Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[GFR7]

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).

Up until this instant, the FDA and HHS were very clear that they classed gay males by their behavior, and banned them (rightly) from donating blood (any male who had sex with males since 1977).

This latest is folly. Where are these abstinent gay males who want to donate blood, how do we verify such abstinence, and what about the incubation period variables? Another desperate move in the name of "equality". I think if people were given a choice, most would not want blood donated by men who prefer sex with men.

This is a medical issue, though, and doesn't change Lawrence v TX. That's the thing that isn't likely to be reversed in light of this SSM circus.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
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).

Up until this instant, the FDA and HHS were very clear that they classed gay males by their behavior, and banned them (rightly) from donating blood (any male who had sex with males since 1977)...

Up until circa 1973 when various States began to decriminalize homosexuality, laws classified these same people (who now want to give blood) by their behavior. After decriminalization, those who engage in homosexual behavior (due to a politically powerful agenda) have been afforded pretty much all of the rights citizens of the US have.

Decriminalizing homosexuality has been devastating not only on those who engage in it, but on our society as well.

...This is a medical issue, though, and doesn't change Lawrence v TX. That's the thing that isn't likely to be reversed in light of this SSM circus.

The decriminalization of homosexuality has been and continues to be a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

 

[GFR7]

Reflecting on this more :think: ......

It would seem that gay marriage/rights advocates such as Dan Savage, who espouses being "monogamish" while the gay married couple is encouraged to have threesomes and such for fun together, are casting suspicion even on married gay men who wish to donate blood.

Of course, do we want hetero men who visit prostitutes donating blood, either.........

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
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).



Up until circa 1973 when various States began to decriminalize homosexuality, laws classified these same people (who now want to give blood) by their behavior. After decriminalization, those who engage in homosexual behavior (due to a politically powerful agenda) have been afforded pretty much all of the rights citizens of the US have.

Decriminalizing homosexuality has been devastating not only on those who engage in it, but on our society as well.



The decriminalization of homosexuality has been a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

I am not responsible for what the APA has done, or what Lawrence V TX did :AMR1:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I am not responsible for what the APA has done, or what Lawrence V TX did :AMR1:

That was not the question.

Here it is again:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

The decriminalization of homosexuality has been a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

 

[GFR7]

That was not the question.

Here it is again:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

The decriminalization of homosexuality has been a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

Not until you comment on my Dan Savage post. :AMR1:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Not until you comment on my Dan Savage post. :AMR1:

(He just did comment).

Regarding your post on that Thavage called Dan: I didn't see it. Did Danny boy drop Terry and ask for your hand in matrimony?

 

[GFR7]

(He just did comment).

Regarding your post on that Thavage called Dan: I didn't see it. Did Danny boy drop Terry and ask for your hand in matrimony?

No. I'm not gay and if I were, I wouldn't touch Savage with a ten foot pole. ugh :nono:

Do you or do you not agree that he is making SSM suspect with his advice? :think:

I just found this ad for the gay marriage group and it does to me bespeak criminality: If they keep this up, I may begin to look more closely at recriminalization. Using minors???

Spoiler

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No. I'm not gay and if I were, I wouldn't touch Savage with a ten foot pole. ugh :nono:

But but but...(paraphrasing the words of a frequent poster in this thread) : "he's so intelligent!"

Do you or do you not agree that he is making SSM suspect with his advice? :think:

I just found this ad for the gay marriage group and it does to me bespeak criminality: If they keep this up, I may begin to look more closely at recriminalization. Using minors???

Wait a minute here, are you implying that the sodomite movement uses children to promote their agenda?

The next thing ya know children will be marching in gay pride parades.

Now that your most recent smokescreen has cleared: Please answer this question:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

The decriminalization of homosexuality has been a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

 

[Uberpod1]

GFR7 and aCW make a cute couple.

 

[GFR7]

GFR7 and aCW make a cute couple.

:think: ................. :rotfl: .............. :nono:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

GFR7 and aCW make a cute couple.

Keep your fag fantasies to yourself Uber.

That being said: Would you like to make a contribution to the thread on behalf of the behavior and movement that you represent?

 

[Uberpod1]

Keep your fag fantasies to yourself Uber.

That being said: Would you like to make a contribution to the thread on behalf of the behavior and movement that you represent?

No.

 

[GFR7]

But but but...(paraphrasing the words of a frequent poster in this thread) : "he's so intelligent!"



Wait a minute here, are you implying that the sodomite movement uses children to promote their agenda?

The next thing ya know children will be marching in gay pride parades.

Now that your most recent smokescreen has cleared: Please answer this question:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

The decriminalization of homosexuality has been a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

It's no smokescreen. (were you just born offensive, you cantankerous old blabber-bag? :think: )

And I won't fall for your either/or.

I can respect gays as people while being highly suspicious of some aspects of the gay agenda:

Using minors as pawns, pushing gay marriage and lifting blood donation ban.

Criminalization was already the rule before our present era came to be.

Can't you see? It gave rise to it, and we can only inherit and surpass our present juncture.

 

[GFR7]

But but but...(paraphrasing the words of a frequent poster in this thread) : "he's so intelligent!"

I said that he was both handsome and intelligent.
(he creeps me out for some reason I can't put my finger on, though, big time - :think: )

I said that LaBarbera is more handsome and intelligent.

To you, that makes me gay. What can I say?

OH, I can say this:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

The decriminalization of homosexuality has been a medical issue, but more so a moral issue.

So what's it going to be: Return to righteous laws and treat this medical and moral problem as a dysfunctional behavior, or afford these people the same rights that others have?

...I can respect gays as people while being highly suspicious of some aspects of the gay agenda:
Using minors as pawns, pushing gay marriage and lifting blood donation ban....

So you want to treat homosexuals as 2nd class citizens and not afford them the rights that other citizens of the United States have.

That being said: By looking at your posts throughout this thread, it's a given that you "respect" those who proudly and unrepentantly engage in homosexual behavior (in reality, as shown in posts a couple of pages back, GFR7 really hates those who engage in homosexual behavior. If he respected them as human beings who have fallen prey to a sinful behavior, he would attempt to help them change through righteous laws).

Being that you're against [edit, my bad, GFR7 is "suspicious", not against] certain parts of the 'gay agenda' (the indoctrination of children, redefining the institution of marriage and endangering society by wanting to lift a blood ban on those who engage in a deadly behavior), there must be aspects of the 'gay agenda' that you approve of.

Let's start with the original 'gay agenda' from 1972 and go from there:

THE 1972 GAY RIGHTS PLATFORM
(Formulated in Chicago, Illinois.)

FEDERAL:

1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to
prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public
services. (1972 Federal-1)
2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding
for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance
into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for
homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously
issued, with retroactive benefits. (1972 Federal-2)
3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal
civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting
discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances. (1972 Federal-3)
4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples. (1972
Federal-4)
5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.
(1972 Federal-5)
6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by
Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and
lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. (1972 Federal-6)
7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling,
maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences,
behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks. (1972 Federal-7)
8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to
alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an
oppressive sexist society. (1972 Federal-8)
9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers,
prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless
crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical
and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration
be immediately expunged. (1972 Federal-9)

STATE:

1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above
should be implemented at the State level where applicable. (1972 State-1)
2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons;
equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws. (1972
State-2)
3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and
laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female. (1972 State-3)
4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated
enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in
bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne.
(1972 State-4)
5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster
parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
(1972 State-5)
6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing. (1972 State-6)
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. (1972 State-7)
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into
a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless
of sex or numbers. (1972 State-8)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/908140/posts

At least you have to be in favor of State #2?

 

[GFR7]

At least you have to be in favor of State #2?

No, I am NOT :AMR1:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I've often said that people of faith and those who believe in decency (you can be a non-believer and still borrow off of Judeo-Christian doctrine) should read left-wing websites to see who we should support.

The sodomite website "towerload" has done just that for us.

Sen. Ted Cruz Headlining Hate Conference Hosted By Extremist Anti-Gay Group This Weekend: VIDEO

11/15/2014

Does Sen. Ted Cruz believe AIDS is God's punishment for being gay?

Does Cruz believe that government should regulate homosexuality and that public schools are using anti-bullying laws to indoctriinate children into homosexuality?

Does Cruz believe that we need more hate and less tolerance in the world?

If not, perhaps Cruz should explain why he's headlining a legislative conference in Dallas this weekend hosted by a group whose founder has said each and every one of those things.

Cruz, along with another potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Gov. Bobby Jindal, is scheduled to keynote the Wallbuilders ProFamily Legislators Conference, which "provides an opportunity for conservative pro-family State legislators from across the United States to come together for an insightful briefing session with leading experts in a variety of fields that touch many of the most crucial areas of public service."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2014/11/te...ti-lgbt-legislators-conference-in-dallas.html

Wallbuilders Pro Family Legislators Conference

Thank you towerload for showing us that there are men and women of faith in politics that haven't given up on the Judeo-Christian doctrine that our once great nation was founded upon!

 

[GFR7]

No.

:BRAVO: You speak to the point, without pretense. For that, I give you due credit. :cheers:

 

[GFR7]

I've often said that people of faith and those who believe in decency (you can be a non-believer and still borrow off of Judeo-Christian doctrine) should read left-wing websites to see who we should support.

The sodomite website "towerload" has done just that for us.

Sen. Ted Cruz Headlining Hate Conference Hosted By Extremist Anti-Gay Group This Weekend: VIDEO

11/15/2014

Does Sen. Ted Cruz believe AIDS is God's punishment for being gay?

Does Cruz believe that government should regulate homosexuality and that public schools are using anti-bullying laws to indoctriinate children into homosexuality?

Does Cruz believe that we need more hate and less tolerance in the world?

If not, perhaps Cruz should explain why he's headlining a legislative conference in Dallas this weekend hosted by a group whose founder has said each and every one of those things.

Cruz, along with another potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate, Gov. Bobby Jindal, is scheduled to keynote the Wallbuilders ProFamily Legislators Conference, which "provides an opportunity for conservative pro-family State legislators from across the United States to come together for an insightful briefing session with leading experts in a variety of fields that touch many of the most crucial areas of public service."

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2014/11/te...ti-lgbt-legislators-conference-in-dallas.html

Wallbuilders Pro Family Legislators Conference

Thank you towerload for showing us that there are men and women of faith in politics that haven't given up on the Judeo-Christian doctrine that our once great nation was founded upon!

You, too, read Towelroad? :think:
You see how everyone is "antigay" or a "hate group"? :think: