled with cultural mores' that espouse traditional values, this insanity will cease.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Meaning that you think that people of faith should be fined, lose their businesses and even go to jail for refusing to kowtow to proud and unrepentant moral degenerates?

I'm assuming you typed this before reading my whole post, as you know full well that's not what I said.

Except that the citizens of Kentucky voted overwhelming (70+%) to make a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Kim Davis was enforcing the law of Kentucky. Had the citizens of Kentucky voted differently and she refused to abide by the law, you'd have a point.

No, she wasn't enforcing the law of Kentucky. She was enforcing what, as you correctly stated, the people of Kentucky voted for. However, a state court striking down such a thing for being unconstitutional falls within the law of the state, and Kim the Triple Adulteress (according to the Bible) refused to do her duty as a see any of the state. She should've quit

I don't care to return to the days where there are "whites only" signs in windows of businesses, but that's an entirely different thing than homosexuality, which is a behavior (a changeable one at that). Once righteous laws are once again legislated, coupled with cultural mores' that espouse traditional values, this insanity will cease.

I'd rather not return to those days, either. But I believe that a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone that they wish. If that affects their business negatively, then they'll cave to the marketplace and serve without discrimination. If it doesn't hurt their business, then they shouldn't have to.

And despite your sentiments, discriminating against gays is pretty much identical to doing it to blacks. Christian slaveowners used to use the Bible to justify slavery of blacks, just as Christians now sometimes use it to justify gay discrimination. It's no different

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Meaning that you think that people of faith should be fined, lose their businesses and even go to jail for refusing to kowtow to proud and unrepentant moral degenerates?

I'm assuming you typed this before reading my whole post, as you know full well that's not what I said.

Ted Cruz supports religious liberty/freedom. If you "slightly disagree with him", state your case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Except that the citizens of Kentucky voted overwhelming (70+%) to make a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Kim Davis was enforcing the law of Kentucky. Had the citizens of Kentucky voted differently and she refused to abide by the law, you'd have a point.

No, she wasn't enforcing the law of Kentucky. She was enforcing what, as you correctly stated, the people of Kentucky voted for. However, a state court striking down such a thing for being unconstitutional falls within the law of the state,

Edjumacate yourself Greg. No "state court" struck down the Kentucky marriage amendment, a federal judge and judicial activists from SCOTUS did.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4438141&postcount=371

and Kim the Triple Adulteress (according to the Bible)

According the Bible, Jesus Christ forgave Kim Davis when she repented and accepted Him as her Lord and Savior (yet another case of a secular humanist using The Holy Bible to try and smear a Christian; yet another case of a secular humanist failing).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I don't care to return to the days where there are "whites only" signs in windows of businesses, but that's an entirely different thing than homosexuality, which is a behavior (a changeable one at that). Once righteous laws are once again legislated, coupled with cultural mores' that espouse traditional values, this insanity will cease.

I'd rather not return to those days, either. But I believe that a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone that they wish. If that affects their business negatively, then they'll cave to the marketplace and serve without discrimination. If it doesn't hurt their business, then they shouldn't have to.

And despite your sentiments, discriminating against gays is pretty much identical to doing it to blacks. Christian slaveowners used to use the Bible to justify slavery of blacks, just as Christians now sometimes use it to justify gay discrimination. It's no different

Except that the color of ones skin isn't nor ever has been immoral or has the theft of a human being (slavery) been moral. Homosexual behavior always has been and always will be immoral (You're making yourself look foolish by referencing Holy Scripture Greg).

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ted Cruz supports religious liberty/freedom. If you "slightly disagree with him", state your case.

Religious freedom ends when it encroaches on the rights of others. A ban on gay marriage obviously encroaches on homosexuals' rights. A Muslim can't kill his neighbor's dog just because, in his religion, it's a "dirty" animal, because that encroaches on his neighbor's rights. Same is true of Christians trying to deny marriage to a homosexual

Except that the citizens of Kentucky voted overwhelming (70+%) to make a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Kim Davis was enforcing the law of Kentucky. Had the citizens of Kentucky voted differently and she refused to abide by the law, you'd have a point.

Edjumacate yourself Greg. No "state court" struck down the Kentucky marriage amendment, a federal judge and judicial activists from SCOTUS did.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4438141&postcount=371

Here, aCW, I must admit that you are correct. It was one of the 8 states that either didn't have legal gay marriage or wasn't going through the legal process to get it legalized at the time that the federal ruling came down. Based on that, I have to switch my opinion on Miss Kentucky Kim. I still think she's a hypocritical bigot, but I believe in states' rights, and as such I'd be a hypocrite for not backing her right here.

According the Bible, Jesus Christ forgave Kim Davis when she repented and accepted Him as her Lord and Savior (yet another case of a secular humanist using The Holy Bible to try and smear a Christian; yet another case of a secular humanist failing).

He forgave her, then she committed adultery two more times. If Jesus forgave her for all of those, why can't a homosexual ask for forgiveness right after every time he gets down with his/her spouse? If there is unlimited forgiveness for adultery, why not unlimited forgiveness for homosexual activity?

Except that the color of ones skin isn't nor ever has been immoral or has the theft of a human being (slavery) been moral.

That's not what God fearing slave owners said. And it's not what was said when black rights were opposed for years. Now was it? Your retroactive correction of Christian sentiments doesn't change what happened

Homosexual behavior always has been and always will be immoral (You're making yourself look foolish by referencing Holy Scripture Greg).

No, it wasn't. It's only prohibited and immoral according to monotheistic religions. That's hardly a majority of humans throughout history, never mind "always"

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ted Cruz supports religious liberty/freedom. If you "slightly disagree with him", state your case.

Religious freedom ends when it encroaches on the rights of others. A ban on gay marriage obviously encroaches on homosexuals' rights. A Muslim can't kill his neighbor's dog just because, in his religion, it's a "dirty" animal, because that encroaches on his neighbor's rights. Same is true of Christians trying to deny marriage to a homosexual

(Did Greg do a Freudian slip and refer to those who engage in homosexuality as "dirty animals"?).

Again: The Constitution of the State of Kentucky doesn't give anyone other than one man and one woman the supposed "right" to marry. In addition to that the State of Kentucky passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" which specifies "that government shall prove by clear and convincing evidence prove a compelling governmental interest in establishing a burden on the freedom of religion; specify what constitutes a burden. ."
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/hb279.htm

Davis was right to refuse signing marriage certificates for anyone other than one man and one woman and Ted Cruz was right (both morally and constitutionally) for standing by her.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Except that the citizens of Kentucky voted overwhelming (70+%) to make a constitutional amendment saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Kim Davis was enforcing the law of Kentucky. Had the citizens of Kentucky voted differently and she refused to abide by the law, you'd have a point.

Edjumacate yourself Greg. No "state court" struck down the Kentucky marriage amendment, a federal judge and judicial activists from SCOTUS did.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...&postcount=371

Here, aCW, I must admit that you are correct. It was one of the 8 states that either didn't have legal gay marriage or wasn't going through the legal process to get it legalized at the time that the federal ruling came down. Based on that, I have to switch my opinion on Miss Kentucky Kim. I still think she's a hypocritical bigot, but I believe in states' rights, and as such I'd be a hypocrite for not backing her right here.

Followers of Christ don't care what secular humanists who stand behind immoral beliefs and legislation think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
According the Bible, Jesus Christ forgave Kim Davis when she repented and accepted Him as her Lord and Savior (yet another case of a secular humanist using The Holy Bible to try and smear a Christian; yet another case of a secular humanist failing).

He forgave her, then she committed adultery two more times.

You're wrong again Greg. Davis accepted Christ into her life 4 years ago and has been faithful to His Word and her loving husband since then.

http://americansfortruth.com/2015/0...homosexual-marriage-licenses-liberty-counsel/

If Jesus forgave her for all of those, why can't a homosexual ask for forgiveness right after every time he gets down with his/her spouse? If there is unlimited forgiveness for adultery, why not unlimited forgiveness for homosexual activity?

Only God and the person asking for forgiveness knows what's in that person's heart. If a homosexual truly were trying to repent, I would suggest that he divorce his or her "husband/wife".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Except that the color of ones skin isn't nor ever has been immoral or has the theft of a human being (slavery) been moral.

That's not what God fearing slave owners said. And it's not what was said when black rights were opposed for years. Now was it? Your retroactive correction of Christian sentiments doesn't change what happened

Supposed 'Christians' have bastardized God's Word going back to the early days of Christianity and continue to do so to this day. If you don't believe me check out my signature at the bottom of each post or review various 'Christian's' here on TOL defense of homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Homosexual behavior always has been and always will be immoral (You're making yourself look foolish by referencing Holy Scripture Greg).

No, it wasn't. It's only prohibited and immoral according to monotheistic religions. That's hardly a majority of humans throughout history, never mind "always"

Morality is decided by God, not by humans.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Again: The Constitution of the State of Kentucky doesn't give anyone other than one man and one woman the supposed "right" to marry. In addition to that the State of Kentucky passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" which specifies "that government shall prove by clear and convincing evidence prove a compelling governmental interest in establishing a burden on the freedom of religion; specify what constitutes a burden. ."
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/hb279.htm

Davis was right to refuse signing marriage certificates for anyone other than one man and one woman and Ted Cruz was right (both morally and constitutionally) for standing by her.

Marriage, due to its financial, familial, and insurance-related implications, is a right for all citizens so long as they find someone willing to enter it with them (of age, of course). It's what you might call a basic civil liberty.

Followers of Christ don't care what secular humanists who stand behind immoral beliefs and legislation think.

That's cool. The Constitution doesn't care about religious zealots who want to make laws based on an ancient code that was effected back more than two millennia before the invention of toilet paper. So we'll call it even there?

You're wrong again Greg. Davis accepted Christ into her life 4 years ago and has been faithful to His Word and her loving husband since then.

Great. So that means that a gay man can make sweet sweet love to his husband as much as he wants, as long as he accepts Christ into his life after the very last time he does it, right? Sounds reasonable enough.

Only God and the person asking for forgiveness knows what's in that person's heart. If a homosexual truly were trying to repent, I would suggest that he divorce his or her "husband/wife".

Or he could do what I suggested above. According to you, he only needs to accept Christ and quit his immoral behavior before death. So he could be happily gay-married to his husband for 40 years, then accept Christ on his deathbed and (obviously) never have sexual relations with a man between then and his death, and he's good to go. Again, that's cool with me if its cool with you.

Supposed 'Christians' have bastardized God's Word going back to the early days of Christianity and continue to do so to this day. If you don't believe me check out my signature at the bottom of each post or review various 'Christian's' here on TOL defense of homosexuality.

Ah...I see. So Christians who used the bible to justify racism were bastardizing it, but Christians who use the same argument to justify homosexual bigotry are good people? Got it.

Morality is decided by God, not by humans.

And that may be. But unfortunately aCW, you can't prove it. Just like you can't prove that the Christian God is any greater or more real than any other god. It's a matter of faith alone, and American law doesn't deal in such matters.

 

[TheDuke]

I haven't seen someone take this thread so personal since Art Brain and WizardofOz aka GFR7 aka patrick jane posted in it.

Tell the many readers of this 4 part thread what personal ties you have to homosexuality.

Not like you think, I don't care about homos, I care about MY personal freedom that is threatened by those who toil towards moral dictatorship over the rest of us because they read a book.

Moral absolutes have everything to do with this topic.

No, I told you not to start this subject, but ok, if you wish:
Moral absolutes do not exist!
If you think otherwise, please give me a list with a reason for each of your supposed absolutes.

The Roman Empire is one example.

While some do compare the US to good old Rome, your ludicrous simplicity in thinking that empires collapse because of homosexuality is baffling. Let me guess, you think that every great empire in the history of the world would have survived if only they would stone homos?

Comparing Islam with Christianity. Your ignorance is duly noted.

I gave 2 examples, one was with christianity.

PS: BTW whether you like it or not, Islam has borrowed so heavily from your bible, that the 2 religions are indeed very comparable

You're been sniffing the lies that Obama's lamestream media has been promoting for the past 7+ years. Come up for some fresh air and face reality.

hand-waiving are we?

You should thank your lucky stars that there are conservatives/Christians out there that look out for you.

arrogance & ignorance do go hand in hand.
What can I do to make you stop looking out for me?

Review the table of contents for the amount of Christians (and even non believers) that have been persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality.
I've often said if the inbreds at the Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, the LGBTQueer movment would invent them. I've seen them up close here in Seattle, they've done more to promote the LGBTQueer cause than to harm it.

yeah, and I don't disagree, as previously said, but you're focusing on the wrong point, I was giving you an example of free speech.

African AIDS is a scam. You can do your own investigation into the matter or wait until I get to that segment (there's HUGE $ in AIDS).

Oh, of course it is, so obviously the disease is only to be found in our hemisphere, right?

I see, they're all liars except for the proud and unrepentant sodomites who live across the street from you and are close friends?

Well I wouldn't really call them close friends, but we get along very well.
No, personal testimony is not automatically lying, but it cannot be taken as a more significant evidence, than actual clinical evaluation.

Let me ask you this, when you get sick, do you visit a doctor, or a witch doctor?

Jesus is the reason for the season. I thought you weren't sure if God/the Son of God exists?

I can still celebrate, even if I don't believe, right?
Xmas, was expropriated by christianity, used to be another holiday before

BTW, I'm not sure if god exists, but I'm absolutely confident God doesn't. Hope you see the difference now.


Cheers.

 

[TheDuke]

"That's cool. The Constitution doesn't care about religious zealots who want to make laws based on an ancient code that was effected back more than two millennia before the invention of toilet paper. So we'll call it even there?"


Thumbs up mate, couldn't ever put it any better.......

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again: The Constitution of the State of Kentucky doesn't give anyone other than one man and one woman the supposed "right" to marry. In addition to that the State of Kentucky passed the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" which specifies "that government shall prove by clear and convincing evidence prove a compelling governmental interest in establishing a burden on the freedom of religion; specify what constitutes a burden. ."
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/hb279.htm

Davis was right to refuse signing marriage certificates for anyone other than one man and one woman and Ted Cruz was right (both morally and constitutionally) for standing by her.

Marriage, due to its financial, familial, and insurance-related implications, is a right for all citizens so long as they find someone willing to enter it with them (of age, of course). It's what you might call a basic civil liberty.

So you, as a secular humanist, all of the sudden are the rule maker. I see that your rules require "someone" to be of a certain age. How about the number involved in the marriage? Can they be related by blood? Must they be human? (A woman here in Sodom and Gonorrhea North 'married' a building;
http://weeklyworldnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/marry_buildinga.jpg?w=375&h=200

a British woman 'married' a dolphin: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10694972/ns/world_news-weird_news/t/herring-i-thee-wed/#.Vn6rnstIgiQ )

Who are you to deny people/animals/inanimate objects the "right" to 'marry' Greg? After all, "love is love" (how do I know? A pagan told me so!).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Followers of Christ don't care what secular humanists who stand behind immoral beliefs and legislation think.

That's cool. The Constitution doesn't care about religious zealots who want to make laws based on an ancient code that was effected back more than two millennia before the invention of toilet paper. So we'll call it even there?

You might want to check out the articles on the Founding Fathers on page 1's index Greg. Thomas Jefferson proposed a bill to castrate homosexuals. Homosexuality was subject so disgusting that it wasn't proper even to discuss it in public. So before you go using the founding documents to try and make your point, you might want to know how the Founding Fathers felt about the subject (they were also, almost to the man, devout Christians, but that's a topic for another thread).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You're wrong again Greg. Davis accepted Christ into her life 4 years ago and has been faithful to His Word and her loving husband since then.

Great. So that means that a gay man can make sweet sweet love to his husband as much as he wants, as long as he accepts Christ into his life after the very last time he does it, right? Sounds reasonable enough.

See my response below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Only God and the person asking for forgiveness knows what's in that person's heart. If a homosexual truly were trying to repent, I would suggest that he divorce his or her "husband/wife".

Or he could do what I suggested above. According to you, he only needs to accept Christ and quit his immoral behavior before death. So he could be happily gay-married to his husband for 40 years, then accept Christ on his deathbed and (obviously) never have sexual relations with a man between then and his death, and he's good to go. Again, that's cool with me if its cool with you.

God will not be mocked. If someone thinks they have an 'angle' to eternal salvation, he or she has a very unpleasant surprise when they meet Him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Supposed 'Christians' have bastardized God's Word going back to the early days of Christianity and continue to do so to this day. If you don't believe me check out my signature at the bottom of each post or review various 'Christian's' here on TOL defense of homosexuality.

Ah...I see. So Christians who used the bible to justify racism were bastardizing it, but Christians who use the same argument to justify homosexual bigotry are good people? Got it.

Have I mentioned that your supposed reading comprehension is horrid Greg? (aCW holds off on speculating that Greg is a lifelong dope smoker and like shagster, has one living brain cell remaining).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Morality is decided by God, not by humans.

And that may be. But unfortunately aCW, you can't prove it. Just like you can't prove that the Christian God is any greater or more real than any other god. It's a matter of faith alone, and American law doesn't deal in such matters.

When it comes to proving that God's design for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) is superior to secular humanist man's, a person only look at all of the things (disease, disorders, violence, death) that goes with the homosexual lifestyle.

Review the table of contents in both Part 3 and Part 4 as well as the index on page 1 of this thread.

The proof is there.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I haven't seen someone take this thread so personal since Art Brain and WizardofOz aka GFR7 aka patrick jane posted in it.

Tell the many readers of this 4 part thread what personal ties you have to homosexuality.

Not like you think, I don't care about homos, I care about MY personal freedom that is threatened by those who toil towards moral dictatorship over the rest of us because they read a book.

The supposed "freedom" to engage in immoral behaviors isn't freedom, it's being enslaved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Moral absolutes have everything to do with this topic.

No, I told you not to start this subject, but ok, if you wish:
Moral absolutes do not exist!
If you think otherwise, please give me a list with a reason for each of your supposed absolutes.

Let's stick with the topic of human sexuality. Moral absolute: One man, one woman, united in matrimony (for life, with a couple of exceptions allowing for divorce).

When man strayed from that absolute, moral decay followed (abortion, homosexuality, pornography, cohabitation/no fault divorce, etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The Roman Empire is one example.

While some do compare the US to good old Rome, your ludicrous simplicity in thinking that empires collapse because of homosexuality is baffling. Let me guess, you think that every great empire in the history of the world would have survived if only they would stone homos?

You asked for an example, and I gave you one that mirrored our laws and culture today (homosexuality/pederasty, abortion, adultery). Moral decay doesn't strengthen a foundation, it only weakens it and total collapse is inevitable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Comparing Islam with Christianity. Your ignorance is duly noted.

I gave 2 examples, one was with christianity.

PS: BTW whether you like it or not, Islam has borrowed so heavily from your bible, that the 2 religions are indeed very comparable

I've pointed out numerous times throughout this 4 part thread that Islam and the LGBTQueer movement have so much in common: Their out and out HATRED of Judeo/Christian doctrine and pedophile/pederasty being two commonalities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You're been sniffing the lies that Obama's lamestream media has been promoting for the past 7+ years. Come up for some fresh air and face reality.

hand-waiving are we?

What? You're not defending the lying prostitute media nor the baby murdering-sodomite-Marxist tyrant that has misused the office of the President of the United States for the past 7+ years? Surely you aren't ashamed of both are you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You should thank your lucky stars that there are conservatives/Christians out there that look out for you.

arrogance & ignorance do go hand in hand.
What can I do to make you stop looking out for me?

Memorize this quote:

"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State."
-Robert Winthrop to the Annual Meeting of the
Massachusetts Bible Society
Boston, Mass; May 28, 1849


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Review the table of contents for the amount of Christians (and even non believers) that have been persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality.
I've often said if the inbreds at the Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, the LGBTQueer movment would invent them. I've seen them up close here in Seattle, they've done more to promote the LGBTQueer cause than to harm it.

yeah, and I don't disagree, as previously said, but you're focusing on the wrong point, I was giving you an example of free speech.

You gave one example of the freedom to act stupidly. I have a long long list showing that there is no freedom when it comes to taking on the LGBTQueer 'gaystapo'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
African AIDS is a scam. You can do your own investigation into the matter or wait until I get to that segment (there's HUGE $ in AIDS).

Oh, of course it is, so obviously the disease is only to be found in our hemisphere, right?

Don't you find it rather...ahem...queer that heterosexuals aren't afflicted with it in westernized countries but for some reason it runs rampant amongst heterosexuals in Africa? Again, do your own research or wait until I get to that segment (hopefully lovemeorhate aka Pete will return to comment).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I see, they're all liars except for the proud and unrepentant sodomites who live across the street from you and are close friends?

Well I wouldn't really call them close friends, but we get along very well.
No, personal testimony is not automatically lying, but it cannot be taken as a more significant evidence, than actual clinical evaluation.

Let me ask you this, when you get sick, do you visit a doctor, or a witch doctor?

A medical doctor can't give someone a pill and cure someone who has had underlying sexuality issues since childhood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Jesus is the reason for the season. I thought you weren't sure if God/the Son of God exists?

I can still celebrate, even if I don't believe, right?
Xmas, was expropriated by christianity, used to be another holiday before

Why not celebrate other atheist/pagan holidays instead, like the SCOTUS ruling on Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges? I'm sure that you could get your friends across the street to come over and decorate the tree with condoms (Safe sex!)

BTW, I'm not sure if god exists, but I'm absolutely confident God doesn't. Hope you see the difference now.


Cheers.

Again: At least you're not stating that God approves of homosexuality. If there is anything 'honest' about your eggnosticism/atheism, it's that.

 

[Greg Jennings]

aCW, I'd love to continue our conversation, but for that to happen you're gonna have to shorten your posts. It's exhausting taking 10 minutes to address everything in your mile long letters, especially when I know that you're not going to take anything anybody but yourself says seriously anyway.


So if you'd like to address one thing at a time, I'm game.

 

[jgarden]

Won't it be great when Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade (and let's not forget Obamacare) will be repealed under a President Ted Cruz and you secular humanists will no longer have a monopoly on immoral legislation?

We've heard this all before when conservative Christians backed the Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush Administrations.

Three administrations and 20 years of GOP presidents later produced tax cuts and higher military - but no significant legislation to satisfy the social conservatives.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Won't it be great when Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade (and let's not forget Obamacare) will be repealed under a President Ted Cruz and you secular humanists will no longer have a monopoly on immoral legislation?

We've heard this all before when conservative Christians backed the Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush Administrations.

Being that you're an avid follower of this 4 part thread, you know that I've exposed Reagan and both Bush Sr. and Jr. for their faux conservatism.

Three administrations and 20 years of GOP presidents later produced tax cuts and higher military - but no significant legislation to satisfy the social conservatives.

That is why true conservatives such as myself are so excited: we finally have a presidential candidate that can win!*

*You're as concerned about a Ted Cruz Presidency as I am excited about one (and that's a good thing).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW, I'd love to continue our conversation, but for that to happen you're gonna have to shorten your posts. It's exhausting taking 10 minutes to address everything ...
So if you'd like to address one thing at a time, I'm game.

I couldn't agree more.

cc The Duke

Pick a subject, any subject.

 

[jgarden]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Won't it be great when Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade (and let's not forget Obamacare) will be repealed under a President Ted Cruz and you secular humanists will no longer have a monopoly on immoral legislation?

Being that you're an avid follower of this 4 part thread, you know that I've exposed Reagan and both Bush Sr. and Jr. for their faux conservatism.

That is why true conservatives such as myself are so excited: we finally have a presidential candidate that can win!*

*You're as concerned about a Ted Cruz Presidency as I am excited about one (and that's a good thing).

Typical conservative strategy - attempt to re-create God in your own image to legitimize your position and then distance yourself from past mistakes by denouncing the perpetrators as "faux conservatives."

Where are all those "true conservative birthers" who spent the last 7 years questioning Obama's citizenship - or has that now become a taboo subject now that one-of-your-own could be subject to the same criticisms?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Won't it be great when Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade (and let's not forget Obamacare) will be repealed under a President Ted Cruz and you secular humanists will no longer have a monopoly on immoral legislation?

Being that you're an avid follower of this 4 part thread, you know that I've exposed Reagan and both Bush Sr. and Jr. for their faux conservatism.

That is why true conservatives such as myself are so excited: we finally have a presidential candidate that can win!*

*You're as concerned about a Ted Cruz Presidency as I am excited about one (and that's a good thing).

Typical conservative strategy - attempt to re-create God in your own image to legitimize your position and then distance yourself from past mistakes by denouncing the perpetrators as "faux conservatives."

Now now, don't go dissing Ronald Reagan. As Governor of CA he was responsible for abortion, homosexuality and no-fault divorce becoming fixtures in our society, i.e., he was your kind of guy jgarden.

Where are all those "true conservative birthers" who spent the last 7 years questioning Obama's citizenship - or has that now become a taboo subject now that one-of-your-own could be subject to the same criticisms?

I suppose if Ted Cruz wanted to lie about being born in Canada, he could find out from your boy Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) which birth certificate forger he used.

Make an issue out of it. Ted Cruz will ignore it as will other conservatives, as it's a non issue.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I couldn't agree more.

cc The Duke

Pick a subject, any subject.

I can't tonight. But tomorrow aCW, we will dance

 

[jgarden]

Now now, don't go dissing Ronald Reagan. As Governor of CA he was responsible for abortion, homosexuality and no-fault divorce becoming fixtures in our society, i.e., he was your kind of guy jgarden.

If "aCultureWarrior" were to read his Bible, he would be well-aware that it was not the "abortion, homosexuality and no-fault divorce becoming fixtures" in Jewish society who demanded that Jesus be crucified.

It the conservative Pharisees and religious leaders who believed in following the letter-of-the law and not-the-spirit - "aCultureWarrior's" kind of guys!

I suppose if Ted Cruz wanted to lie about being born in Canada, he could find out from your boy Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) which birth certificate forger he used.

Make an issue out of it. Ted Cruz will ignore it as will other conservatives, as it's a none issue.

Ted Cruz had no choice but to admit, after it was exposed by a Dallas newspaper, that as late as 2013 he still held dual American/Canadian citizenship.

As an experienced constitutional lawyer Cruz was either woefully inept in researching his citizenship or that he was keeping his dual citizenship under wraps in light of the "birther" campaign against Obama.

Despite many legal experts opinions to the contrary, conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Orly Taitz, one of the leading proponents of the "birther" movement during Obama's presidency, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, and Donald Trump, have stated that Cruz is not a natural born citizen and thus not eligible to run for president.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150517191833/http://www.cleveland.com/n

If the Republican presidential nomination comes down to either Cruz or Trump, you can bet that his "natural-born citizen" status will suddenly become an issue!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now now, don't go dissing Ronald Reagan. As Governor of CA he was responsible for abortion, homosexuality and no-fault divorce becoming fixtures in our society, i.e., he was your kind of guy jgarden.

If "aCultureWarrior" were to read his Bible, he would be well-aware that it was not the "abortion, homosexuality and no-fault divorce becoming fixtures" in Jewish society who demanded that Jesus be crucified.

It the conservative Pharisees and religious leaders who believed in following the letter-of-the law and not-the-spirit - "aCultureWarrior's" kind of guys!

I'm sure in your moral relativist mind your above statement has some relevance to this thread and past US Presidents that were allegedly "conservative", but I willfully admit that if there was, I missed it.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I suppose if Ted Cruz wanted to lie about being born in Canada, he could find out from your boy Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama) which birth certificate forger he used.

Make an issue out of it. Ted Cruz will ignore it as will other conservatives, as it's a non issue.

Ted Cruz had no choice but to admit, after it was exposed by a Dallas newspaper, that as late as 2013 he still held dual American/Canadian citizenship.

As an experienced constitutional lawyer Cruz was either woefully inept in researching his citizenship or that he was keeping his dual citizenship under wraps in light of the "birther" campaign against Obama...
If the Republican presidential nomination comes down to either Cruz or Trump, you can bet that his "natural-born citizen" status will suddenly become an issue!

(Isn't the Mrs. Bill Clinton crowd cute when they get excited over a non issue?)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/issue?s=t