Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 5

[Kit the Coyote]

speaking as a health-care professional, preventing disease is the most effective approach

I would agree.

 

[MrDante]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior


Black males who engage in homosexuality and some black heterosexual women who were unfortunate enough to have had sex with black males who were on the "down low" at the time.

So 19 million black women were unfortunate enough to have sex with the tiny handful of black men on the "down low"?
Without a doubt, one of the dumbest things you've ever posted :first:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're a true sexual anarchist, equal protection under the law would endorse polygamy, incestuous relationships/marriage, bestiality and other immoral acts/morally depraved acts.

Wait, you're surely not going to say that the sexually depraved act that you defend is better than those?

First off same-sex marriage was and is on a different footing as far as equal treatment under the law because it was subjected to an inequality.

I' was also talking about the legality of incestuous and bestial relationships as well as marriage. If you are a true sexual anarchist (equal rights for all behaviors), you would approve of those behaviors being legal as well.

That is there were equally situated relationships that were being allowed to marry under the law while being denied to same-sex couples. The other potential marriages you bring up do not have that same inequality, they are denied to all citizens equally.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "equally situated relationship", but the requirement for marriage was one man and one woman.

Given the functions (multiple) that marriage serves in society, all these others do have problems with them that make them less desirable than a monogamous adult marriage.

So an incestuous marriage would be fine as long as monogamous adults are involved?

Poly-marriage has stability issues that are more likely in that multi-polar relationship than in bi-polar relationships. There is also the tendency toward unequal treatment of one of the genders. This happens in traditional marriages too but it is a more obvious problem in poly marriages. Now if a family can make it work, I would say more power to them and they certainly have the Bible on their side if they want to make the case and can convince society. But the issues above and the complication of inheritance issues instead of simplifying them works against several of the primary reasons for marriage.

Then multiple partners, in or out of marriage is ok, as long as the parties involved "can make it work"?

Incest-marriage has similar problems particularly if it is generational. We have learned enough about the genetics that the issue of genetic problems are not as accurate as we once thought as long as you limit it to one generation.

You're of the mindset that fertility would have to play a role in incestuous relationships/marriages. Not so with a brother-brother, father-son, post menopausal mother-son, sister-sister, etc. etc. relationship.

Besides, if there is a "genetic problem" abortion on demand is there to fix it.

Beastiality suffers from the same primary issue as child marriage, if all parties involved are not consenting human adults then it is not marriage but rape even if you want to argue a willing subject.

Lower/abolish age of sexual consent laws and the child issue is solved. Regarding bestiality: Since when does an animal have to give consent? While PETA (who recently freed those poor animal crackers who have been caged for decades: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/...sign-after-peta-expresses-concerns/ar-BBMgyRU ) might think that animals have some sort of right to consent, I've never seen any disclaimer on the package of steaks that I bought stating:

"The cow that you are about to eat gave consent to be killed and butchered"

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Buggery is just as prevalent today as it was back then. The only difference now is that thanks to the millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to study HIV/AIDS, those living with it can now manage it better than before.

Yes treating the disease is usually a more effective approach.

Yet you just agreed with Dr. Ok doser that prevention is the key. Abstaining from homosexuality is a 100% proven preventative measure from contracting HIV/AIDS and all of the STD's that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
A secular government that enforced Judeo-Christian based laws?

And Mesopotamian laws, pre-Christian Greek laws, pre-Christian Roman laws, pre-Christian British law, etc. Even some Native American laws. There are commonalities in most legal systems, such as murder being against the law. If it is based on Judeo-Christian laws, why is there no mention of it in the foundational document of our legal system and why are only four of the ten commandments have equivalents in our system?

See my comment below.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's move any discussion on the Founding Fathers to this thread.

Not discussing the Founding Fathers, we are discussing the US Constitution and legal system.

A quick history lesson Kit: The Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution. I'll be moving this discussion to the above thread shortly, as I have many comments and questions to ask your secular humanist movement.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One would think as much as I expose pedophilia and pederasty amongst the LGBTQ movement, that a proud and unrepentant member of that movement would want to rush forward and set the record straight.

Oh well, I guess the evidence still stands unopposed.

I know a fairly active political forum like this one on a gay porn site if you really want to go and discuss it with them.

I bet that do Kit, I bet that you do. That being said: A political forum on a homosexual pornography site? I guess your "community" talks politics in an environment where they feel at home, ey?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When you say "contraceptives" you're talking about abortion pills like Mifepristone (RU-486) and Misoprostol (or Cytotec) aren't you?

No, I mean contraceptives, if I meant RU-486 I would have said abortion drugs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/

Exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I' was also talking about the legality of incestuous and bestial relationships as well as marriage. If you are a true sexual anarchist (equal rights for all behaviors), you would approve of those behaviors being legal as well.

I never claimed to be a "sexual anarchist". Equal treatment under the law is not equal rights for all behaviors.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "equally situated relationship", but the requirement for marriage was one man and one woman.

When the courts talk about being equally situated, they are saying that the point of contention in the legal argument is the only difference between the groups in question who are being treated differently. In a comparison of one man and one woman marriages and same-sex couple marriages and how they are treated under the law the only notable difference is the genders of the couples. In everything else, they are similarly situated yet one group was allowed to marry and the other was not. That is the basis of an inequality under the law argument.

So an incestuous marriage would be fine as long as monogamous adults are involved?

No. I addressed the other issues involved already.

Then multiple partners, in or out of marriage is ok, as long as the parties involved "can make it work"?

No, I addressed the other issues involved already. Now poly marriage does have the advantage that if you could "make it work" and address all the other social/legal issues, a case could be made for it but I personally don't think the issues can be resolved adequately.

You're of the mindset that fertility would have to play a role in incestuous relationships/marriages. Not so with a brother-brother, father-son, post menopausal mother-son, sister-sister, etc. etc. relationship.

Besides, if there is a "genetic problem" abortion on demand is there to fix it.

Again no. You should practice more reading for comprehension. Fertility is not a requirement in marriage but health issues concerning potential children are considered an issue in incestuous relationships that involve children.

Lower/abolish age of sexual consent laws and the child issue is solved.

Society has set the current age of consent laws and seems quite satisfied with them, they have only gone up in recent history. I have no problem with them as they are, I think they are about right. If you really feel that they are too high, do feel free to join NAMBLA and advocate to change them. I rather doubt you will have any success, the only success NAMBLA has had is being the punchline in jokes. You must be the sexual anarchist here if you think that is a viable solution.

Regarding bestiality: Since when does an animal have to give consent?

Never and there is no legal framework for them to do so in current law. Which is why pro-bestiality marriage arguments are moot points.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Yet you just agreed with Dr. Ok doser that prevention is the key. Abstaining from homosexuality is a 100% proven preventative measure from contracting HIV/AIDS and all of the STD's that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality.

So is abstaining from all sex for everyone but I doubt you will find that solution will work very well. I am all for encouraging in couples to practice prevention but not so foolish to think that abstinence alone will work.

I bet that do Kit, I bet that you do. That being said: A political forum on a homosexual pornography site? I guess your "community" talks politics in an environment where they feel at home, ey?

Yes, they do, rather like Christians feeling more comfortable on a theology site's politics board. In fact, it uses the same software and is pretty much similar to here except the overall group is more liberal-leaning and the moderators are less picky about language. The Second Amendment discussions get quite heated.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I' was also talking about the legality of incestuous and bestial relationships as well as marriage. If you are a true sexual anarchist (equal rights for all behaviors), you would approve of those behaviors being legal as well.

I never claimed to be a "sexual anarchist".

It's a term used to describe those who promote sexual perversion. You fit the bill.

Equal treatment under the law is not equal rights for all behaviors.

Yet those other behaviors that were mentioned (incest and bestiality) are not as physically harmful as homosexuality.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "equally situated relationship", but the requirement for marriage was one man and one woman.

When the courts talk about being equally situated, they are saying that the point of contention in the legal argument is the only difference between the groups in question who are being treated differently. In a comparison of one man and one woman marriages and same-sex couple marriages and how they are treated under the law the only notable difference is the genders of the couples. In everything else, they are similarly situated yet one group was allowed to marry and the other was not. That is the basis of an inequality under the law argument.

Yes, throughout the history of western civilization those who engage in sexual perversion had been "treated differently". And then they became organized and took control of things such as government.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So an incestuous marriage would be fine as long as monogamous adults are involved?

No...

Incestophobic bigot

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Then multiple partners, in or out of marriage is ok, as long as the parties involved "can make it work"?

No...

Polyamorophobic bigot

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You're of the mindset that fertility would have to play a role in incestuous relationships/marriages. Not so with a brother-brother, father-son, post menopausal mother-son, sister-sister, etc. etc. relationship.

Besides, if there is a "genetic problem" abortion on demand is there to fix it.

Again no. You should practice more reading for comprehension. Fertility is not a requirement in marriage but health issues concerning potential children are considered an issue in incestuous relationships that involve children.

Oh, so "health issues" should be a concern of society now. Back to CDC reports on homosexuality...


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Lower/abolish age of sexual consent laws and the child issue is solved.

Society has set the current age of consent laws and seems quite satisfied with them, they have only gone up in recent history.
I have no problem with them as they are, I think they are about right...

Which has nothing to do with your consent argument.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding bestiality: Since when does an animal have to give consent?

Never and there is no legal framework for them to do so in current law. Which is why pro-bestiality marriage arguments are moot points.

Thanks for confirming that lack of consent isn't an issue with the legalization of man-animal sex nor "man-boy love".

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet you just agreed with Dr. Ok doser that prevention is the key. Abstaining from homosexuality is a 100% proven preventative measure from contracting HIV/AIDS and all of the STD's that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality.

So is abstaining from all sex for everyone but I doubt you will find that solution will work very well. I am all for encouraging in couples to practice prevention but not so foolish to think that abstinence alone will work.

The Biblical approach is disease free: Sex outside of marriage is immoral. One man, one woman, united in matrimony. Stick to God's Plan and people will never have to buy drugs to fight off STD's again.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I bet that do Kit, I bet that you do. That being said: A political forum on a homosexual pornography site? I guess your "community" talks politics in an environment where they feel at home, ey?

Yes, they do, rather like Christians feeling more comfortable on a theology site's politics board. In fact, it uses the same software and is pretty much similar to here except the overall group is more liberal-leaning and the moderators are less picky about language. The Second Amendment discussions get quite heated.

I pointed out in an earlier WHMBR! thread that pornography is a huge part of homosexual 'culture'. It's huge in movies, plays and magazines. Thanks for confirming what I said.

Oh and Kit, quit playing the monogamy card, monogamy and pornography don't go hand in hand.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Yes, throughout the history of western civilization those who engage in sexual perversion had been "treated differently". And then they became organized and took control of things such as government.

The right for a group to associate, organize and petition the government for change is one of the greatest strengths of the US system.

Incestophobic bigot
Polyamorophobic bigot

Cute but all I am doing is pointing out that these groups have legal and social issues that need to be addressed if society is to allow such marriages. They have just as much right to organize and try to convince society as any other group.

Oh, so "health issues" should be a concern of society now. Back to CDC reports on homosexuality...

Yes, and I also pointed out that those health issues are not really a major hindrance to those marriages. You will also notice that I do not claim there are no major health issues with certain sexual lifestyles, which I will even agree is practiced by a significant number of homosexuals. I simply do not agree that your approach to that problem is the best answer particularly when not every homosexual is living those lifestyles.

Since a major preventative measure in those cases is encouraging committed monogamous relationships, one of the functions marriage serves in society, you should be all for same-sex marriage. But then you seem to be defending poly marriage so I guess you don't think marriage is about monogamy.

Which has nothing to do with your consent argument.

Age of consent has everything to do with my consent argument, you are the one suggesting that lowering the age of consent is a solution.

Thanks for confirming that lack of consent isn't an issue with the legalization of man-animal sex nor "man-boy love".

Thanks for confirming you have reading comprehension problems. Consent is the major issue in both cases and renders any argument promoting them moot.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

The Biblical approach is disease free: Sex outside of marriage is immoral. One man, one woman, united in matrimony. Stick to God's Plan and people will never have to buy drugs to fight off STD's again.

Now just demonstrate anywhere in history that has actually worked. To my knowledge, there is no recorded major society that did not have homosexuals or STD's.

I pointed out in an earlier WHMBR! thread that pornography is a huge part of homosexual 'culture'. It's huge in movies, plays and magazines. Thanks for confirming what I said.

It is a major part of the heterosexual culture as well. I don't think you will find a major culture in history that didn't have it either.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, throughout the history of western civilization those who engage in sexual perversion had been "treated differently". And then they became organized and took control of things such as government.

The right for a group to associate, organize and petition the government for change is one of the greatest strengths of the US system.

Then that supposed "right" should be given to other groups that embrace sexual deviancy and sexual perversion (Incest and Bestiality "groups").


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Incestophobic bigot
Polyamorophobic bigot

Cute but all I am doing is pointing out that these groups have legal and social issues that need to be addressed if society is to allow such marriages. They have just as much right to organize and try to convince society as any other group.

Are you catching on yet why I call people like you "sexual anarchists"?


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Oh, so "health issues" should be a concern of society now. Back to CDC reports on homosexuality...

Yes, and I also pointed out that those health issues are not really a major hindrance to those marriages.

So putting a ring on a finger of two sexual degenerates somehow dismisses the health hazards of homosexual behavior?

You will also notice that I do not claim there are no major health issues with certain sexual lifestyles, which I will even agree is practiced by a significant number of homosexuals. I simply do not agree that your approach to that problem is the best answer particularly when not every homosexual is living those lifestyles.

If there were significant health risks amongst those that engage in incest or bestiality, one would think that the CDC would put them center stage like they have homosexuality.

Since a major preventative measure in those cases is encouraging committed monogamous relationships, one of the functions marriage serves in society, you should be all for same-sex marriage. But then you seem to be defending poly marriage so I guess you don't think marriage is about monogamy.

Two points (one of them being repeated from above) : Fake wedding rings on the fingers of those who engage in homosexuality is not a cure-all. Buggery is buggery and the diseases that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality pertain to those who mock God's institution of marriage as well. If I'm wrong, supply a CDC report refuting that.

#2. As shown, the LGBTQ so-called "community" is big into pornography and hence promiscuity. Quit pretending that they're not.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Which has nothing to do with your consent argument.

Age of consent has everything to do with my consent argument, you are the one suggesting that lowering the age of consent is a solution.

The "solution" was shown how to get around your "but but but, children and animals can't give consent!" attempt at an argument.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The Biblical approach is disease free: Sex outside of marriage is immoral. One man, one woman, united in matrimony. Stick to God's Plan and people will never have to buy drugs to fight off STD's again.

Now just demonstrate anywhere in history that has actually worked. To my knowledge, there is no recorded major society that did not have homosexuals or STD's.

I'll guarantee you that STD's didn't run rampant as they are today when cultural more's and laws endorsed marriage (and when I say marriage, I'm not talking about faux homosexual so-called marriage).


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I pointed out in an earlier WHMBR! thread that pornography is a huge part of homosexual 'culture'. It's huge in movies, plays and magazines. Thanks for confirming what I said.

It is a major part of the heterosexual culture as well. I don't think you will find a major culture in history that didn't have it either.

Yes, sexual anarchists/LGBT allies Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner really did a number on society didn't they?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Then that supposed "right" should be given to other groups that embrace sexual deviancy and sexual perversion (Incest and Bestiality "groups").

They already have it, of course, having the right to organize and express your message and having society accept it is two different things. I would direct you to your favorite group and their success at changing the age of consent laws.

So putting a ring on a finger of two sexual degenerates somehow dismisses the health hazards of homosexual behavior?

Not entirely but if it is a committed monogamous relationship it will go a long way towards reducing and eliminating a lot of them. It is one of the reasons marriage exists in society.

If there were significant health risks amongst those that engage in incest or bestiality, one would think that the CDC would put them center stage like they have homosexuality.

It is a matter of the size of the problem, there a much larger group affected by unsafe, multi-partner sexual practices. It is more important to reach that group.

Two points (one of them being repeated from above) : Fake wedding rings on the fingers of those who engage in homosexuality is not a cure-all. Buggery is buggery and the diseases that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality pertain to those who mock God's institution of marriage as well. If I'm wrong, supply a CDC report refuting that.

Never implied it was a cure-all but it is a big step in the right direction. A couple that is STD-free that enters into a committed, monogamous marriage will remain STD-free. A couple that has an STD that enters into a committed, monogamous marriage contains the disease inside that couple and does not spread if further. That is basic biology. This too is one of the functions marriage serves in society.

#2. As shown, the LGBTQ so-called "community" is big into pornography and hence promiscuity. Quit pretending that they're not.

I never said it wasn't, I just don't pretend that it is a uniquely LGBT issue. Pornography has gone hand in hand with every social media advancement throughout history. It is rumored that Gutenberg's notes indicated that his shop made more money from the erotic pamphlets sold out the back door than it made from the bibles sold out the front. LGBT pornography is a fraction of a very huge market. And most of it is in not so plain sight, one of my first introductions to really steamy erotism was when I picked up and glanced through one of the 'romance novels' my grandmother collected.

The "solution" was shown how to get around your "but but but, children and animals can't give consent!" attempt at an argument.

Yet it is a solution that only you and your favorite group is advocating and shows little sign of being a viable one. Odd how you were jokingly begging me to bring up a slippery slope argument.

 

[MrDante]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're a true sexual anarchist, equal protection under the law would endorse polygamy, incestuous relationships/marriage, bestiality and other immoral acts/morally depraved acts.

Wait, you're surely not going to say that the sexually depraved act that you defend is better than those?Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're a true sexual anarchist, equal protection under the law would endorse polygamy, incestuous relationships/marriage, bestiality and other immoral acts/morally depraved acts.

Wait, you're surely not going to say that the sexually depraved act that you defend is better than those?

I' was also talking about the legality of incestuous and bestial relationships as well as marriage. If you are a true sexual anarchist (equal rights for all behaviors), you would approve of those behaviors being legal as well.

Kit isn't a "sexual anarchist'. Sexual anarchist is just another label you falsely apply to people as a means of creating a straw man. Try actually responding to what people post rather than fabricating even more lies. (like that would ever happen.)

 

[MrDante]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Buggery is just as prevalent today as it was back then. The only difference now is that thanks to the millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to study HIV/AIDS, those living with it can now manage it better than before.



Yet you just agreed with Dr. Ok doser that prevention is the key. Abstaining from homosexuality is a 100% proven preventative measure from contracting HIV/AIDS and all of the STD's that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality.

just like abstaining from heterosexuality is a 100% proven preventative measure from contracting HIV/AIDS and all of the STD's that run rampant among those who engage in homosexuality.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One would think as much as I expose pedophilia and pederasty amongst the LGBTQ movement, that a proud and unrepentant member of that movement would want to rush forward and set the record straight.

Oh well, I guess the evidence still stands unopposed.

Been there done that. You just keep telling the same lies over and over again.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I'll guarantee you that STD's didn't run rampant as they are today when cultural more's and laws endorsed marriage (and when I say marriage, I'm not talking about faux homosexual so-called marriage).

I would agree that the breakdown of marriage in modern society is a major factor in the increase of STDs. However, I would lay that more at the feet of heterosexuals who were devaluing and undermining the importance of marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue.

The anti-LGBT folks are even helping that process along with their trying to narrow what marriage is about to just procreation.

 

[MrDante]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I' was also talking about the legality of incestuous and bestial relationships as well as marriage. If you are a true sexual anarchist (equal rights for all behaviors), you would approve of those behaviors being legal as well.



It's a term used to describe those who promote sexual perversion. You fit the bill.

first you lie about Kit being a 'sexual anarchist' then you lie about what a sexual anarchist is. And you top it off by lying about Kit's actual position.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

first you lie about Kit being a 'sexual anarchist' then you lie about what a sexual anarchist is. And you top it off by lying about Kit's actual position.

Noticed that did you? I had just decided to ignore it. The more he does stuff like that, the more he undermines his credibility to other readers of this thread.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Then that supposed "right" should be given to other groups that embrace sexual deviancy and sexual perversion (Incest and Bestiality "groups").

They already have it, of course, having the right to organize and express your message and having society accept it is two different things.

I was reading recently that in the aftermath of the unconstitutional Lawrence v Texas ruling, legal challenges were made against laws prohibiting incest and bestiality. Remember that the basis for Lawrence v Texas was the (supposed) right to privacy and equal protection under the law. It's just a matter of time before your fellow sexual anarchists who support and engage in bestiality and incest can proudly march in your pride parades.

I would direct you to your favorite group and their success at changing the age of consent laws.

Many laws are on the legislative books that aren't enforced when it comes to what group might be effected by it's enforcement (CDOM: Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor comes to mind when talking about the topic of homosexual indoctrination).

Children have been sexualized by your LGBTQ movement and it's allies, in fact the terms "gay youth" and "transgender youth" are not even questioned in this day and age of moral relativism. Parental rights are being swept away at an alarming rate. Society doesn't really care if youth engage in sex. Why would they care if a 14 year old boy had sex with 60+ year old HRC founder Terry Bean?

Remember that your rainbow flag waving APA made an attempt to remove pedophilia from it's list of mental disorders a few years ago*

*If the child rapist felt bad about raping a child the next morning and it caused him to miss work, then that's a concern for the rainbow flag flying APA and the individual obviously has mental health issues.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So putting a ring on a finger of two sexual degenerates somehow dismisses the health hazards of homosexual behavior?

Not entirely but if it is a committed monogamous relationship it will go a long way towards reducing and eliminating a lot of them. It is one of the reasons marriage exists in society.

Buggery is buggery. Homosexual acts are inherently a health risk. If you had some information showing that those homosexuals who mock God's institution of marriage are healthier and at less risk, then you would have presented it long ago.


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If there were significant health risks amongst those that engage in incest or bestiality, one would think that the CDC would put them center stage like they have homosexuality.

It is a matter of the size of the problem, there a much larger group affected by unsafe, multi-partner sexual practices. It is more important to reach that group.

That group being homosexuals.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Two points (one of them being repeated from above) : Fake wedding rings on the fingers of those who engage in homosexuality is not a cure-all. Buggery is buggery and the diseases that run rampant amongst those who engage in homosexuality pertain to those who mock God's institution of marriage as well. If I'm wrong, supply a CDC report refuting that.

Never implied it was a cure-all but it is a big step in the right direction. A couple that is STD-free that enters into a committed, monogamous marriage will remain STD-free.

Again, the CDC doesn't report that.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html

A couple that has an STD that enters into a committed, monogamous marriage contains the disease inside that couple and does not spread if further. That is basic biology. This too is one of the functions marriage serves in society.

How thoughtful. "Let's keep our deadly incurable diseases to ourselves shall we Bruce?"


Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
#2. As shown, the LGBTQ so-called "community" is big into pornography and hence promiscuity. Quit pretending that they're not.

I never said it wasn't, I just don't pretend that it is a uniquely LGBT issue. Pornography has gone hand in hand with every social media advancement throughout history. It is rumored that Gutenberg's notes indicated that his shop made more money from the erotic pamphlets sold out the back door than it made from the bibles sold out the front. LGBT pornography is a fraction of a very huge market. And most of it is in not so plain sight, one of my first introductions to really steamy erotism was when I picked up and glanced through one of the 'romance novels' my grandmother collected.

Child porn is big in the LGBT movement as well other kinds of pornography. I'll review some of the cases where "respected" homosexuals were caught with child pornography or sold pictures of their adopted child (in some cases toddlers) to their fellow child molesters over the internet.

San Francisco’s Gay Icon Larry Brinkin Guilty of Felony Child Porn Possession

January 28, 2014

WARNING: Some of the language in this story is graphic and disturbing.

(CNSNews.com) – Larry Brinkin, who worked at the Human Rights Commission for the City of San Francisco for 22 years and was a prominent homosexual rights activist for more than 40 years, pleaded guilty to felony child pornography possession last week.

Brinkin is expected to serve six months in jail, five years of probation, and register as a sex offender for the rest of his life when he is sentenced on Mar. 5. But he likely will get to keep his city pension because possessing and viewing child porn apparently is not considered a crime of “moral turpitude” under San Francisco’s retirement/pension rules.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-3&p=3922821&viewfull=1#post3922821

What is it about the HRC and child molesters Kit?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The "solution" was shown how to get around your "but but but, children and animals can't give consent!" attempt at an argument.

Yet it is a solution that only you and your favorite group is advocating and shows little sign of being a viable one. Odd how you were jokingly begging me to bring up a slippery slope argument.

How soon you forget that it was on the original 'gay' agenda.

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/chapters/Chapter-13.pdf

Again, we as a morally depraved society are at the point of not caring about youth and who they sleep with. Your icons supported it, don't pretend that you don't.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'll guarantee you that STD's didn't run rampant as they are today when cultural more's and laws endorsed marriage (and when I say marriage, I'm not talking about faux homosexual so-called marriage).

I would agree that the breakdown of marriage in modern society is a major factor in the increase of STDs. However, I would lay that more at the feet of heterosexuals who were devaluing and undermining the importance of marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue.

You're talking about the sexual revolution where fornication, adultery and shacking up together were legitimized. Homosexual pedophile Alfred Kinsey and the soon to be modern day 'gay' rights movement played an important role in that (they had to set the stage for the eventual legalization and cultural acceptance of homosexuality).
In any event, we're talking about your LGBTQ movement and it's allies.