Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

In "It was just a matter of time" news:


New York branch of Boy Scouts of America hires gay adult employee — defying national leadership

April 2, 2015

The New York chapter of the Boy Scouts of America has made history by hiring an openly gay adult — and telling bigotry to take a hike.

They have hired a gutsy 18-year-old Eagle Scout named Pascal Tessier to work as a camp counselor this summer at the Ten Mile River Scout Camp in upstate New York.

And nobody is prouder than his mom.

“I am,” said Tracie Felker, who lives in Hagerstown, Md., when asked about her boundary-breaking boy.

“It’s not a brave thing he is doing,” she added. “It’s something necessary, something that needs to be done.”

Legal eagle David Boies, best known for leading the fight against California’s anti-gay marriage law, said Tessier “embodies the best qualities of an Eagle Scout, and of America.”

“Permitting him to continue his service to scouts and to scouting is the right decision for the Boy Scouts, and for our community,” said Boies, who is also a former scout.

“In the past, barring boys and adults from being scouts and scout leaders solely based on their sexual orientation hurt them, hurt scouting, and hurt our communities. Ending that discrimination is an important step in putting an ugly chapter of American history behind us.”...

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...defying-national-leadership-article-1.2171124

What's the big deal if the Scout Master is 18 or 25, or 45 for that matter?

I mean it's not like the Boy Scouts have ever had a problem with pederast Scout leaders.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Ted Cruz: a man with a backbone.

Ted Cruz is attacking the Fortune 500, and that’s smart politics

Apr. 2, 2015

Corporate support for same-sex rights presents Cruz a chance to blast two movement conservative enemies at once.

Credit Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, with this: He’s doing what he can to lock down first-mover advantage in the Republican presidential sweepstakes.

Last week, he was first in what promises to be a crowded GOP field to officially announce his White House bid. Yesterday, he launched what Politico has already termed the backlash to the corporate backlash to Indiana’s controversial “religious freedom” law.

Addressing a crowd of 300 in Sioux City, Iowa, Cruz laced into the big business leaders who have jumped into the national firestorm over the law to help rally the opposition.

“The Fortune 500 is running shamelessly to endorse the radical gay marriage agenda over religious liberty to say: ‘We will persecute a Christian pastor, a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi,'” Cruz said. “Any person of faith is subject to persecution if they dare disagree, if their religious faith parts way from their political commitment to gay marriage.”

Cruz didn’t go on to name names. Perhaps it would have taken too long. In a surprising break from the practice of steering clear of hot-button social debates, a sprawling roster of major companies have piled into the melee over the Indiana law — among them, Angie’s List, Anthem (WLP ), Apple (AAPL ), Eli Lilly, Gap (GPS ), Marriott International (MAR ), Microsoft (MSFT ), Nascar, Nike (NKE 0.11%), Salesforce (CRM 0.91%), and Wal-Mart (WMT 0.02%)— registering their objections to a statute they contend sanctions discrimination against gays and lesbians. The attention has concentrated enough pressure on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) that he pledged on Tuesday to seek a sort of legislative fix-it, clarifying the intent of the law, officially the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read more: http://fortune.com/2015/04/02/ted-cruz-religiousfreedom/

 

[serpentdove]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And not 'gay youth'? (Someone is going soft).



In the scenario 12. Is there an age limit on repentance?

We enforce the law (Lk 19:13). God will sort it out with them (Rom. 2:14–16). :Letsargu:

But there I go again with that country music I can no longer listen to. :BillyBob:

Beer for my Horses ~ Toby Keith & Willie Nelson

 

[Arthur Brain]

Heck aCW...

That one on one debate is surely looming? The tension between you and SD is almost becoming interesting...

:shocked:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

We enforce the law (Lk 19:13). God will sort it out with them (Rom. 2:14–16). :Letsargu:

But there I go again with that country music I can no longer listen to. :BillyBob:

Beer for my Horses ~ Toby Keith & Willie Nelson

Heck aCW...

That one on one debate is surely looming? The tension between you and SD is almost becoming interesting...

:shocked:

As cute as sd is Art (she's not your type, she's a female), one really can't take her serious on this topic because homosexuality hasn't been considered a capital offense during the 2,000 years of Judeo-Christianized western civilization (there's no legal precedence for it).

On the other hand the criminalization of homosexuality does have legal precedence and to this day is still illegal in 18 US States.

From the homosexual website: equalitymatters.com (it has to be the truth, because proud and unrepentant homosexuals don't lie).

State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans

August 08, 2011

Up until 1962, gay sex between two consenting adults was a felony in every state in the United States. So-called “crime against nature” or “sodomy” laws -- the term "sodomy” is a reference to the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah -- typically punished violators with lengthy prison sentences, fines, and even hard labor. Although these laws typically targeted gays and lesbians, some statutes were written broadly enough to cover any form of non-vaginal intercourse, including oral and anal sex between heterosexuals.

While many states moved to repeal their sodomy laws in the late 1900s, others -- like Georgia -- moved in the opposite direction. In the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s sodomy law, arguing that there was no “fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.”

After Bowers, several more states began moving towards decriminalizing private acts of gay sex between consenting adults. It wasn’t until 2003, however, that the Supreme Court finally reconsidered its position on sodomy laws.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Texas’ sodomy statute was unconstitutional, marking a major legal victory on the path towards LGBT equality. With the remainder of state sodomy laws technically invalidated by Lawrence, the LGBT community began to shift its focus. Alexis Agathocleous, staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, recently wrote:


Coming seventeen years after Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court's seething antigay decision that upheld a Georgia sodomy law, Lawrence felt like a sea change. Laws actually criminalizing the community, many people assumed, were a relic of the past. And accordingly, the LGBT rights movement shifted gears: litigation, lobbying, advocacy, and resources in the years since Lawrence have overwhelmingly focused on civil institutions such as marriage and visibility in the mainstream media. In short, the mainstream LGBT community stopped talking about criminal justice.

Eight years later, however, eighteen states still refuse to rewrite their laws and take these anti-gay relics off their books, with countless LGBT Americans continuing to feel their devastating effects as a result. Several state legislatures and courts have exploited loopholes in the Lawrence decision, while others have simply refused to acknowledge the decision altogether.


Continued Enforcement

Nearly a decade after Lawrence, many states have continued to enforce laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between same-sex adults.

In Michigan, the practice of charging and convicting gay men under the state’s “Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature” or “Gross Indecency” laws still exists, with violators facing the risk of having to register as sex offenders and prison sentences of up to 15 years. According to Rudy Serra, attorney and Chairman of the Executive Clemency Council for the State of Michigan, police officers continue to aggressively prosecute LGBT people without legal challenge:

The legislature still has not repealed the sodomy and gross indecency statutes, even after Lawrence v. Texas, and ultra-conservative ("strict constructionist") judges still continue to enforce the "legislative intent" to criminalize gay sex, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

LGBT people in Michigan continue to be charged with crimes for public speech, in which they let another person know they are interested in private, unpaid sex with another adult. Bag-A-Fag (undercover decoy cop) operations, where police officers pretend to be gay men cruising for unpaid, consensual sex continue in Michigan. LGBT people are still at risk of spending 15 years in state prison for acts that are perfectly legal in most other states. [emphasis added]

Even in states where sodomy laws are understood by judges to be unconstitutional, the presence of sodomy laws can cause gays and lesbians to be dragged into humiliating, costly, and discriminatory legal disputes.

In 2008, Nelson Sloan and Ryan Flynn were arrested by the Raleigh Police Department under North Carolina's "crime against nature" statue for engaging in private, consensual, homosexual sex. The charge is considered a Class I felony in the state and carried a punishment of up to two years in prison. “I have never been so humiliated in all my life,” Sloan said. “It’s just awful.”

Read more: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012

While I've painted a grim picture throughout this 3 part thread, as shown in the article above there are still laws on the books that are being enforced that help these pathetic lost souls who engage in the "abominable and detestable crime against nature" known as homosexuality.

 

[alwight]

Talking of outdated and daft laws, up until 1976 London taxis were required by law to carry a bale of hay. lain:

I wonder if a wife in Michigan could get her husband put away for 15 years depending on which orifice was used during sexual intercourse? :think:
Would a third party need to be called on as a witness?:liberals:

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Talking of outdated and daft laws, up until 1976 London taxis were required by law to carry a bale of hay. lain:

You forgot the sack of oats! :chuckle:

 

[GFR7]

aCW:

Remember how we used to be friends, until you said that awful, dreadful thing to me? :think:

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26), how can someone be born with sexual desires that He detests?

"What does it mean that humanity is made in the image of God?"

Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our conscience or “moral compass” is a vestige of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of...#ixzz3WCFnK7de

Don't fall for the 'born that way/gay gene' lies Pete, you know better than that.



Then be consistent with what you write in other posts, because what you said here would mean that if God did indeed create some with homosexual desires, then it would be perfectly acceptable for them to act on them.

I have been consistent. I'm sure if you ask anyone else around here they aren't under the impression that I believe people are born homosexuals. I've made it clear on numerous occasions, so why not try being intellectually honest in the way you read and quote what I've said?

Why throw in an hypothesis when that can't be the case ? Either Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God or it's not. Either we're made in God's image (created in righteousness and perfect innocence) or can be born with sinful desires (in which case homosexuality wouldn't be a sin if people were born with same sex deisres).

I was trying to demonstrate that the argument that people are born homosexual even if it were true would be no justification for acting on those homosexual desires. But it's not true, I don't believe it for a minute. In philosophy, hypothetical situations are used to demonstrate something and that's what I just did. Stop misrepresenting what I said.

As for the second part there you do acknowledge the concept and doctrine of original sin, right?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

While I've painted a grim picture throughout this 3 part thread, as shown in the article above there are still laws on the books that are being enforced that help these pathetic lost souls who engage in the "abominable and detestable crime against nature" known as homosexuality.

Talking of outdated and daft laws, up until 1976 London taxis were required by law to carry a bale of hay. lain:

I wonder if a wife in Michigan could get her husband put away for 15 years depending on which orifice was used during sexual intercourse? :think:
Would a third party need to be called on as a witness?:liberals:

You forgot the sack of oats! :chuckle:

Is it my imagine or did the boyz just compare these two things:

with this

and laugh about it?


AIDS Kills 7,000 Gay Men In The U.S. Each Year

...An estimated 30,000 gay men in this country became infected with HIV in 2010. Gay men are only about 2% of the U.S. population, but we're now the fastest growing group of new infections, accounting for 63% of total infections in recent years. Most of these are young gay men, and over half of these 13-24 year-olds are black gay men. Why aren't these numbers shocking us?

Nearly 7,000 gay men still die from AIDS in this country each year. I realize that gay marriage is important and worth fighting for, but shouldn't our national gay rights groups be doing more than token levels of activism around HIV/AIDS? This is by far the biggest health care issue in the gay community,...
http://blogs.poz.com/peter/archives/2013/03/aids_kills_7000_gay_men_each_year.html

Boy, there is so much work to be done in the LGBTQueer/sexual anarchist movement:

1) Repeal existing sodomy laws (so that little Nelson Sloan can go about sodomizing whatshisname without the humiliation of being arrested).

2). Find a cure for all of those STD's that are still killing those who partake in homosexual behavior in droves.

My my, with all of that work that needs to be done how does the LGBTQueer movement find time to camp out at Chuck E. Cheese birthday parties and elementary school playgrounds looking for new recruits?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Is it my imagine or did the boyz just compare these two things:

with this

and laugh about it?

It's your very wild imagination, I assure you.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Then be consistent with what you write in other posts, because what you said here would mean that if God did indeed create some with homosexual desires, then it would be perfectly acceptable for them to act on them.

I have been consistent...

Yes you have been consistent lmohm: As shown in my last post you consistently side with moral relativist atheists and pagans on the side of keeping that "abominable and detestable crime against nature" legal (and laugh about it).

I'd tell you what I really think of you, but I'm not in the mood to get banned today.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Then be consistent with what you write in other posts, because what you said here would mean that if God did indeed create some with homosexual desires, then it would be perfectly acceptable for them to act on them.



Yes you have been consistent lmohm: As shown in my last post you consistently side with moral relativist atheists and pagans on the side of keeping that "abominable and detestable crime against nature" legal (and laugh about it).

I'd tell you what I really think of you, but I'm not in the mood to get banned today.

Here is your problem. I am not your enemy, but you think I am anyway. I posted in this thread yesterday to rebuke someone who was posting pro-gay rubbish, but you decided to rebuke me. Just because I'm not rude, mean and arrogant like you doesn't mean that I side with those who believe it's perfectly OK to be gay. The difference is I know how to politely disagree with others, something you could do with learning yourself.

You bully and belittle people. You are dishonest, lie and misrepresent others. You call people names. It's not acceptable no matter how much you think it is!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes you have been consistent lmohm: As shown in my last post you consistently side with moral relativist atheists and pagans on the side of keeping that "abominable and detestable crime against nature" legal (and laugh about it).

I'd tell you what I really think of you, but I'm not in the mood to get banned today.

Here is your problem. I am not your enemy, but you think I am anyway.

My enemy? It's God who ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of men. Take up your issue with righteous legislation with Him.

I posted in this thread yesterday to rebuke someone who was posting pro-gay rubbish, but you decided to rebuke me. Just because I'm not rude, mean and arrogant like you doesn't mean that I side with those who believe it's perfectly OK to be gay. The difference is I know how to politely disagree with others, something you could do with learning yourself.

You bully and belittle people. You are dishonest, lie and misrepresent others. You call people names. It's not acceptable no matter how much you think it is!

i.e. it's our...

"method".

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes you have been consistent lmohm: As shown in my last post you consistently side with moral relativist atheists and pagans on the side of keeping that "abominable and detestable crime against nature" legal (and laugh about it).

I'd tell you what I really think of you, but I'm not in the mood to get banned today.



My enemy? It's God who ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of men. Take up your issue with righteous legislation with Him.

You speak to me as if I am your enemy because we have a minor theological disagreement. It's not good enough for you that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and speak out against it. If a Christian dares dissent from every dot of the 'i' and cross of the 't' that you write, you speak to them as if they are your personal enemy.

i.e. it's our...

"method".

According to the Bible, the way you speak to others is wrong. It's a shame you are too proud and arrogant to accept that.

 

[jsjohnnt]

Here is your problem. I am not your enemy, but you think I am anyway. I posted in this thread yesterday to rebuke someone who was posting pro-gay rubbish, but you decided to rebuke me. Just because I'm not rude, mean and arrogant like you doesn't mean that I side with those who believe it's perfectly OK to be gay. The difference is I know how to politely disagree with others, something you could do with learning yourself.

You bully and belittle people. You are dishonest, lie and misrepresent others. You call people names. It's not acceptable no matter how much you think it is!

Very well done. This thread never should be allowed to exist without well stated opposition that is Christ centered but persistent. I do not believe that Christ would be as polite as you. I remember him talking about "whited sepulchers" and "dead men's bones."

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

My enemy? It's God who ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of men. Take up your issue with righteous legislation with Him.

You speak to me as if I am your enemy because we have a minor theological disagreement. It's not good enough for you that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and speak out against it. If a Christian dares dissent from every dot of the 'i' and cross of the 't' that you write, you speak to them as if they are your personal enemy.

Being an anarchist* is not a "minor theological disagreement".

*It depends on what sexual sin we're talking about: according to lmohm homosexuality and adultery shouldn't be recriminalized (the two most harmful sexual sins that there are), but incest should continue to be (it's icky).

According to the Bible, the way you speak to others is wrong. It's a shame you are too proud and arrogant to accept that.

Why don't you get in touch with Pastor Bob Enyart and discuss his article

"Nicer than God"
http://kgov.com/nicer-than-God

with him.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Very well done. This thread never should be allowed to exist without well stated opposition that is Christ centered but persistent. I do not believe that Christ would be as polite as you. I remember him talking about "whited sepulchers" and "dead men's bones."

I base my beliefs on how Christians should speak to others on the Bible. More specifically 1 Peter 3:15-16 'But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.'

I also base it on the fruit of the spirit in a Christian's life. As it says in Galatians 5:22-23 'But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.'

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW:

Remember how we used to be friends, until you said that awful, dreadful thing to me? :think:

Welcome back to the WHMBR! thread GFR7 (this is the longest you've stayed away).

No, I don't remember how we used to be friends, because we never were. And yes, facing the truth can be "dreadful" for those that don't want to hear it.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

My enemy? It's God who ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of men. Take up your issue with righteous legislation with Him.



Being an anarchist* is not a "minor theological disagreement".

*It depends on what sexual sin we're talking about: according to lmohm homosexuality and adultery shouldn't be recriminalized (the two most harmful sexual sins that there are), but incest should continue to be (it's icky).

Misrepresenting me again I see. For the record I am not an anarchist. Did you miss that part in the 10 commandments which says something about not bearing false witness? I guess you did.

Why don't you get in touch with Pastor Bob Enyart and discuss his article

"Nicer than God"
http://kgov.com/nicer-than-God

with him.

I notice that the two scriptures I quoted in my previous post are completely missing from this article.