Another homo marriage activist found to be a pedo

[Tambora]

I'm wondering if we can agree on this much: people like Anna never condemn homosexual child rape AS SIN because they think homosexuality itself is not sin. Hear me out on this.

To them, homosexuality is an alternate but perfectly normal expression of human love and sexuality (just as the Sodomites that Lot dealt with believed), and so are deeply offended whenever we point out God calls it sin.

But Anna and company paint themselves into corners with the many cases of "chicken hawks" who insist that desiring and pursuing sex with boys is a true expression of their "love," just as it was said to be back in ancient Greece. NAMBLA used to be included as part of the larger homosexual movement for a very good reason: many homosexuals to this day consider "boy love" a proud tradition with a long history, as if that proves it's okay. Well, they're right about the long tradition part. Thousands of years worth of tradition. In their minds, history is on THEIR side and that makes raping boys okay.

So in cases like this one, that's exactly the point where Anna et al always start irrelevant distractions by (a) bringing up hetero child rapists (b) trying to reframe the discussion in terms of mere illegality, of mental illness, of poor choices. . .but never in terms of SIN. They do either or both every single time.

Failing those, that's where the last ditch of "Judge not" is invoked, which is hilarious...quoting one part of the Bible to refute another part of the Bible.

What they're doing is obvious: suppressing the truth in unrighteousness avoiding the one point they want to avoid most of all -- that homosexuality is sin and will be judged by God.

Nick nailed it long ago. They're sodomy-approving, sin-loving perverts who evidently believe God is a liar and do not really believe His Word, whatever claims to Christianity they may have (or had, in Anna's case).



That's for sure. Pandora's box never closes itself.

I talk to Anna in other places besides the open forum.
I have never gotten the impression that Anna thinks child molestation is anything other than disgusting and wrong.
So if you use this thread to dog Anna, I'm not going there because I do not think you are describing her accurately.

But I will certainly discuss how the attitudes towards perversion are becoming increasingly acceptable, or at the very least, tolerated.
And I will discuss all the smoke and mirrors they use to in an attempt to accept them just the way they are.

I was born that way.
I can't help it, it's natural for me.
Love wins.
etc.​

The ones that outright kidnap and rape children by force are the last that will be accepted.
It's the ones that woo children and caress them lovingly and tenderly to stimulate an arousal.
It's hard to talk about these things here because it's so taboo, but children do get stimulated and like it (ie. it feels good).
Children learn to stimulate themselves at young ages.
So when an adult comes along and treats them lovingly and tenderly and makes them feel good, it makes it difficult for them to figure out something is wrong about it.
While there may be some heavy coaxing, there is no "forcing".
They think it's love, and in a sick way it is.
These type of predators really do have a deep emotional love for the child, and any sexual stimulation is an extension of that love.
The only difference is "age".

It is these type of perverts that I see already gaining sympathy with all kinds of excuses.
And they even incorporate the mantra that was used of the gay marriage agenda ------ Love Wins.
If it makes them feel good and loved, what's the harm?
A day I thought I would never see.

It's a difficult subject to get very detailed about on this site due to the nature of what is being done being too graphic.
But that's just the parameters of this site.
The info is out there.

Anna et al always start irrelevant distractions by (a) bringing up hetero child rapists (b) trying to reframe the discussion in terms of mere illegality, of mental illness, of poor choices. . .but never in terms of SIN.

That might be true.
Others here do the same on other subjects.

Women rape victims ------ How come you don't care about men being raped by women.
Catholic priests molesters ------ How come you don't care about protestant church members molesting.
Gun control reduces homicides ----- How come you don't care about guns that saved people.
Muslims killing folks ---- How come you don't care about Christians killing folks.
​

There's always some counterpoint being made that distracts from the actual subject.
So Anna certainly wouldn't be the only one doing this.
But still, Anna has never said child molestation is OK for any reason.

When it comes to this thread, I believe it either needs to be about child molestation or homosexuality.
Because one is going to distract from the other.
Child molestation is not reserved for homos.


Musty, I'm glad you brought up the subject of child molestation and think it should be discussed to inform folks of the agendas going on with it.
It's a squeamish subject, but we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand because it makes us uncomfortable.
But if you want to get technical, the fact that you are dragging Anna's faith into this is also a distraction from the atrocity of child molestation in the OP.
So which do you want to dwell on, because one will distract from the other.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tambora]

No one really cares what you think is perverse, anymore.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

 

[PureX]

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

My point exactly.

When some religious bigot refuses to sell a cake to someone, unjustly, because he/she doesn't like homosexuals marrying, no one cares about their opinion on homosexuality, anymore. What they care about is the unfair discrimination against a fellow citizen, because they know it could be themselves, the next time. And because they do care about freedom, justice, and equality for all, … even for gays.

I realize this was not always the case, and that people were once accepting of such mean-spirited and unfair discriminatory practices. But ever since we saw those black folks being beaten bloody on TV for no other reason than that they were black, the American people no longer just blindly accepts that kind of unfair abuse and discrimination. Even of homosexuals. And so they are no longer willing to approve of it and tolerate it from religious bigots and zealots, as you seem to think they should.

I'm glad people no longer care about your or my opinion on homosexuality. So long as they still care about equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for everyone, under the law. After that, as long as we obey the law, I can have and hold any opinion I want to, and so can you. And we can both live by them, equally, so long as we don't try to enforce them on the other.

 

[Lon]

What a crock, Lon. My wife will be very surprised to hear that I am Gay. As for the Biblical passages: do some study.

Ah, gossip and lies. Where did I say you were gay???? Show me. Anna believed you so you've sinned against me because she read you saying that. I said, rather, that your ideas on sex are impure. You completely have a carnal mind regarding it or you'd never have said homosexuals preoccupation and acts are not a sin. Worse? You've reported people in the past for calling you this BUT you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality.

Part of you is lying to the other part of what you know to be right and what you know to be wrong.

"The body is for the Lord, Not sexual impurity!!" You read your bible.

 

[Tambora]

I realize this was not always the case, and that people were once accepting of such mean-spirited and unfair discriminatory practices.

Awww, another distraction from the focus of child molestation.
Let's roll!

Mean spirited and unfair??????
Why is it anymore unfair or mean spirited to refuse to be forced into baking a love cake for an adult and child?
Everybody should be able to force a bakery to make a cake the way they want it, right?
Why squabble over what the content of the cake is?
It's just a cake, right?
Who cares if you are totally uncomfortable with the content?
Just make the cake as you are told to, or be labeled with propaganda of being unfair and mean spirited bigot.

 

[Lon]

I've brought up the heterosexual Republican Trump delegate that got caught with child porn several times but nobody seems to care or want to talk about that guy.

Er, because that's NOT a heterosexual. A married man going after a boy is not a heterosexual. Just because it is a child doesn't make it "not homosexual." This isn't helping you because we are against ALL sexual sin. All of it. None of it is okay. None of it. He should go to jail. It doesn't matter if he is a republican, a Catholic, a Protestant, an Evangelical, or an Atheist. If he chose male children, he is yet a homosexual. There is no such thing as a same sex heterosexual. That animal doesn't exist. It is a media white-wash. Why? Seems obvious, doesn't it? Cruciform told TOL that all their homosexual priests were to blame for the atrocities. See, they 'thought' like the rest of the world, that they could 'trust' them to control themselves. MAYBE some of them can be trusted. That scenario is yet to be seen and we are playing Russian roulette by allowing children into gay homes. We've no data on that and imho, it is reprehensible to do a 'wait and see' experiment. We sell baby parts in America, so it is no wonder our morals are this low in other endeavors too. We really are brain-dead stupid to allow harmful and mortal things to go on. We certainly are moral-less for it, wicked 'animals' that we are. I believe we are created on a higher order than that. We are spiritual beings. Some things are wrong because we aren't, in fact, merely animals.

 

[annabenedetti]

Ah, gossip and lies. Where did I say you were gay???? Show me. Anna believed you so you've sinned against me because she read you saying that. I said, rather, that your ideas on sex are impure. You completely have a carnal mind regarding it or you'd never have said homosexuals preoccupation and acts are not a sin. Worse? You've reported people in the past for calling you this BUT you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality.

Part of you is lying to the other part of what you know to be right and what you know to be wrong.

"The body is for the Lord, Not sexual impurity!!" You read your bible.

I most certainly did NOT read him as saying that he was gay.

I told you that you said to him that you weren't judging him and yet in the same post you were doing just that, and the idea that you'd presume to tell him his sexual life was impure was staggering to me. That may not be word for word what I said but it's close. Feel free to post my rep comment here.

You read into my comment something that I didn't say, in fact, hadn't thought.

 

[shagster01]

Er, because that's NOT a heterosexual. A married man going after a boy is not a heterosexual. Just because it is a child doesn't make it "not homosexual."

Where did you hear he went after a boy?

All I read was that he had child porn in his possession.

 

[Lon]

I most certainly did NOT read him as saying that he was gay.
You read into my comment something that I didn't say, in fact, hadn't thought.

Thanks for clarifying. That really bothered me.

I told you that you said to him that you weren't judging him and yet in the same post you were doing just that, and the idea that you'd presume to tell him his sexual life was impure was staggering to me. That may not be word for word what I said but it's close. Feel free to post my rep comment here.

Two points:
1) I said I wasn't judging them, nothing about what I was saying to Ray. A judgment is as if I had anything to pass in the way of judgment. God alone is judge. 2) I'd suggest it is rather an evaluation than a judgment. I'm trying to get him to realize his mind is on carnal things when he says nothing is wrong with homosexuality. There is something wrong in his head for not allowing God to call sin: sin. ALL sexual sin is wrong. All of it. To single out homosexuality among other sexual desires of the flesh is just as bad such as: "Infidelity is bad, but homosexuality is not a sin." It is clearly, scripturally untrue and unfairly biased with only the carnality considered. We are not animals.
"Sex" is not who I am. All Christians see man not as flesh and blood, these are but dwellings for our souls. Both this whole political arena and science are pushing men and women to think of themselves as only 'physical.' Darwinism, if embraced by society in this manner, will have humans denying they are spiritual (because they won't perceive it), and only focusing on one another as flesh. Our society is already headed that direction and has been since the turn of last century and it is getting worse. Men without God 'de-evolve' not 'evolve.'

A Christian who is homosexual, or a fornicator (or etc.) would take Paul's words to remain single to heart and thus would be a-sexual rather. 1 Corinthians 6:13

 

[Lon]

Where did you hear he went after a boy?

All I read was that he had child porn in his possession.

I believe I read it but would have to check sources. I might have crossed this up with the guy from Glee or another yet in the news for the same thing. Sad stuff really

 

[annabenedetti]

Thanks for clarifying. That really bothered me.

I wish I hadn't had to clarify, Lon. I wish you would have taken what I said at face value the first time around - you took what I said and made it into something entirely new - and then went on to say that he'd sinned against you with "gossip and lies."

Two points:
1) I said I wasn't judging them, nothing about what I was saying to Ray.

That's not how it came across:

:nono: I'm not judging. Try and find that little nugget.

2) I'd suggest it is rather an evaluation than a judgment.

I would suggest that's purely convenient semantics.

You said:

I can only think your own sexual life is impure.

How about not thinking about what's no one's business but his?

 

[PureX]

Mean spirited and unfair??????
Why is it anymore unfair or mean spirited to refuse to be forced into baking a love cake for an adult and child?

No one is forcing the baker to do anything. The baker chose to be a baker, and chose to sell his cakes to the public. He is simply being required to do that without prejudice. As such discriminatory practices are no longer tolerated under the law.

Everybody should be able to force a bakery to make a cake the way they want it, right?

No one is forcing the bakery to do anything. The bakery was built and opened to the public as a commercial business by the investor's own choice. And so now they are expected to conduct that business fairly. You can keep repeating the word "force" until the cows come home but no one is forcing anyone to bake or sell anything to anyone else.

Why squabble over what the content of the cake is?
It's just a cake, right?

No one is squabbling over the content of the cake. The "squabble" is over the prejudicial practice of refusing to sell them to some people, unfairly.

Who cares if you are totally uncomfortable with the content?

No one is uncomfortable with the content of the cake.

Just make the cake as you are told to, or be labeled with propaganda of being unfair and mean spirited bigot.

Customers order customized cakes from bakers all the time. There is no "force" involved. There is only the legal expectation of fair commerce. If the baker can't perform the service, fairly, he should not be engaged in public commerce. He should become a private vendor.

 

[patrick jane]

Where did you hear he went after a boy?

All I read was that he had child porn in his possession.

What's the deal with all the child porn and how are people stupid enough to possess it ?

 

[intojoy]

What a crock, Lon. My wife will be very surprised to hear that I am Gay. As for the Biblical passages: do some study.

You should have come out long ago brother, good looking out.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

What's the deal with all the child porn and how are people stupid enough to possess it ?

Yea. I'm waiting for you to tell me why you have it


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[patrick jane]

Yea. I'm waiting for you to tell me why you have it


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

It was an accident !! I thought it was a harmless instructional video

 

[Lon]

I wish I hadn't had to clarify, Lon. I wish you would have taken what I said at face value the first time around - you took what I said and made it into something entirely new - and then went on to say that he'd sinned against you with "gossip and lies."

Doesn't matter. I'd still have said that because it was wrong, incorrect, and exactly this hurtful. I'm glad that wasn't the part that offended. The offense then is a moved ball for both of our concerns, but there all the same.

That's not how it came across

Clarifiers were needed and on your part too. Own some of this, you jumped in after all.

How about not thinking about what's no one's business but his?

Because it is important to address. Any support for sexuality without God's intention and created purpose, is wrong. All of it. It is a perversion specifically because it cares not for God nor what the body is made for. 1 Corinthians 6:13 As such, you may not like it, but I will explain exactly what the problem is here: He is caught in the flesh and caught evaluating after the flesh. Romans 13:14 I'm not making up scripture, I'm explaining scripture. This website is interested in the spiritual. Where is your, my, their mind? Galatians 5:16

 

[annabenedetti]

Doesn't matter. I'd still have said that because it was wrong, incorrect, and exactly this hurtful. I'm glad that wasn't the part that offended. The offense then is a moved ball for both of our concerns, but there all the same.

I have no idea what you're talking about now. Let's focus on the fact that you posted that I said something I never said.

Clarifiers were needed and on your part too. Own some of this, you jumped in after all.

Uh, no. I didn't post to you until after you said something about me that wasn't true.

Because it is important to address. Any support for sexuality without God's intention and created purpose, is wrong. All of it. It is a perversion specifically because it cares not for God nor what the body is made for. As such, you may not like it, but I will explain exactly what the problem is here: He is caught in the flesh and caught evaluating after the flesh. Romans 13:14 I'm not making up scripture, I'm explaining scripture. This website is interested in the spiritual. Where is your, my, their mind? Galatians 5:16

No. His personal life is none of your business, he didn't bring it up in the thread, you did.

I'm not interested in your preaching. This website has a political section and that's where this thread is located.

 

[Lon]

Uh, no. I didn't post to you until after you said something about me that wasn't true.

I wasn't addressing you, I was saying Ray's post caused problems. That's the concern.

No. His personal life is none of your business, he didn't bring it up in the thread, you did.

1) It was telling him his ideas and values concerning sex are wrong. He's a big boy. He deems himself a teacher. Let him stand on his own for this.

I'm not interested in your preaching. This website has a political section and that's where this thread is located.

Using one another, treating others as objects, is a political concern as well. It has both civic and spiritual consequences but I'm not going to stop with scriptures. God is there. He is the only that ultimately matters.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm wondering if we can agree on this much: people like Anna never condemn homosexual child rape AS SIN because they think homosexuality itself is not sin. Hear me out on this.

To them, homosexuality is an alternate but perfectly normal expression of human love and sexuality (just as the Sodomites that Lot dealt with believed), and so are deeply offended whenever we point out God calls it sin.

But Anna and company paint themselves into corners with the many cases of "chicken hawks" who insist that desiring and pursuing sex with boys is a true expression of their "love," just as it was said to be back in ancient Greece. NAMBLA used to be included as part of the larger homosexual movement for a very good reason: many homosexuals to this day consider "boy love" a proud tradition with a long history, as if that proves it's okay. Well, they're right about the long tradition part. Thousands of years worth of tradition. In their minds, history is on THEIR side and that makes raping boys okay.

So in cases like this one, that's exactly the point where Anna et al always start irrelevant distractions by (a) bringing up hetero child rapists (b) trying to reframe the discussion in terms of mere illegality, of mental illness, of poor choices. . .but never in terms of SIN. They do either or both every single time.

Failing those, that's where the last ditch of "Judge not" is invoked, which is hilarious...quoting one part of the Bible to refute another part of the Bible.

What they're doing is obvious: suppressing the truth in unrighteousness avoiding the one point they want to avoid most of all -- that homosexuality is sin and will be judged by God.

Nick nailed it long ago. They're sodomy-approving, sin-loving perverts who evidently believe God is a liar and do not really believe His Word, whatever claims to Christianity they may have (or had, in Anna's case).



That's for sure. Pandora's box never closes itself.

Anna's already done a more than able job of taking you apart on this and as one of the 'et al' I'm sure it'll come as no surprise that I agree with everything she said. The only person who's painted themselves into a corner here is you. If you wanted to go on about homosexuality being a sin then you could have started a thread in the religion forums about it. This is the politics section so your rant on that score is pretty much irrelevant. Nobody but nobody here has justified child rape in any form whatsoever. There's unanimous condemnation for any nutball outfit or individual who rapes or supports raping minors, so you've out and out lied there. (How's that corner feeling?)

Believing that adult homosexuals should be able to live lives free from religious laws imposed does not make anyone a "sodomy lover" either dingbat. And the only thing that Nick's ever nailed is his own foot to his mouth. The pair of you are as moronic and childish as each other frankly...