Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[alwight]

You mean I am condescending to be kind while being against gay marriage?

You don't need to be particularly kind or indeed pitying to gays, they don't need that imo, just accept them as human people who are given the same secular rights as anyone else.
Christian religious institutions can surely individually choose to reject gay marriages in their churches if they really want to, but imo they have no right to try to stop it happening otherwise.

 

[GFR7]

I am so sick of that miserable, self-righteous, pompous,
puffed up, bragging, whining, SANCTIMONIOUS PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN,
lying, boasting, blabbering windbag,
turnip head from Kentucky, a CultureWarrior, that
I COULD SCREAMMMMMMMMMM

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I am so sick of that miserable...

Now now buttercup, don't go getting violent on me (even though as shown throughout this 3 part thread, violence is a huge part of the homosexual lifestyle).

As you might recall, the last time you posted that picture you had to take a 'breather' for a week.

 

[GFR7]

Now now buttercup, don't go getting violent on me (even though as shown throughout this 3 part thread, violence is a huge part of the homosexual lifestyle).

As you might recall, the last time you posted that picture you had to take a 'breather' for a week.

Go ahead. I am happy to leave.

 

[alwight]

It's been 7+ years since the article was written Al, where's evidence of the 'gay gene'?

I posted a scientific paper way back in part two which showed a strong genetic probability, while Francis Collins himself explains about identical twins being much more likely (10x more likely than non identical twins) to both be gay if one of them is. The fact is neither Collins, nor his team, despite your mis-assertions, suggests in any way that there is no "gay gene", quite the opposite in fact they seem to believe it's there.
If a specific "gay gene" has not yet been identified then since maybe no one sees any great need to pin it down, it isn't too surprising, while its absence so far is not evidence of its non-existence.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's been 7+ years since the article was written Al, where's evidence of the 'gay gene'?

I posted a scientific paper way back in part two which showed a strong genetic probability,...

There's a huge difference between probability and proof Al. If there was proof of a homosexual gene, then the 10's of thousands of people who left homosexual behavior behind (and often times desires) wouldn't have been able to do so (but then to you ex-gay watchers, they're just a bunch of liars aren't they Al?).

...while Francis Collins himself explains about identical twins being much more likely (10x more likely than non identical twins) to both be gay if one of them is. The fact is neither Collins, nor his team, despite your mis-assertions, suggests in any way that there is no "gay gene", quite the opposite in fact they seem to believe it's there.
If a specific "gay gene" has not yet been identified then since maybe no one sees any great need to pin it down, it isn't too surprising, while its absence so far is not evidence of its non-existence.

One would think after all of these years of spending millions and million of dollars on 'gay gene research', and knowing how vitally important it is to the sodomite movement (if you were born that way and can't change, then you need laws to protect your behavior), they would have found the existence of this gene that supposedly exists.

In all fairness Al, shouldn't you be looking for a bestiality gene, an adultery gene and an incestous gene as well? After all, other abnormal sexual behaviors deserve to be represented in this fraudulent research you call "science".

 

[alwight]

In all fairness Al, shouldn't you be looking for a bestiality gene, an adultery gene and an incestous gene as well? After all, other abnormal sexual behaviors deserve to be represented in this fraudulent research you call "science".

No, I'm reasonably convinced that Darwinian evolution does not and will never produce any perfect individuals.
It's those less than perfect or just plain different traits that goes to make the human species what it is.
Vive la difference, aCW , vive la difference. :angrymob:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In all fairness Al, shouldn't you be looking for a bestiality gene, an adultery gene and an incestous gene as well? After all, other abnormal sexual behaviors deserve to be represented in this fraudulent research you call "science".

No, I'm reasonably convinced that Darwinian evolution does not and will never produce any perfect individuals.
It's those less than perfect or just plain different traits that goes to make the human species what it is.

You surely aren't saying that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are imperfect behaviors are you Al? If so, then you must be saying that God's design for human sexuality (heterosexuality) is perfect?

Vive la difference, aCW , vive la difference. :angrymob:

Sorry Al, but the Truth of God and the lies of Satan never have and never will be able to coexist.

 

[GFR7]

You don't need to be particularly kind or indeed pitying to gays, they don't need that imo, just accept them as human people who are given the same secular rights as anyone else.
Christian religious institutions can surely individually choose to reject gay marriages in their churches if they really want to, but imo they have no right to try to stop it happening otherwise.

Please be aware that by "kind" I only mean "decent", and not going around patting them on the head as though they are little stray dogs.

No, no one "needs" anyone's special attention, and I don't even think anyone should be recognized as a group as identity politics demands (women, blacks, gays, etc.). Gay marriage I think is a cooked up fabricated issue, but there is no pity nor condescension.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
You don't need to be particularly kind or indeed pitying to gays, they don't need that imo, just accept them as human people who are given the same secular rights as anyone else.
Christian religious institutions can surely individually choose to reject gay marriages in their churches if they really want to, but imo they have no right to try to stop it happening otherwise.

Please be aware that by "kind" I only mean "decent", and not going around patting them on the head as though they are little stray dogs.

The "decent" thing to do for those engaging in the behavior we call "homosexuality", is to re-leglislate righteous laws that will help them out of their 'deathstyle' as well as helping those who are hurt by pro homosexual legislation (children, people of faith, our society's invaluable institutions).

No, no one "needs" anyone's special attention, and I don't even think anyone should be recognized as a group as identity politics demands (women, blacks, gays, etc.)...

Yet by using the word "gay", you're catergorizing individuals who engage in an immoral and destructive behavior as a group.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I realized that it's been awhile since I've provided some entertainment in the thread.

How about Johnny Horton singing...

North to Alaska

 

[serpentdove]

"Don't you think it's time that people of faith and those who believe in decency become intolerant of immoral behavior and the unrighteous laws that have been legislated associated with that behavior by doing something about it?"

Yes. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.

See:

God and the Death Penalty by Bob Enyart

 

[alwight]

You surely aren't saying that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are imperfect behaviors are you Al? If so, then you must be saying that God's design for human sexuality (heterosexuality) is perfect?

Well, obviously the majority of people today are exclusively heterosexual, a fairly basic requirement for Darwinian evolution perhaps.
But surely homosexuality has no place for your "perfect" God nor indeed in Darwinian evolution, I hear you screaming?:shocked:

I'll simply defer to your greater wisdom in what God may or may not intend aCW, but there is at least an arguable beneficial role for homosexuality to play within human Darwinian evolution (albeit not a role you'd want to accept presumably), in the successful raising of genetically close children. A level of homosexuality in human society could even be explainable as a subtle beneficial evolutionary tactic, which may help to explain why it exists rather better than dogmatically presuming it to be evil, an abomination or a perversion.

But a supposed "perfection", whatever that might be, isn't really the point aCW. Imo things just are what they are and we have to deal with that, not try to be "perfect".

Sorry Al, but the Truth of God and the lies of Satan never have and never will be able to coexist.

You will no doubt be scoffing at what I just wrote above, but be assured I scoff at your fantasy realm of a supposed absolute good versus an absolute evil, "codswallop" is what come to mind.

 

[alwight]

No, no one "needs" anyone's special attention, and I don't even think anyone should be recognized as a group as identity politics demands (women, blacks, gays, etc.). Gay marriage I think is a cooked up fabricated issue, but there is no pity nor condescension.

My personal view is that a civil partnership alone is quite good enough and that any, more elaborate, formal weddings are just a ritual and also rather a waste of money, gay or straight. But how other people choose to spend their own money is up to them of course.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"Don't you think it's time that people of faith and those who believe in decency become intolerant of immoral behavior and the unrighteous laws that have been legislated associated with that behavior by doing something about it?"

Yes. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.

Under Jewish law in the Old Testament. We'll talk about that in detail when I start the segment entitled "The 3 tenets of atheism".

In the meantime, thoughts on what we should do about the homosexual agenda?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You surely aren't saying that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are imperfect behaviors are you Al? If so, then you must be saying that God's design for human sexuality (heterosexuality) is perfect?

Well, obviously the majority of people today are exclusively heterosexual, a fairly basic requirement for Darwinian evolution perhaps.
But surely homosexuality has no place for your "perfect" God nor indeed in Darwinian evolution, I hear you screaming?

I'll simply defer to your greater wisdom in what God may or may not intend aCW, but there is at least an arguable beneficial role for homosexuality to play within human Darwinian evolution (albeit not a role you'd want to accept presumably), in the successful raising of genetically close children. A level of homosexuality in human society could even be explainable as a subtle beneficial evolutionary tactic, which may help to explain why it exists rather better than dogmatically presuming it to be evil, an abomination or a perversion.

But a supposed "perfection", whatever that might be, isn't really the point aCW. Imo things just are what they are and we have to deal with that, not try to be "perfect".

I had to look twice to see who wrote that incoherent rant. Are you by chance a student of the "Town Heretic School of Incoherant Rants"?

(Either God made man in His own image or He didn't. If He didn't, then Holy Scripture isn't the infallible Word of God).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Sorry Al, but the Truth of God and the lies of Satan never have and never will be able to coexist.

You will no doubt be scoffing at what I just wrote above, but be assured I scoff at your fantasy realm of a supposed absolute good versus an absolute evil, "codswallop" is what come to mind.

Can we agree that the sexual anarchy movement (i.e. the homosexual, abortion and pornography movements) and Christianity cannot coexist, or in your mind is it possible that the two can?

 

[alwight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You surely aren't saying that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are imperfect behaviors are you Al? If so, then you must be saying that God's design for human sexuality (heterosexuality) is perfect?



I had to look twice to see who wrote that incoherent rant. Are you by chance a student of the "Town Heretic School of Incoherant Rants"?

Oh well, some fall on stony ground perhaps aCW.
However I'm rather sure that you may not always be the keenest of people to even want to understand anyway.
Clearly, as you have demonstrated before, you don't even understand what a "rant" is, so perhaps there really isn't too much hope for any more difficult notions to be conveyed to you successfully.:rip:

Can we agree that the sexual anarchy movement (i.e. the homosexual, abortion and pornography movements) and Christianity cannot coexist, or in your mind is it possible that the two can?

Not too sure that the "sexual anarchy movement" isn't more likely a figment of your salacious and lurid imagination aCW than in actual reality.
Being somewhat more tolerant and understanding of others would be imo a rather better idea than perhaps your theocratic bigotry? :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This should be of great concern to eveyone [I'll write in brackets what the article is really saying].

Gay Blood Donation Ban Could Be Lifted

Nov. 14, 2014

[Due to political correctness, the blood donation ban on the 1-2% of the population who engage in a deadly behavior might soon be lifted, hence endangering an entire country].

An HHS advisory committee suggested letting gay men donate blood if they've been abstinent for a year.

[And what if those who proudly engage in a perverted behavior lie? I've written about the HIV/AIDS incubation period before: it varies. Here's a link to the American's For Truth About Homosexuality website on why the blood ban should remain: http://americansfortruth.com/issues/blood-ban/ ].

Gay men just got a step closer to being able to donate blood.

Since 1983, men who have had sex with men anytime since 1977 were barred from donating blood, a policy put in place because of the HIV/AIDs epidemic, which especially ravaged the gay community in its early years.

But on Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety voted 16-2 to tweak the ban, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, suggesting instead that men who have had sex with men could give blood, but with a caveat. They’d have to be abstinent for one year.

It will be the Food and Drug Administration that makes the final call, but generally the HHS panel’s advice is respected.

Gay rights and civil rights groups have had mixed reactions to the vote. Gay Blood Drive, a group specifically working on this issue, was ecstatic, according to the Huffington Post. “Huge step in the right direction!” they tweeted.

The Human Rights Campaign and the American Civil Liberties Union were concerned that the change continued to stigmatize gay and bisexual men.

“[T]he proposed one-year deferral will prevent two men who maintain a committed, monogamous relationship from ever donating blood,” read the ACLU’s statement. “This proposed policy does not distinguish between high risk and safer sex practices.”
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/14/gay-blood-donation-ban-could-be-lifted

Contact the Food and Drug Administration to express your displeaure with this possible actrocity:

http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/ucm419754.htm

or the Congressional Committee that oversees the FDA:

The US Senate Committe on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

http://www.help.senate.gov/

 

[GFR7]

I agree the variable incubation period makes this a bad idea. It should never pass.

In any case, how many gay men will they find who have abstained for one year? :nono:

And what will be the proof of this, exactly? :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I agree the variable incubation period makes this a bad idea. It should never pass.

In any case, how many gay men will they find who have abstained for one year? :nono:

And what will be the proof of this, exactly? :think:

What's it going to be GFR7: Either we as a society afford the same rights to homosexuals as we do to other groups (women, blacks, hispanics, etc.), or we treat them as 2nd class citizens like we do hookers and needle using junkies (whose behaviors are outlawed by society and who are banned from donating blood as well).