Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

This coming from a guy who is recorded telling two children that "homosexuality is acceptable as long as the people involved love one another"?
And speaking of that ultra ultra conservative United Kingdom:
Would that be the same UK that published a letter by a well known homosexual activist that promoted pedophilia?

Ah, standard aCW evasive tactics to avoid answering direct questions I see. Put up a load of obfuscation and smoke and hope nobody notices. Here they are again:

"Still, you seem to have no problem with children being wed as long as they're 'post pubescent', is that right? In the UK it's across the board, it doesn't differ from county to county. So what are you actually talking about where it comes to lowering age of consent laws? Where would you set the bar?"

Oh and FTR I'm not recorded as telling children any such thing or anything at all connected with sexual relations. Check back among your beloved table of contents to see your mistake.

Here it is again Art for your conveniently fading memory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The indoctrination of innocent children by the homosexual movement has been well documented throughout the thread Art. Be it in books:

or television shows.

Now I believe that link I attached had a question that I'd like answered.

Oh, you'd like it answered eh? should I do your usual trick and deflect around it all ends up?

Nah, I'll answer you. If they saw that bizarre clip,or anything similar, they wouldn't even ask that, and even if they did and were persistent I'd say what's important is that people love each other and treat their partner and children with love and respect.

Radical huh?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3736474&postcount=3976

In today's sick culture children are exposed to things that would cause them to ask those sort of questions. How an adult answers those questions shows whether or not that adult is someone who cares for these innocent children's physical, emotional and spiritual well being or is a pervert.

Which are you Art?

Regarding your obsession with Phil Robertson: Been there, had that conversation before.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3756921&postcount=4362

Now that your 15 minutes of delusional fame are up Art...

it's time to move on...

 

[Jedidiah]

Homosexuality is no more inherently sinful than is heterosexuality

Made Up.

 

[GFR7]

aCW: What say ye of this? :think:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108954

This is dreadful: Because they support tradition and natural law, they are attacked by the postmodern goon squad:

See also: Nature vs. Synthetics: What’s at Stake in the Dolce and Gabbana Controversy

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14663/

Protestors from around the world gathered to call for a boycott against the brand

"Dolce and Gabbana have learned an important lesson on what happens when you take on the LGBTI community -- you lose."

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...d-londons-dolce-and-gabbana-store-today190315

 

[alwight]

As much as you would love to steal away Art Brain's "Queen of Denial" title, he pretty much has it for life. If we need to review the table of contents to show where you stand on the LGBTQueer agenda Al, I'll gladly take the time to 'refresh' your memory.

Any similarity between what I say and the aims of any activist groups are purely coincidental aCW. I am rather sure however that you won't be able to point to any example of me supporting any such overall agenda.

If indeed it was same sex desires that were responsible for the 15 year old boy in Sprague WA to do what he did, then those desires were a "problem" for the children and their families involved.

Paedophilia and homosexuality are two different things, remember aCW?
Anyway it's nonsense, since it's just as arguable that heterosexual/any sexual desires, by the same token, are also responsible for paedophilia.

Refer to the table of contents to see what sort of things and people alwight the atheist supports because he does his "own thinking".

Your own uncritical adherence to your religious doctrine is once again noted aCW. Yes, unlike your group-think mentality apparently, I make no apologies for doing my own thinking. Perhaps I should be criminalised? :think:

So you're fine with the term "gay youth" and have no problem whatsoever if this particular 15 year old in Sprague WA does have homosexual desires?

The fact that there are gay youths is no more troubling to me than that there are youths who are left-handed. Then again I might perhaps feel that an organised group of young theocratic Christian fundamentalists otoh would indeed be of some cause for concern.

I knew that you'd be very uncomfortable when I used the words "reparative therapy professional". How about in the future I refer to them as "therapists that help people with desires that no one wants"?

I think the real issue here is that it is homophobic bigots who don't want gay people to have gay thoughts.

No one wants to have homosexual desires do they Al?

I'm not gay and wouldn't presume to speak for gays and their wants. Perhaps it's your own thoughts that you don't want, since after all God is listening in and won't approve, right aCW? :shocked:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW: What say ye of this? :think:

This is dreadful: Because they support tradition and natural law, they are attacked by the postmodern goon squad:

I say ye owe me a response to this post exposing not only proud and unrepentant homosexuals Dolce and Gabbana, but a guy who constantly pretends to be a social conservative (you).

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4261900&postcount=6537

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As much as you would love to steal away Art Brain's "Queen of Denial" title, he pretty much has it for life. If we need to review the table of contents to show where you stand on the LGBTQueer agenda Al, I'll gladly take the time to 'refresh' your memory.

Any similarity between what I say and the aims of any activist groups are purely coincidental aCW. I am rather sure however that you won't be able to point to any example of me supporting any such overall agenda.

Then why don't you clear up any misunderstanding Al by denouncing the things that the LGBTQueer movement has done since the decriminalization of homosexuality in the areas of adoption, marriage, housing, employment, the military, education, etc. etc. etc. ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If indeed it was same sex desires that were responsible for the 15 year old boy in Sprague WA to do what he did, then those desires were a "problem" for the children and their families involved.

Paedophilia and homosexuality are two different things, remember aCW?

If said 15 year old were to have convinced the 11 year old that he attempted to "lure" away from his home last year to have sex with him and said 11 year old was post pubescent, then it wouldn't have been an act of pedophilia, it would have been an act of homosexuality between two consenting "gay youths".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Refer to the table of contents to see what sort of things and people alwight the atheist supports because he does his "own thinking".

Your own uncritical adherence to your religious doctrine is once again noted aCW. Yes, unlike your group-think mentality apparently, I make no apologies for doing my own thinking. Perhaps I should be criminalised?

I know that you don't make any apologies for your defense of perversion Al, that's why I'm here to point them out and document them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you're fine with the term "gay youth" and have no problem whatsoever if this particular 15 year old in Sprague WA does have homosexual desires?

The fact that there are gay youths is no more troubling to me than that there are youths who are left-handed.

But those who use their left hand to write or throw a ball don't contract HIV/AIDS like those who engage in homosex do Al.

For the record I'll document that have you have no problem with the term "homosexual children" (and here I was convinced that homosexuality was only between "two consenting adults").

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I knew that you'd be very uncomfortable when I used the words "reparative therapy professional". How about in the future I refer to them as "therapists that help people with desires that no one wants"?

I think the real issue here is that it is homophobic bigots who don't want gay people to have gay thoughts.

Then "Therapists that help people with their unwanted same sex attractions" will be the new term that replaces "reparative therapy".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
No one wants to have homosexual desires do they Al?

I'm not gay and wouldn't presume to speak for gays and their wants.

But Al, you and I have both heard the words "No one would choooooose to be gay" a thousand times when talking about the elusive "gay gene", so is it not accurate to say that "No one wants to have homosexual desires"?

 

[GFR7]

I say ye owe me a response to this post exposing not only proud and unrepentant homosexuals Dolce and Gabbana, but a guy who constantly pretends to be a social conservative (you).

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4261900&postcount=6537

I am SO FURIOUS I can barely type:

1. First, what in BLAZES do you call this piece on Brian Brown's National Org for Marriage Blog site??? HUH????

http://www.nomblog.com/40007/

2. I do NOT believe in a pushed agenda; I do not believe in the public school and University and corporate and media campaign.

3. I, like Brian Brown and the scholars at First Things, applaud Dolce and Gabbana, you first class idiot. :madmad:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

While I've shown throughout this 3 part thread that the mental, spiritual and often times physical indoctrination/molestation of children is a high priority for the LGBTQueer movement, this article supports that fact.

'I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children -- And I'm Not Sorry'

March 16, 2015 - Monday

By Tony Perkins

If Americans don't want to take our word on the real gay agenda, they can take S. Bear Bergman's. The Canadian activist was shockingly blunt about his movement's motives -- which he says he's tired of hiding. "I am here to tell you: All that time I said I wasn't indoctrinating anyone with my beliefs about gay and lesbian and bi and trans and queer people? That was a lie," he wrote in an article for Huffington Post called: "I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children into My LGBTQ Agenda (And I'm Not a Bit Sorry)."

The head of a Toronto publishing company, Bergman said he was taught how to use "soft" language when speaking about homosexuality -- and not betray the real goal, which was recruiting. "I want kids to know (we're perfectly fine and often really excellent) even if their parents' or community's interpretation of their religious tenets is that we're awful. I would be happy -- delighted, overjoyed I tell you -- to cause those children to disagree with their families on the subject of LGBTQ people."

For years, activists wanted to keep the goal of ensnaring children into sexual confusion under wraps. Now, having hoodwinked most of the country on their agenda, these extremists no longer have to hide. In fact, they are increasingly bold -- almost boastful -- about their real intentions. Although Bergman admits to wanting to "indoctrinate" and "recruit" children, his description of the LGBT agenda is far less honest. "I have been on a consistent campaign of trying to change people's minds about us. I want to make them like us. That is absolutely my goal." He assumes that people who criticize homosexuality do so because they do not "like" gay people...

Read more: http://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20150316/i-have-come
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/s-bea...doctrinate-your-children-lgtbq_b_6795152.html
http://barbwire.com/2015/03/17/0655-i-have-come-to-indoctrinate-your-children-and-im-not-sorry/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I am SO FURIOUS I can barely type:

Con artists hate being exposed, in fact it makes them furious.

This post still awaits your response.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4261900&postcount=6537

1. First, what in BLAZES do you call this piece on Brian Brown's National Org for Marriage Blog site??? HUH????

http://www.nomblog.com/40007/

"Bravo to Dolce and Gabbana for daring to speak the truth; they are as bold in their speech as they are in their designs, and deserve to be applauded. While others will continue to vent their disagreement, the billionaire pair are wonderful advocates for the true definitions of marriage and family. -
See more at: http://www.nomblog.com/40007/#sthash.GZXdsGA4.dpuf

Thank you for pointing out that Dan Savage's partner in crime is a fraud who uses proud and unrepentant homosexuals like Dolce and Gabbana to promote his cause (Brown's "cause" being that of lining his pocket with big $$ as President of the National Organization of Marriage).

 

[GFR7]

Con artists hate being exposed, in fact it makes them furious.

This post still awaits your response.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4261900&postcount=6537

I know you do, and I know it does.

Nope, I've addressed the issue too many times and I won't waste my time arguing with an obtuse blockhead.

And I pointed out the Barber piece to you yesterday, you first class idiot.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Con artists hate being exposed, in fact it makes them furious.

This post still awaits your response. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4261900&postcount=6537

I know you do, and I know it does.

Nope, I've addressed the issue too many times and I won't waste my time arguing with an obtuse blockhead.

For those who might have missed it, tell us again why those who engage in the behavior known as homosexuality (a changeable behavior by the way) should have special "rights".

And I pointed out the Barber piece to you yesterday, you first class idiot.

I'm sorry, let me fix that:

Spoiler

So that homosexualist GFR7's ego isn't terribly bruised, he originally posted the article entitled 'I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children -- And I'm Not Sorry' .

There, feel better now?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Student's Right to Privacy Act Introduced in Nevada‏

Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:

Surely you're not concerned with someone like Persephone66 aka Chuck using the same restroom/lockerroom facilities as girls are you sd?

The above proposed legislation is a temporary fix to the cancer that is growing out of control in our once sane society.

Wouldn't you agree sd?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

As many of you are aware the thugs at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have had a "hate map" that they've distributed for several years putting organizations such as Peter LaBarbera's "Americans For Truth About Homosexuality" in the same category as racist groupls like the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.splcenter.org/hate-map#s=IL

Our good friends at the American Family Association have recently put together a "bigotry map" showing various LGBTQueer organizations and their allies like the SLPC and the hate and bigotry that they're responsible for throughout the United States.

http://www.afa.net/bigotrymap

 

[GFR7]

For those who might have missed it, tell us again why those who engage in the behavior known as homosexuality (a changeable behavior by the way) should have special "rights".

No special rights at all. Simply the right to be anonymous.

I'm sorry, let me fix that:

Spoiler

So that homosexualist GFR7's ego isn't terribly bruised, he originally posted the article entitled 'I Have Come to Indoctrinate Your Children -- And I'm Not Sorry' .

Daddy!!! :roses:

There, feel better now?

Mmmm hmmmm, yip. :baby:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
For those who might have missed it, tell us again why those who engage in the behavior known as homosexuality (a changeable behavior by the way) should have special "rights".

No special rights at all. Simply the right to be anonymous.

So you've changed your tune from several pages back where you stated that "gays" should should have certain rights (employment, housing, etc. etc.).

I believe in rights to privacy, dignity, employment, housing. I do not like to choose for people, or to humiliate people.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4223448&postcount=5700

A different day a different personality GFR7?

 

[alwight]

Then why don't you clear up any misunderstanding Al by denouncing the things that the LGBTQueer movement has done since the decriminalization of homosexuality in the areas of adoption, marriage, housing, employment, the military, education, etc. etc. etc. ?

I'm not here to argue for or against any specific activist groups, the issue here is whether homosexuals as a whole should be criminalised, not what an activist group may or may not espouse.

If said 15 year old were to have convinced the 11 year old that he attempted to "lure" away from his home last year to have sex with him and said 11 year old was post pubescent, then it wouldn't have been an act of pedophilia, it would have been an act of homosexuality between two consenting "gay youths".

As you well know aCW I've never been in favour of any underage sexual intercourse, gay or straight, consenting or otherwise. One of the reasons is precisely because of something like this happening. If parental control has failed for some reason then that is an issue for that specific case, but it is not an argument for criminalising all homosexuals any more than it would be for heterosexuals if the 11-y-o happened to have been a girl.

I know that you don't make any apologies for your defense of perversion Al, that's why I'm here to point them out and document them.

Let's just say that your idea of what actually constitutes "perversion" is somewhat different to mine.
Maybe it's because I decide for myself what I think is perverted, based on evidence, rationality and reason, while you apparently let an ancient scripture do all your "thinking" for you.
...except that for some reason, perhaps because you just like lobster, you allow Christian apologetics and its spin to be in charge of your thought processes, since that is probably rather more convenient for you personally than simply adhering Leviticus.

So, just possibly, there is a glimmer of independent thinking still going on somewhere within the depths of whatever passes for your brain aCW?

But those who use their left hand to write or throw a ball don't contract HIV/AIDS like those who engage in homosex do Al.

They might if they, like anyone else, disregard common sense and don't practice safe sex.

For the record I'll document that have you have no problem with the term "homosexual children" (and here I was convinced that homosexuality was only between "two consenting adults").

I can't stop you concluding whatever you will aCW, but most people here will probably have learned not to put too must trust in it or anything else you say. :nono:

Then "Therapists that help people with their unwanted same sex attractions" will be the new term that replaces "reparative therapy".

You say "therapists" where I say "quacks".

But Al, you and I have both heard the words "No one would choooooose to be gay" a thousand times when talking about the elusive "gay gene", so is it not accurate to say that "No one wants to have homosexual desires"?

Quite the opposite perhaps aCW. I suspect that most gay couples in reasonably happy relationships wouldn't want to be any different, least of all be compelled to use the services of one of your quack so-called "therapists". lain:

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
For those who might have missed it, tell us again why those who engage in the behavior known as homosexuality (a changeable behavior by the way) should have special "rights".



So you've changed your tune from several pages back where you stated that "gays" should should have certain rights (employment, housing, etc. etc.).


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4223448&postcount=5700

A different day a different personality GFR7?

Those are negative rights , not special rights. The right to employment , housing means anonymity - Don't ask, don't tell. NO SPECIAL RIGHTS. I am consistent, you fail to see this.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

This coming from a guy who is recorded telling two children that "homosexuality is acceptable as long as the people involved love one another"?

Here it is again Art for your conveniently fading memory:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3736474&postcount=3976

Still not seeing your mistake are you? I know exactly what I'd said in response to your hypothetical and as I'd stated above I'd try to steer any such conversation away from anything sexual but in principle I stand by what I said. How appalling to promote the values of love and respect...

In today's sick culture children are exposed to things that would cause them to ask those sort of questions. How an adult answers those questions shows whether or not that adult is someone who cares for these innocent children's physical, emotional and spiritual well being or is a pervert.

Which are you Art?

I daresay there's only one "right" form of response in your world but my ^ is what I'd be going with or variations thereof. Perhaps I should tell any young boys that when they get older they should only get girls when they're 15/16 so they'll ripe for subservience?

:think:

Regarding your obsession with Phil Robertson: Been there, had that conversation before.

it's time to move on...

In other words you've been put on the spot, your transparent deflection tactics haven't worked and you can't answer without looking like just as much of a crank as Robertson or being forced to criticize one of your heroes?

If you don't answer these very straightforward questions then what other conclusion is there to draw apart from your support for 15 years old being wed along with a very strange idea of 'honouring' women and children? Why so shy aCW?

Here they are again:

"Phil advocates 15 as acceptable. Do you agree with him? Should be easy enough to answer".

"How about instead you explain how Robertson's remarks were "honouring" women and girls exactly? Do please enlighten us".

Surely these two at least should be easy enough for you to address?

 

[jgarden]

If homosexuality is worthy of "recrimminalization," perhaps "aCultureWarrior" would enlighten us as to why such an "abomination" was never mentioned in the Gospels.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Then why don't you clear up any misunderstanding Al by denouncing the things that the LGBTQueer movement has done since the decriminalization of homosexuality in the areas of adoption, marriage, housing, employment, the military, education, etc. etc. etc. ?

I'm not here to argue for or against any specific activist groups, the issue here is whether homosexuals as a whole should be criminalised, not what an activist group may or may not espouse.

I'm here to show people what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized. An extremely well organized movement with huge financial and political backing created an agenda which has been fulfilled beyond their wildest dreams (mentoring youth, who would have thought a supposed civilized society would let sexual deviants anywhere near children?).

I've also pointed out that those who engage in homosex disproportionately are afflicted with disease and substance abuse amongst other things.

So here's your chance again Al, either you're for or against the LGBTQueer agenda. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If said 15 year old were to have convinced the 11 year old that he attempted to "lure" away from his home last year to have sex with him and said 11 year old was post pubescent, then it wouldn't have been an act of pedophilia, it would have been an act of homosexuality between two consenting "gay youths".

As you well know aCW I've never been in favour of any underage sexual intercourse, gay or straight, consenting or otherwise. One of the reasons is precisely because of something like this happening. If parental control has failed for some reason then that is an issue for that specific case, but it is not an argument for criminalising all homosexuals any more than it would be for heterosexuals if the 11-y-o happened to have been a girl.

So we can agree that a 15 year old with unnatural sexual desires should be helped to overcome them?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I know that you don't make any apologies for your defense of perversion Al, that's why I'm here to point them out and document them.

Let's just say that your idea of what actually constitutes "perversion" is somewhat different to mine.
Maybe it's because I decide for myself what I think is perverted, based on evidence, rationality and reason, while you apparently let an ancient scripture do all your "thinking" for you.
...except that for some reason, perhaps because you just like lobster, you allow Christian apologetics and its spin to be in charge of your thought processes, since that is probably rather more convenient for you personally than simply adhering Leviticus.

So, just possibly, there is a glimmer of independent thinking still going on somewhere within the depths of whatever passes for your brain aCW?

Do you have dementia Al?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
But those who use their left hand to write or throw a ball don't contract HIV/AIDS like those who engage in homosex do Al.

They might if they, like anyone else, disregard common sense and don't practice safe sex.

So it's not the fact that the unnatural sex act causes these diseases, the real problem is that those who engage in them aren't taking proper precautions to prevent things like HIV/AIDS, anal cancer, gonorrhea and syphillis?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
For the record I'll document that have you have no problem with the term "homosexual children" (and here I was convinced that homosexuality was only between "two consenting adults").

I can't stop you concluding whatever you will aCW, but most people here will probably have learned not to put too must trust in it or anything else you say.

Then until I hear otherwise, alwight approves of the term "gay youth" aka "homosexual children".


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Then "Therapists that help people with their unwanted same sex attractions" will be the new term that replaces "reparative therapy".

You say "therapists" life where I say "quacks" death.

That's better.

BTW Al, have you ever been to a "therapist that helps people with their unwanted same sex attractions"? (While I'm not counting on it, maybe Al will be honest with us at least once in his life and say "yes, but it didn't work").

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
But Al, you and I have both heard the words "No one would choooooose to be gay" a thousand times when talking about the elusive "gay gene", so is it not accurate to say that "No one wants to have homosexual desires"?

Quite the opposite perhaps aCW. I suspect that most gay couples in reasonably happy relationships wouldn't want to be any different, least of all be compelled to use the services of one of your quack so-called "therapists".

The only openly homosexual person that has come forward recently (or at all in this 3 part thread) is good ole Persephone66, aka Chuck. I'm pretty certain you see Chuck as a happy person in a "happy relationship" (I'm sure that they'll be happier once Chuck's boyfriend gets his genital mutilated).

If you don't want to talk about Chuck we could talk about Mr. and Mrs. Dan Savage. Better yet, why don't you show us a "gay couple in a reaonably happy relationship"?