Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
- Status
GFR7
New member
Okie doke :chuckle: Thnx , brother :thumb:
GFR7
New member
I'm more just against certain aspects of the rainbow agenda; not anti-gay in my spirit.
Which is why aCW loathes me. :jawdrop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The only "rapport" you and I will ever have is when you're safely locked away and I'm sitting outside of your cell reading Bible verses with you.
This is a difficult question for me to ask, and I would imagine an even more difficult question for you to answer. Nevertheless, it needs to be asked.
A few posts ago I responded to serpentdove about the penalty phase that should be enforced for the crime of homosexuality. She (like several others here on TOL) believes that OT laws should be enforced and the penalty of death is a just punishment for those who engage in homosexual behavior.
Without going into great detail about the New Testament and legal precedence throughout the history of western civilization, I disagree because it isn't inherently a capital offense.
That being said: Had justice been served when the unmentionable happened to you as a child (had the culprit been imprisoned or put to death) :
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4064685&postcount=2473
do you believe that you would have turned out differently as an adult?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The only "rapport" you and I will ever have is when you're safely locked away and I'm sitting outside of your cell reading Bible verses with you.
This is a difficult question for me to ask, and I would imagine an even more difficult question for you to answer. Nevertheless, it needs to be asked.
A few posts ago I responded to serpentdove about the penalty phase that should be enforced for the crime of homosexuality. She (like several others here on TOL) believes that OT laws should be enforced and the penalty of death is a just punishment for those who engage in homosexual behavior.
Without going into great detail about the New Testament and legal precedence throughout the history of western civilization, I disagree because it isn't inherently a capital offense.
That being said: Had justice been served when the unmentionable happened to you as a child (had the culprit been imprisoned or put to death) :
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4064685&postcount=2473
do you believe that you would have turned out differently as an adult?
GFR7
New member
Since I (without intention) opened up that can of worms, (although you really don't know the details as I was not all that in depth or personal, and it really isn't the typical story)
the short answer to your questions is:
1. no and
2. quite possibly, yes.
But perhaps I would have been an ultra-liberal rather than a social conservative.
For reasons unknown, I am the only conservative in a liberal family.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Had justice been served when the unmentionable happened to you as a child (had the culprit been imprisoned or put to death) :
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...postcount=2473
do you believe that you would have turned out differently as an adult?
I'm doing my best through this thread and by voting for good men and women of faith into political office to see that millions of more children won't have to go through what you went through.
Unfortunately, it's not getting any better.
Number of Homeless Children in US at All-Time High
Nov. 17, 2010
The number of homeless children in the U.S. is surging and has reached an all-time high, according to a new report by the National Center on Family Homelessness.
The state-by-state report, titled "America's Youngest Outcasts," says one child in every 30 is homeless. It blames the problem on the lack of affordable housing and the impact of pervasive domestic violence.
The report calculates that nearly 2.5 million children in America were homeless at some point last year.
Read more: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/November/Number-of-Homeless-Children-in-US-at-All-Time-High-/
"Pervasive domestic violence" of course means drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, and thus children running away from home to fall prey to homosexuals and pimps that just wait for them at bus stations and on street corners.
Judeo Christian doctrine is no longer an important part of society, and we're seeing the victims of our secular society in articles like this.
Had justice been served when the unmentionable happened to you as a child (had the culprit been imprisoned or put to death) :
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...postcount=2473
do you believe that you would have turned out differently as an adult?
I'm doing my best through this thread and by voting for good men and women of faith into political office to see that millions of more children won't have to go through what you went through.
Unfortunately, it's not getting any better.
Number of Homeless Children in US at All-Time High
Nov. 17, 2010
The number of homeless children in the U.S. is surging and has reached an all-time high, according to a new report by the National Center on Family Homelessness.
The state-by-state report, titled "America's Youngest Outcasts," says one child in every 30 is homeless. It blames the problem on the lack of affordable housing and the impact of pervasive domestic violence.
The report calculates that nearly 2.5 million children in America were homeless at some point last year.
Read more: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/November/Number-of-Homeless-Children-in-US-at-All-Time-High-/
"Pervasive domestic violence" of course means drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, and thus children running away from home to fall prey to homosexuals and pimps that just wait for them at bus stations and on street corners.
Judeo Christian doctrine is no longer an important part of society, and we're seeing the victims of our secular society in articles like this.
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uberpod1
There's nothing quite so charming as two men intimately bonding over anti-gay fervor.
(i.e. GFR7 has no problem with people who engage in the unnatural, disease-ridden, deadly behavior known as homosexuality).
You've told the followers of this thread what part of the 'gay agenda' you're "suspicious" of, are you ready to reveal what part of the original 1972 'gay agenda' that you're comfortable with?
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.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4118975&postcount=3256
If you like we can go over the entire platform piece by piece and you can explain your stance on each one.
Originally Posted by Uberpod1
There's nothing quite so charming as two men intimately bonding over anti-gay fervor.
(i.e. GFR7 has no problem with people who engage in the unnatural, disease-ridden, deadly behavior known as homosexuality).
You've told the followers of this thread what part of the 'gay agenda' you're "suspicious" of, are you ready to reveal what part of the original 1972 'gay agenda' that you're comfortable with?
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.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4118975&postcount=3256
If you like we can go over the entire platform piece by piece and you can explain your stance on each one.
Last edited:
alwight
New member
Sorry, you won't be going anywhere with me aCW, I have some standards you know.:nono:
Tell me, is Mrs aCW as keen as you are about your obsessive interest in all things gay?
I was hoping that you'd take in an interest in Holy Scripture as I hear tell that eternal damnation isn't a whole lotta fun.
She like me, is devout Christian. Need I say anything more?
On another note: As you're well aware the atheist TOLer that goes by the name of "Uberpod1" is a proud and unrepentant homosexual who like 99% of all homosexuals is pro abortion.
When GFR7 referred to Uberpod1 as a "brother"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uberpod1
Why would I want you bannned? It's not like you are a threat to my cause or anything, and your gifs are working for me!!
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4119733&postcount=3283
do you think he was referring to Uberpod1 as a "a male offspring having both parents in common with another offspring; a male sibling"
or
"as another; an associate; a fellow member"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brother
While updating the table of contents I ran across this article by Selwyn Duke talking about the late homosexual pedophile Gore Vidal. Duke uses William Shakespeare's Hamlet to point out:
"When people devote tremendous energy to defending or justifying some action, they invariably have a vested interest in doing so. Usually this is because they’re guilty of it themselves."
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4056496&postcount=2229
"When people devote tremendous energy to defending or justifying some action, they invariably have a vested interest in doing so. Usually this is because they’re guilty of it themselves."
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4056496&postcount=2229
alwight
New member
:yawn:
Well, you could have answered the actual question I asked rather than that dodge. :AMR:
GFR7
New member
Oh, hog-wash. "Brother" is a hail-fellow-well-met term;
he was being nice to me, so I responded in kind.
(although mayhap I ran into him in Provincetown? :think: )
I called you "brother" at the start and was rewarded by receiving a frightening,
dreadful, nasty PM in my inbox, in which you stated you were "not my brother".
If you ever come to the New York City area to visit, you will know me by the pink bag I carry - NOT! :chuckle:
Spoiler
And don't ever accuse me of believing that just because sexual activity is consensual it is OK.
(Now Caledvwich is fighting with me over anal sex.)
It is far, far, far, far, far, far, worse with heteros; at least there is some transcendent precedent for gay men.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4120771&posted=1#post4120771
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
...do you think he was referring to Uberpod1 as a "a male offspring having both parents in common with another offspring; a male sibling"
or
"as another; an associate; a fellow member"?
You psychopathic, sodomite loving, baby murdering, Marxist Obama supporters stick together.
Just the thought of being a comrade of a :flamer: like you makes me want to hurl.
If I visit NYC in the future, I have no desire to go to "The Village".
One more time: If there are certain parts of the 'gay agenda' that you (pretend) to be "suspicious of", what part of the 'gay agenda' do you approve of?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4120155&postcount=3288
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
...do you think he was referring to Uberpod1 as a "a male offspring having both parents in common with another offspring; a male sibling"
or
"as another; an associate; a fellow member"?
You psychopathic, sodomite loving, baby murdering, Marxist Obama supporters stick together.
Just the thought of being a comrade of a :flamer: like you makes me want to hurl.
If I visit NYC in the future, I have no desire to go to "The Village".
One more time: If there are certain parts of the 'gay agenda' that you (pretend) to be "suspicious of", what part of the 'gay agenda' do you approve of?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4120155&postcount=3288
GFR7
New member
Drop dead, you worthless scumbag. :wave2:
I hope someday someone brings litigation against you for the vile, LIBELOUS things you say about people.
You are a disgrace, and very likely, a closet case. What a pathetic little man you are. People read you for the comedy.
aCW is a closet FAG from Provincetown.
aCW goes to Provincetown and thinks he's not seen
aCW goes to the Atlantic House little bar in Provincetown
Last edited:
Speaking of B. Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party:
November 13, 2014
It's official: the Democrats are the party of the Devil
By Selwyn Duke
"Perhaps the first clue, or the ten thousandth, was when many Democrats opposed
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=402
the reinsertion of God into their party's platform in 2012 and booed the judgment that the measure to do so had passed. But now it's official:
The Democrats are the party of the Devil.
Here's the story, courtesy of CBS Boston:
Ruth Provencal is a devout Catholic whose favorite phrase when saying goodbye has now thrust her into controversy.
"I would say 'thank you for voting, God Bless you,'" Provencal explains.
After serving as an election volunteer five times, the 67-year-old was told to stay home on November 4th, sacked by Derry [New Hampshire] officials who argued that her reference to God might be an illegal effort to influence voters.
"I just can't believe that you're telling me that I can't say the word God," she told the elections official. "Then she said 'no you can't.'"
My, it didn't take long for the Democrat mantra to change from "Yes, we can!"
The article actually states that Derry election officials believe saying "God bless you" could be electioneering. Now, let me apply a little white male linear logic here. Since we don't yet have a Satanist Party on the ballot (give it time) and I don't believe one of the other minor parties was the concern, I'm going to take a wild guess and say it was thought that the alleged electioneering could be an influence with respect to one of the two major parties. And here's what this means:
One of our major parties is so closely associated with godlessness, with evil, with everything so antithetical to the divine that even the mere mention of God's name in a polling place constitutes a message in opposition to that party.
I'm going to take another wild guess and assume this party was not thought – even by the liberal election officials – to be the Republican Party.
What's funny is that I seem to remember another party officially opposed to God. It was once dominant in places such as the Soviet Union, Hungary and Albania and still masquerades as its old self in China. I don't think it started with "D," though, but was one letter back.
So should the Democrats henceforth be known as the Demonrats? Will their new symbol be the Pentagram? Will they trade the donkey for the Tasmanian devil? Will their (relatively few) election winners be sworn in this coming January on a book written by Anton LaVey?
This also explains why the Democrats' campaign tactics seem to perfectly align with occultist Aleister Crowley's maxim "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." It also should shape Republican campaign tactics in future elections. Forget spending millions of dollars on ads, political strategists, data mining and get-out-the-vote efforts. All they really need do is hire an army of exorcists."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/141113
November 13, 2014
It's official: the Democrats are the party of the Devil
By Selwyn Duke
"Perhaps the first clue, or the ten thousandth, was when many Democrats opposed
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=402
the reinsertion of God into their party's platform in 2012 and booed the judgment that the measure to do so had passed. But now it's official:
The Democrats are the party of the Devil.
Here's the story, courtesy of CBS Boston:
Ruth Provencal is a devout Catholic whose favorite phrase when saying goodbye has now thrust her into controversy.
"I would say 'thank you for voting, God Bless you,'" Provencal explains.
After serving as an election volunteer five times, the 67-year-old was told to stay home on November 4th, sacked by Derry [New Hampshire] officials who argued that her reference to God might be an illegal effort to influence voters.
"I just can't believe that you're telling me that I can't say the word God," she told the elections official. "Then she said 'no you can't.'"
My, it didn't take long for the Democrat mantra to change from "Yes, we can!"
The article actually states that Derry election officials believe saying "God bless you" could be electioneering. Now, let me apply a little white male linear logic here. Since we don't yet have a Satanist Party on the ballot (give it time) and I don't believe one of the other minor parties was the concern, I'm going to take a wild guess and say it was thought that the alleged electioneering could be an influence with respect to one of the two major parties. And here's what this means:
One of our major parties is so closely associated with godlessness, with evil, with everything so antithetical to the divine that even the mere mention of God's name in a polling place constitutes a message in opposition to that party.
I'm going to take another wild guess and assume this party was not thought – even by the liberal election officials – to be the Republican Party.
What's funny is that I seem to remember another party officially opposed to God. It was once dominant in places such as the Soviet Union, Hungary and Albania and still masquerades as its old self in China. I don't think it started with "D," though, but was one letter back.
So should the Democrats henceforth be known as the Demonrats? Will their new symbol be the Pentagram? Will they trade the donkey for the Tasmanian devil? Will their (relatively few) election winners be sworn in this coming January on a book written by Anton LaVey?
This also explains why the Democrats' campaign tactics seem to perfectly align with occultist Aleister Crowley's maxim "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." It also should shape Republican campaign tactics in future elections. Forget spending millions of dollars on ads, political strategists, data mining and get-out-the-vote efforts. All they really need do is hire an army of exorcists."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/141113
You certainly contribute a whole lot of graphics and chit chat in a thread that was created by someone you consider "going down the tubes".
GFR7
New member
And? What of it? :think:
You sure visit a thread a lot for someone who told me the author of it is vile and evil. :chuckle:
You are wasting space.
Actually I don't. Nor do I apologize with sympathizing with you when evil and vile comments that include your family are brought into a thread.
- Status