Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[shagster01]

Rights come from the Bible.

I don't believe that. Are you trying to hold me to your religious beliefs?

You are a phony-tarian. You believe in absolute liberty as long as it matches the rights from your personal holy text.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Welcome back Jr. While you were away I showed the HATRED that the LGBTQueer movement has towards the American criminal justice system (most likely due to being arrested in public restrooms & parks for lewd acts and for loitering while checking out the 'menu' at places like school playgrounds and McDonalds Playlands).

Obviously you Libertarians feel the same way as your LGBTQueer allies do.

Are you seriously suggesting there is only one problem an individual can have with the American justice system? That everyone who has issues with it has those issues for the same reasons?

There is nothing wrong with the Judeo-Christian based American criminal justice system, only the people who as shown throughout this 3 part thread, legislate unrighteous laws and punish those that stand up for decency.

I have theonomist friends who hate the American criminal justice system and the man-made concept of "prison" yet believe homosexuality should be punishable by execution.

Thanks for letting us know that your new friends (dope peddler Joel McDurmon, his father in law Gary North and North's previous boss and current close friend Ron Paul) have no understanding of Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament's idea behind compassion

Are they the allies of LGBTQers to?

I've read McDurmon's articles. Without a doubt he promotes a culture of death like that of the LGBTQueer movement.

I don't like the LGBT movement. I really don't. I've actually had this argument with secular libertarians before. Its only you that makes it look like I support them, but I really don't.

Of course you don't. All of those posts that you and your fellow homosexualist GFR7 wrote defending "consensual adult relationships" must be a figment of my imagination.

On that note: You can leave now.

 

[GFR7]

Of course you don't. All of those posts that you and your fellow homosexualist GFR7 wrote defending "consensual adult relationships" must be a figment of my imagination.

On that note: You can leave now.

What an ingrate you are; an ingrate and a fool.
He and I never defended any such, and you are lucky that he and I even condescend to post on your thread.

And by the way, how is Howard? Huh? Liar.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There is nothing wrong with the Judeo-Christian based American criminal justice system, only the people who as shown throughout this 3 part thread, legislate unrighteous laws and punish those that stand up for decency.

That includes the cops that enforce said unrighteous laws.

Caging men in prisons is an immoral and unjust form of punishment. The modern "Justice" (Just-Us) system is built around it.

Thanks for letting us know that your new friends (dope peddler Joel McDurmon, his father in law Gary North and North's previous boss and current close friend Ron Paul) have no understanding of Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament's idea behind compassion

That wasn't even my point. My point was that they are hardly pro LGBT...

I've read McDurmon's articles. Without a doubt he promotes a culture of death like that of the LGBTQueer movement.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you does. Thanks for enlightening us, oh exalted one.

Of course you don't. All of those posts that you and your fellow homosexualist GFR7 wrote defending "consensual adult relationships" must be a figment of my imagination.

They were, or at least, you misread them.

What an ingrate you are; an ingrate and a fool. He and I never defended any such, and you are lucky that he and I even condescend to post on your thread.

And by the way, how is Howard? Huh? Liar.

Thank you.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'll make this post about my recent ban (somewhat short), as I don't want to dwell on it.

Such vulgarity aCW, not exactly becoming of someone who's made such a big deal of it lately is it? I wonder if you'll get around to addressing your mistake in regards to me once your 'potty mouth' ban has expired. Well, I don't really wonder at all cos' I know you won't...

"fish-hating"? that would be a bad thing for a catholic on fridays
"frog-hunting"? used to do that myself, when i were a small child
"fresco-hollering"? :freak:

i have no idea what acw was going for there :idunno:

Years ago I walked into a Libertarian Party Convention and while I couldn't see who was on stage because of the cloud of dope smoke in the air, I did hear every profanity and vulgarity known to modern man being used:

And none of them started with the letter "f" and ended with the letter "h".

The term I used is slang for a liberal woman who likes to hang around homosexual males. Refer to my posts about the late Joan Rivers or Ann Coulter (yes, Coulter is a liberal) if you need further information.

Because Libertarian WizardofOz's full intention was to silence me on this subject, I'll dedicate this next segment entitled

Silencing the Christians (a review from all 3 threads showing how the LGBTQueer movement through their thuggish tactics, attempts to silence anyone that speaks out against homosexual behavior or the agenda) to him.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I almost forgot! It's that time of year where I hand out awards to some of my favorite posts by TOL's homosexualists.

This years awards will include:

The "He tries SO hard!" award.

The "Queen of Denial" award.

And amongst a few others, one of my favorites:

The "Captain Obvious" award.

Being looking for that post in a WHMBR! Part 3 thread near you soon!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I had to temporarily close the thread because two Libertarian nutcases (I know, the two words are synonymous) were comparing homosexuality to eating bacon and sugar and the recriminalization of homosexuality to eating a dozen Big Macs, and I just couldn't bear to see this thread turned over to the loonies any longer.

But then who would we laugh at if it weren't for moral relativist Libertarians like the Doper and the Jr. Libertarian?

My wife is a dietician. Are you fine with legally being required to eat what she tells you to because she knows what is best for you? No more bacon or sugar as those lead to disease and bring nothing but misery and death to those who eat it.

Or is it only you allowed to control others "health"?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4172140&postcount=4525

Yeah, but eating unhealthy isn't inherently immoral, while murdering people is. I'm going to have to at least sort of agree with aCW on this one. But in order to agree with him here, I have to disagree with him that legalizing the eating of dozens of big macs in a short period of time doesn't mean you endorse that behavior.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4172294&postcount=4536

 

[Christian Liberty]

aCW, you remind me of "clover" from Eric Peters' website. You fail to connect the dots regarding very simple logical concepts.

Nobody is saying that eating a big mac is as bad as engaging in homosexual sex. Maybe someone believes that, but nobody's said that. And I don't believe that.

What I'm saying is that principles have to be applied across the board. If legalizing something inherently means saying its OK, that has to apply to everything, not just exceptionally bad things like homosexuality.

If legalizing homosexuality AUTOMATICALLY means endorsing it, than legalizing gluttony AUTOMATICALLY means endorsing it. Logical consistency, aCW.

 

[TracerBullet]

Silencing the Christians (a review from all 3 threads showing how the LGBTQueer movement through their thuggish tactics, attempts to silence anyone that speaks out against homosexual behavior or the agenda) to him.

presenting facts in response to false statements and misrepresentation isn't silencing anyone. Neither is standing up to bigots.

 

[TracerBullet]

I almost forgot! It's that time of year where I hand out awards to some of my favorite posts by TOL's homosexualists.

This years awards will include:

The "He tries SO hard!" award.

The "Queen of Denial" award.

And amongst a few others, one of my favorites:

The "Captain Obvious" award.

Being looking for that post in a WHMBR! Part 3 thread near you soon!

don't forget "Lie of the Year" just about any of your posts would qualify for that one

 

[Christian Liberty]

presenting facts in response to false statements and misrepresentation isn't silencing anyone. Neither is standing up to bigots.

Your religious affiliation says "Christian". Do you believe what the Bible says about homosexuality being a sin? If not, you should change your religious affiliation.

There is a fine line here. Its one thing to call someone a bigot. While I might disagree with you that that's true about the person (although not in aCW's case), its not "silencing" anyone. Its free speech.

To use the force of law to force people not to be "bigots", on the other hand, is.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW, you remind me of "clover" from Eric Peters' website. You fail to connect the dots regarding very simple logical concepts.

Nobody is saying that eating a big mac is as bad as engaging in homosexual sex. Maybe someone believes that, but nobody's said that. And I don't believe that.

What I'm saying is that principles have to be applied across the board. If legalizing something inherently means saying its OK, that has to apply to everything, not just exceptionally bad things like homosexuality.

If legalizing homosexuality AUTOMATICALLY means endorsing it, than legalizing gluttony AUTOMATICALLY means endorsing it. Logical consistency, aCW.

(Refer to Part 2's table of contents showing what other asinine comparisons the Jr. Libertarian made to the recriminalization of homosexuality...eating at smorgasbords is one that comes to mind).

That being said: How about I take us all on a little trip down memory lane to the very first Libertarian Party Convention? It took place in New York in a field 43 miles outside of a town called "Woodstock" back in 1969. I hear tell that's where Ron Paul fine tuned his dope peddling skills.

The following has been the theme song for every Libertarian Party Convention since then, because it makes as much sense as their godless doctrine and their attempt at logic...unless you're hiiiiigh on acid.

White Rabbit, Jefferson Airplane

 

[Christian Liberty]

Alright, I give up. You obviously aren't intelligent enough to have this conversation.

 

[GFR7]

Alright, I give up. You obviously aren't intelligent enough to have this conversation.

That's what it always comes down to. Every time I've tried to engage him in a reasonable back and forth, he never fails to come back with dumb sarcasm and silly accusations (about Hitler, the KKK, etc.) and to call me a "homosexualist", even though everyone else here accuses me of gay-bashing.

And then I think, "Gee, maybe he's really not that smart." :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Alright, I give up. You obviously aren't intelligent enough to have this conversation.

Since you've graced the followers of the 3 part WHMBR! thread with your presence once again Jr., I might as well address your attempt at an argument (for those of you who are somewhat new to the thread, I spent quite a bit of time exposing Jr.'s God-HATING Libertarian movement in part 2, showing the evil doctrine and perverts that have lead the Libertarian movement for decades. Refer to part 2's table of contents for more).

First of all, Jr.'s 'god', is the Libertarian principle of 'non aggression'.

Basically it comes down to this: All human relationships are ok as long as aggression isn't used in the process.

i.e. consensual morality.

Now don't let the word "aggression" fool you, because if Bruth who just met Kevin in a public restroom toilet stall wants to take Kevin back to his apartment and let him beat him senseless (sadomasochism), it's acceptable because Bruth and Kevin consented to the act.

Regarding the Jr. Libertarian's attempt at logic saying that just because the law approves of something doesn't mean that it endorses immoral behavior:

Jr. and his Libertarian ally WizardofOz have been playing that fraud game for sometime here on TOL (in fact WizardofOz even started a thread about it).

The law is a moral teaching, either it says "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not", and when the threat of force isn't used by civil government to punish those who engage in that behavior, people will engage in that behavior.

I made my point about the above in the 2nd part of part 1's most important post, showing what happened once abortion, no fault divorce, pornography, cohabitation and homosexuality were decriminalized:

In 1969, in Stanley v Georgia
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/n...ases&id=h-2943
SCOTUS ruled in favor of pornography, hence opening up the flood gates to where it is a multi billion dollar industry today.
http://www.familysafemedia.com/porno...tatistics.html

California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law no fault divorce legislation in late 1969, other states quickly followed.
http://www.divorcemediationinstitute...ed-states.html

It was in the early 1970's that cohabitation laws were decriminalized,
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/f...s/cohabit.html

abortion was made legal, and the America Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, hence most states decriminalized it.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3310958&postcount=4196

As I'd shown in that same post: those laws had a devastating impact on the two other institutions that God ordained for the governance of men:

The Family and The Church.

Now that I've explained the loony ideology of Jr.'s Libertarian doctrine, I'm once again....

moving on.

 

[GFR7]

Since you've graced the followers of the 3 part WHMBR! thread with your presence once again Jr., I might as well address your attempt at an argument (for those of you who are somewhat new to the thread, I spent quite a bit of time exposing Jr.'s God-HATING Libertarian movement in part 2, showing the evil doctrine and perverts that have lead the Libertarian movement for decades. Refer to part 2's table of contents for more).

First of all, Jr.'s 'god', is the Libertarian principle of 'non aggression'.

Basically it comes down to this: All human relationships are ok as long as aggression isn't used in the process.

i.e. consensual morality.

Now don't let the word "aggression" fool you, because if Bruth who just met Kevin in a public restroom toilet stall wants to take Kevin back to his apartment and let him beat him senseless (sadomasochism), it's acceptable because Bruth and Kevin consented to the act.

Regarding the Jr. Libertarian's attempt at logic saying that just because the law approves of something doesn't mean that it endorses immoral behavior:

Jr. and his Libertarian ally WizardofOz have been playing that fraud game for sometime here on TOL (in fact WizardofOz even started a thread about it).

The law is a moral teaching, either it says "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not", and when the threat of force isn't used by civil government to punish those who engage in that behavior, people will engage in that behavior.

I made my point about the above in the 2nd part of part 1's most important post, showing what happened once abortion, no fault divorce, pornography, cohabitation and homosexuality were decriminalized:

In 1969, in Stanley v Georgia
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/n...ases&id=h-2943
SCOTUS ruled in favor of pornography, hence opening up the flood gates to where it is a multi billion dollar industry today.
http://www.familysafemedia.com/porno...tatistics.html

California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law no fault divorce legislation in late 1969, other states quickly followed.
http://www.divorcemediationinstitute...ed-states.html

It was in the early 1970's that cohabitation laws were decriminalized,
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/f...s/cohabit.html

abortion was made legal, and the America Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, hence most states decriminalized it.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3310958&postcount=4196

As I'd shown in that same post: those laws had a devastating impact on the two other institutions that God ordained for the governance of men:

The Family and The Church.

Now that I've explained the loony ideology of Jr.'s Libertarian doctrine, I'm once again....

moving on.

"Junior" ( lain has actually leaned quite toward morality. And I myself have consistently argued against things such as no-fault divorce, the APA's support of homosexuality, cohabitation, etc. - and it has earned me ZERO points with you - you big dummy. :wave2:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

"Junior" ( lain has actually leaned quite toward morality. And I myself have consistently argued against things such as no-fault divorce, the APA's support of homosexuality, cohabitation, etc. - and it has earned me ZERO points with you - you big dummy. :wave2:

Uh huh.

("Remember what the Dormouse said...feed your head, feed your head").

On that note, I hope that both of you have a wonderful Libertarian day.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's what it always comes down to. Every time I've tried to engage him in a reasonable back and forth, he never fails to come back with dumb sarcasm and silly accusations (about Hitler, the KKK, etc.) and to call me a "homosexualist", even though everyone else here accuses me of gay-bashing.

And then I think, "Gee, maybe he's really not that smart." :think:

Did you understand the point I was making?

aCW made the claim that making something legal inherently means you are putting a stamp of approval on the act. He used this as an argument that homosexuality should be illegal.

I pointed out that logically, this would lead to a view where eating dozens of big macs at a single meal should be illegal, because if it wasn't, the government would be stating that such behavior is OK.

aCW claimed that I was "comparing homosexuality with gluttony." But I wasn't. I wasn't denying that one was worse than the other. I was saying that if you are going to take the position that failing to make a law against something always means condoning it, you have to be consistent with that.

Does that make sense?

There are intelligent men who have supported criminalizing homosexuality. Greg Bahnsen wanted to do so. RJ Rushdoony wanted to do so. Bojidar Marinov wants to do so. Joel McDurmon wants to do so. Gary North wants to do so. I would consider all of these men to be intelligent and well worth reading, even if I don't always agree with them. None of these men would have any problems understanding the point I am making here, despite the fact that we would disagree on whether homosexuality should be criminalized.

There are intelligent arguments to make against the position I am taking here. But aCW isn't intelligent enough to make them.

Now, as for the NAP, the NAP is a moral stance that deals ONLY with the use of violence. It is not a comprehensive moral stance. So, while an NAP advocate would indeed say it is not his business to VIOLENTLY INTERFERE with any consensual relationships between adults, it does not follow that he believes all such relationships are "OK."

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm actually not convinced no-fault divorce is consistent with libertarianism. I could easily be convinced that it isn't, at least if one party wants to keep the marriage together.

If two parties agree to a contract of "till death do us part" I'm not sure one person can just unilaterally drop out of that contract because they feel like it. I'd actually be inclined to say they could not do so.

Of course, from a Christian POV, if the partner is an unbeliever, the Bible says we're supposed to let them go anyway. Which would be inconsistent with trying to lobby for laws against it, IMO.

I don't really like using force to solve these problems. I'd rather solve them through persuasion.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Did you understand the point I was making?

aCW made the claim that making something legal inherently means you are putting a stamp of approval on the act. He used this as an argument that homosexuality should be illegal.

I (aCW) pointed out in the most important post in part 1 that since decriminalizing things like no fault divorce, cohabitation, pornography, abortion and homosexuality that those actions/behaviors have skyrocketed here in the US.

I pointed out that logically,...

I know that dealing with reality is very difficult for God-hating Libertarians to do, but that's what this thread is all about.

Now, as for the NAP, the NAP is a moral stance that deals ONLY with the use of violence.

The enforcement of laws is violence. You've acknowledged that many times throughout your time here on TOL, in fact you're acknowledging it below.

It is not a comprehensive moral stance. So, while an NAP advocate would indeed say it is not his business to VIOLENTLY INTERFERE with any consensual relationships between adults, it does not follow that he believes all such relationships are "OK."

i.e. "It's not ok in my mind, but I'm not going to do anything to stop it."

You can leave now Jr., as I see the train to la la land is boarding. (the conductor of the train is the late "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard who stated that parents have a "right" to starve their physically disabled child to death. The train's engineer is Rothbard's replacement, atheist Walter Block, who believes that selling a 4 year old boy (who is not an adult) to a NAMBLA pervert is acceptable in some cases).