Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4258764&postcount=6477

You should take something for your butthurt.

Is that the best response that you can come up with Chuck?

As I recall, you attended an esteemed institution of higher indoctrination learning some years ago. Should we work on getting you a refund?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now you went and did it Chuck, the little dweeb [GFR7] is going to want a fake pair of his own.

Yeah not everyone can be so lucky to have a pair like this naturally.

If you had been "lucky" enough to have been born with a vagina Chuck then you'd have a point. But since you were born with the plumbing of a male, then no, your fake boobs aren't natural, they're chemically induced.

Though the right one is considerably smaller. This annoys me.

Does accusing me of getting implants make me easier for you to deal with?

Save that chit chat for the gay bathhouses that you frequent Chuck. Aside from the founder and President of your fan club and a few other moral degenerates that frequent this thread, people don't want to hear about your fake boobs.

 

[GFR7]

In addition, I've always said the school indoctrination is suspect and wrong.

Some surrogate father you turned out to be, aCW (G_d blast you). :madmad:

(gulp - Just kidding, of course. *saw P got banned* :jawdrop: )

With abiding love and deepest respect,
I remain yours, ever:
GFR :bow:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And now a word from our sponsor and proud supporter of adult-child sex.

Spoiler

Phil loves 15 year olds

Art Brain and a few of TOL's homosexualists had fun with that statement Phil Robertson made sometime ago.

I'll ask you some of the same questions that I asked Art Brain:

1). If it were legal, would an 18 year old male marrying a post pubescent 15 year old female make him a pedophile?

2) Has Phil Robertson ever lobbied to lower the sexual age of consent?

3). Instead of marrying at a younger age like Robertson's 19 year old grandson recently did
http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...Phil+Robertson's+grandson+marries#post4083391

would you have advised John Luke to go out and sleep around with different women, impregnate a few, pay for some abortions, have some out of wedlock children and shack up with a woman or 3 before he decided to settle down?

 

[alwight]

I think I would like one of the avid defenders of perversion from the UK to answer my question as to what should be done with a terribly confused 15 year old boy in Sprague WA who very well might be having homosexual desires and acts them out by attempting to "lure" and kidnap a little boy and a toddler.

I've already answered this aCW, innocent children must be protected from those who would do them harm. If that means depriving the intended perpetrator of his freedom then so be it.
Are you actually claiming that any person who happens to be gay should be deprived of their freedom proactively and assumed to be a paedophile without evidence that they have any intent at all to harm children?

 

[alwight]

If you had been "lucky" enough to have been born with a vagina Chuck then you'd have a point. But since you were born with the plumbing of a male, then no, your fake boobs aren't natural, they're chemically induced.



Save that chit chat for the gay bathhouses that you frequent Chuck. Aside from the founder and President of your fan club and a few other moral degenerates that frequent this thread, people don't want to hear about your fake boobs.

My man-boobs are the real thing aCW, and near enough the same size too. :thumb:

 

[Persephone66]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4258764&postcount=6477



Is that the best response that you can come up with Chuck?

As I recall, you attended an esteemed institution of higher indoctrination learning some years ago. Should we work on getting you a refund?

You think you deserve better? That's not very humble of you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now you went and did it Chuck, the little dweeb [GFR7] is going to want a fake pair of his own.



If you had been "lucky" enough to have been born with a vagina Chuck then you'd have a point. But since you were born with the plumbing of a male, then no, your fake boobs aren't natural, they're chemically induced.



Save that chit chat for the gay bathhouses that you frequent Chuck. Aside from the founder and President of your fan club and a few other moral degenerates that frequent this thread, people don't want to hear about your fake boobs.

So I'm taking hormones (I guess) and I attend gay bathhouses (which I never heard of until I started talking to you), didn't know that. I wonder what else I could be doing that I don't know about.

Does making things up about me make me easier to deal with?

Art Brain and a few of TOL's homosexualists had fun with that statement Phil Robertson made sometime ago.

I'll ask you some of the same questions that I asked Art Brain:

1). If it were legal, would an 18 year old male marrying a post pubescent 15 year old female make him a pedophile?

Not in a legal sense, but most 15 year olds in our culture lack the intelligence, maturity, and self-reliance to enter in to such an arrangement. There's also a list of things that an 18 year old can do that a 15 year old cannot, making the younger party more dependent on the older. At the least, it sets up a situation where the older party could take advantage of the younger. It's not quite the same as pedophilia, but all things considered, it can be just as bad if not worse.

2) Has Phil Robertson ever lobbied to lower the sexual age of consent?

Normally I'd say you tell me, since you are one of his fanboys. However with your history of making up stories, I'd feel compelled to look it up anyway.

3). Instead of marrying at a younger age like Robertson's 19 year old grandson recently did
http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...Phil+Robertson's+grandson+marries#post4083391

would you have advised John Luke to go out and sleep around with different women, impregnate a few, pay for some abortions, have some out of wedlock children and shack up with a woman or 3 before he decided to settle down?

You have asked me a similar question before. If I recall correctly, the only possibilities are what you described or abstinence until marriage and absolutely nothing else. What I would tell him fits in to neither of those. I could discuss this with you, but I doubt you have the maturity for this conversation.

 

[Persephone66]

Attn fanclub:

I'm not saying this is the standard you have to live up to, but this is one of my fans on youtube -

 

[Arthur Brain]

Art Brain and a few of TOL's homosexualists had fun with that statement Phil Robertson made sometime ago.

I'll ask you some of the same questions that I asked Art Brain:

1). If it were legal, would an 18 year old male marrying a post pubescent 15 year old female make him a pedophile?

It's not legal, at least in most states and not at all in the UK which is the point. Do you think it should be legal to marry 15 year old girls?

2) Has Phil Robertson ever lobbied to lower the sexual age of consent?

By saying what he did he obviously sees nothing wrong with it being lowered. His words are on record right there. Oh, and lets not forget his "reasons" either. Is disparaging the fairer sex something you endorse also aCW?

:think:

3). Instead of marrying at a younger age like Robertson's 19 year old grandson recently did
http://www.theologyonline.com/forum...Phil+Robertson's+grandson+marries#post4083391

would you have advised John Luke to go out and sleep around with different women, impregnate a few, pay for some abortions, have some out of wedlock children and shack up with a woman or 3 before he decided to settle down?

Er, nope. Why would you even think that's a viable comparison to draw?

 

[Rusha]

What's so disturbing about this story is that they're so young! Doesn't John Luke know that he should spend a few years sowing his wild oats, i.e. go out and get a few girls pregnant, have a few chillens out of wedlock, before he decides to settle down?

Doesn't Mary Kate know that it's better for her to sleep around with a few different guys, have an abortion or 3, shack up with a guy or two and then decide if marriage is right for her?

Sheesh, redneck Christians theses days. What's the world coming to?

What's so disturbing is that you believe the only alternative is to endorse Phil's advice of "marry em young". How about telling them to wait for BOTH (sex and marriage)?

I know, I know. Teenage girls are far easier to control than adult women.

 

[Nick M]

Do I look like I care about being banned?

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

You look like a tramp. I am guessing that is your objective.

 

[Nick M]

:flamer: :vomit:

 

[Psalmist]

Do I look like I care about being banned?

Vile image removed.

You must not...So your don't care became...your BANNED​

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yeah not everyone can be so lucky to have a pair like this naturally. Though the right one is considerably smaller. This annoys me.

Does accusing me of getting implants make me easier for you to deal with?

Using hormone therapy is not "natural" growth, and or overweight males having more fat than usual in that area, are not natural female breasts.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I pointed out in this post

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4194802&postcount=5034

back on January 15th of this year that there are proud and unrepentant sodomites who for reasons of their own are against their fellow perverts being allowed to partake in the institution of marriage.

I don't believe you responded to that post GFR7, here's your chance.

I don't understand that post.

What's not to understand? There are proud and unrepentant homosexuals who for reasons of their own don't want the institution of marriage changed. Is that supposed to make them less threatening to society?

When did I say I was concerned with the children? I am, of course, but in the sense that traditional and biological families are the best havens for them.

It appears that you have much in common with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana or else why would you post their article?

Gay people..

There is no such thing as "gay people". The people you are referring to proudly engage in the behavior known as homosexuality, a behavior which is changeable.

...can have rights without infringing on biology and tradition.

These supposed "rights" that those who engage in the sexual behavior known as homosexuality have been given go against tradition. Biologically speaking, homosex is not only unnatural but extremely harmful.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I think I would like one of the avid defenders of perversion from the UK to answer my question as to what should be done with a terribly confused 15 year old boy in Sprague WA who very well might be having homosexual desires and acts them out by attempting to "lure" and kidnap a little boy and a toddler.

I've already answered this aCW, innocent children must be protected from those who would do them harm. If that means depriving the intended perpetrator of his freedom then so be it.

So it's Door #1: Take a 15 year old teenager who very well might be sexually confused and put him in with the criminal element where he'll undoubtedly be someone's "boy toy" instead of getting to the core of why he is sexually confused.

It took some effort, but your answer is loud and clear Al (the LGBTQueer movement needs more recruits).

Are you actually claiming that any person who happens to be gay should be deprived of their freedom proactively...

In a righteous society any person who engages in the unnatural sexual behavior known as homosexuality would be subject to the penalties and punishment that said society doles out. My point is that sexually confused children such as the boy in Sprague WA might be salvageable and as a compassionate society we should do everything possible to save him from a life of perversion.

and assumed to be a paedophile without evidence that they have any intent at all to harm children?

If indeed the 15 year olds motive when he kidnapped the 2 year old boy was sexual, then he would be considered a child molester (in order to be a pedophile he would first have to be an adult: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophile ).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What's so disturbing about this story is that they're so young! Doesn't John Luke know that he should spend a few years sowing his wild oats, i.e. go out and get a few girls pregnant, have a few chillens out of wedlock, before he decides to settle down?

Doesn't Mary Kate know that it's better for her to sleep around with a few different guys, have an abortion or 3, shack up with a guy or two and then decide if marriage is right for her?

Sheesh, redneck Christians theses days. What's the world coming to?

What's so disturbing is that you believe the only alternative is to endorse Phil's advice of "marry em young".

Yet you don't seem to be the least bit disturbed with the amount of abortions done yearly due to out of wedlock sex; the amount of out of wedlock births where those children overwhelmingly are raised in fatherless homes and often times turn to drugs and crime as a way of life; or the amounts of STD's that happen in out of wedlock sexual relations.

How about telling them to wait for BOTH (sex and marriage)?

You act like marriage is a bad thing Sandy. If a male and a female are of legal age, why should you or I tell anyone not to marry if they're committed to one another?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Art Brain and a few of TOL's homosexualists had fun with that statement Phil Robertson made sometime ago.

I'll ask you some of the same questions that I asked Art Brain:

1). If it were legal, would an 18 year old male marrying a post pubescent 15 year old female make him a pedophile?

It's not legal, at least in most states and not at all in the UK which is the point.

So your answer would be "No, if it were legal a 18 year old male marrying a 15 year old post pubescent female would not make that male a pedophile."

Do you think it should be legal to marry 15 year old girls?

Unlike the LGBTQueer movement that you defend, neither Phil Robertson nor I want the age of consent lowered. In fact, both Phil Robertson and I acknowledge that out of wedlock sex is immoral.


Quote:
2) Has Phil Robertson ever lobbied to lower the sexual age of consent?

By saying what he did he obviously sees nothing wrong with it being lowered. His words are on record right there. Oh, and lets not forget his "reasons" either. Is disparaging the fairer sex something you endorse also aCW?

So your answer is "No, other than making that one off the cuff remark he hasn't since talked about underage marriage nor has he ever lobbied to lower the age of consent when it comes to marriage."

 

[Rusha]

Yet you don't seem to be the least bit disturbed with the amount of abortions done yearly due to out of wedlock sex;

I am concerned about your reading comprehension. Unlike yourself, I don't accept cherry-picked reasons to allow abortion.

the amount of out of wedlock births where those children overwhelmingly are raised in fatherless homes and often times turn to drugs and crime as a way of life; or the amounts of STD's that happen in out of wedlock sexual relations.

What part of "telling them to abstain does not equal telling em to marry em while they are still young" do you not understand?

You act like marriage is a bad thing Sandy.

Marriage isn't good or bad, but simply neutral depending on the couple involved.

If a male and a female are of legal age, why should you or I tell anyone not to marry if they're committed to one another?

Legal age assumes maturity. There are reasons that a certain type of older person would prefer, if allowed, to marry a child or teenager. It certainly has nothing to do with love or compatibility.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Persephone66
Do I look like I care about being banned?

Vile image removed.

You must not...So your don't care became...your BANNED​

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the TOL moderators for allowing Persephone66 aka Chuck to post for as long as he did, as he's living testimony to the moral depravity that is walking around in society since homosexuality was decriminalized.

While I highly doubt that Chuck will ever seek the spiritual and psychological help that he so desperately needs, hopefully someday righteous laws will again be enacted that will force him to get that help.