Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

I really don't care what gay people say on video.

But but but Stan, they're as honest as the day is long (it's us homophobic bigots that are the liars! liars! liars!, just ask any homosexualist that has posted in this thread and they'll tell you).

Did you used to work for the National Enquirer or do you still?
The only Queen I see here is YOU, but you're just paranoid to admit it.

Did I ever tell you that you remind me a lot of that rabid coyote that went by the name of "Wile"?

Wile had a theology degree (Moody Bible College as I recall) and loved God so much that he took a proud and unrepentant homosexual into a church and mocked God by making him his Best Man.

Where are my manners Stan? I almost forgot HRC founder and accused pederast/child rapist Terry Bean.

Shhhh! - Top Homosexual Activist, HRC's Terry Bean, Charged with Sexually Abusing Boy

 

[alwight]

Yeah, telling a couple of proud and unrepentant sinners that celebration of their sin goes [against?]Christian doctrine and therefore they can't accommodate them with floral arrangements, photography, wedding cakes, etc. etc. etc. is real "persecution" isn't it Al?

The point is that a majority doesn't have any right to subjugate or persecute a minority.
Even by those who think they speak for God.
If some of those within such a minority can find a way to get the ear of the general public in a cake shop to "push-back" rather than to simply keep on taking it then that's their prerogative imo.
If you personally don't like them doing that aCW then that's even better.

 

[aikido7]

Yes, there will always be "conflict" between those who proudly embrace immoral behavior and those who stand up for God's Word.

I have discovered that it is HOW we deal with conflict that makes a difference. We happen to live in a society where "Violence Saves" and we believe there are only two responses to conflict: giving in passively or fighting back aggressively.

The question is: Which side is going to win? (I'll help you with the answer: God doesn't lose).

I think we will all win. No one will be condemned, marginalized or left out. All will be blessed.
The God of Jesus never played favorites.

"Who made ME a judge?"

"...that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

"...Don't judge others, and God won't judge you. Don't be hard on others, and God won't be hard on you. Forgive others, and God will forgive you."

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Right-Wing Russian writer and the author of "The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956."

 

[Arthur Brain]

I thought that I made it clear long ago when you were on one of your many derailment rants (cigarette smoking, Phil Robertson), that I'm doing your mental instability a great disservice by playing along with your drama queen rants.

The current topic is persecution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persecution

Either Christians (and some people who aren't Christians, but simply voiced their opinion on the topic of homosexuality) who have been subjected to fines, loss of employment, threat of imprisonment and subjected to violence and property damage by LGBTQueer activists are the people who are being persecuted for simply following Christian doctrine, or they're not.

Focus Art on giving me a...ahem...straight answer, I know that you can do it.

You're not being persecuted, get over it and deal with it. For you to whine on and claim some ridiculous martyr status is more of a drama queen rant than I could concoct or would be even interested in doing.

And get some new material man, unless you wanna come over as a projecting closet case in which case carry on...

 

[StanJ]

But but but Stan, they're as honest as the day is long (it's us homophobic bigots that are the liars! liars! liars!, just ask any homosexualist that has posted in this thread and they'll tell you).

They're no more honest than you are aCW. I don't accuse you of lying, I label you a bigot, because you are. People with agendas usually end up lying to support their agendas. You're a great example of a bigot with an agenda.

Did I ever tell you that you remind me a lot of that rabid coyote that went by the name of "Wile"?
Wile had a theology degree (Moody Bible College as I recall) and loved God so much that he took a proud and unrepentant homosexual into a church and mocked God by making him his Best Man.
Where are my manners Stan? I almost forgot HRC founder and accused pederast/child rapist Terry Bean.

1 Peter 5:8 (NIV) talks about you and your father.

One thing you DON'T have is manners aCW...bigots don't use them so have no requirement for them.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yeah, telling a couple of proud and unrepentant sinners that celebration of their sin goes [against] Christian doctrine and therefore they can't accommodate them with floral arrangements, photography, wedding cakes, etc. etc. etc. is real "persecution" isn't it Al?

The point is that a majority doesn't have any right to subjugate or persecute a minority.

The places I could go with that statement Al:

1). Society has no right to subjugate or persecute child molesters (but since it's been well established that the 'Man Boy Love' faction of the LGBTQueer movement is not only tolerated, but celebrated, I won't go there because I won't get an argument out of you on that statement).

2). The minority doesn't have any right to subjugate or persecute the majority (the majority of Americans identify as Christian, even though they're not true followers of Christ i.e. if TracerBullet, aikido7 and Stan can call themselves Christian, anyone can).

I like this one:

3). People who belong to an organized movement that engages in immoral behavior don't have the right to subjugate or persecute those who don't.

Of course the argument is "Who decides what is moral and what isn't?"

If that answer isn't God, but is secular humanist/moral relativist man, then refer to #1.

 

[alwight]

The places I could go with that statement Al:

1). Society has no right to subjugate or persecute child molesters (but since it's been well established that the 'Man Boy Love' faction of the LGBTQueer movement is not only tolerated, but celebrated, I won't go there because I won't get an argument out of you on that statement).

2). The minority doesn't have any right to subjugate or persecute the majority (the majority of Americans identify as Christian, even though they're not true followers of Christ i.e. if TracerBullet, aikido7 and Stan can call themselves Christian, anyone can).

I like this one:

3). People who belong to an organized movement that engages in immoral behavior don't have the right to subjugate or persecute those who don't.

Of course the argument is "Who decides what is moral and what isn't?"

If that answer isn't God, but is secular humanist/moral relativist man, then refer to #1.

What you can't quite seem to grasp aCW is that each molested child counts as a subjugated and persecuted minority of one. Nobody has the right to impose themselves on others by force or guile.
As for Godly morality, all we have are the bald assertions from people like yourself about what you think is moral not what actually is.
If we then go back to 1) then I don't really care what goes on in the minds of others, what I care about is that the more powerful don't get to force themselves on the weak and vulnerable which has been my position all along.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The places I could go with that statement Al:

1). Society has no right to subjugate or persecute child molesters (but since it's been well established that the 'Man Boy Love' faction of the LGBTQueer movement is not only tolerated, but celebrated, I won't go there because I won't get an argument out of you on that statement).

2). The minority doesn't have any right to subjugate or persecute the majority (the majority of Americans identify as Christian, even though they're not true followers of Christ i.e. if TracerBullet, aikido7 and Stan can call themselves Christian, anyone can).

I like this one:

3). People who belong to an organized movement that engages in immoral behavior don't have the right to subjugate or persecute those who don't.

Of course the argument is "Who decides what is moral and what isn't?"

If that answer isn't God, but is secular humanist/moral relativist man, then refer to #1.

What you can't quite seem to grasp aCW is that each molested child counts as a subjugated and persecuted minority of one. Nobody has the right to impose themselves on others by force or guile.

Boy Al, with the Jr. Libertarian boycotting this thread, you're at the front of the line to receive next years much coveted "Disclaimer Award".
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4177183&postcount=4599

Now that you've fooled absolutely no one: Let's do a very short review about how your LGBTQueer movement feels about child rape:

When talking about child rape "man-boy love", one must always remember the words of UK homosexual activist Peter the pedophile Tatchell:

As for Godly morality, all we have are the bald assertions from people like yourself about what you think is moral not what actually is.
If we then go back to 1) then I don't really care what goes on in the minds of others, what I care about is that the more powerful don't get to force themselves on the weak and vulnerable which has been my position all along.

As we've seen throughout this 3 part thread: The LGBTQueer movement has attained the "power" to force their godless secular humanist agenda on others who don't goosestep to their marching orders.

 

[alwight]

Boy Al, with the Jr. Libertarian boycotting this thread, you're at the front of the line to receive next years much coveted "Disclaimer Award".


Now that you've fooled absolutely no one: Let's do a very short review about how your LGBTQueer movement feels about child rape:

(Sigh) As I recall aCW I have already attempted to clear up this misinformation more than once, but you obviously don't want to understand it seems.
Let me mention a few random song titles:

Brown Eyed Girl.
Thank you Girl.
Girl.
Beautiful Girl.
Bad Girl.
California Girls.
Candy Girl.
Cinnamon Girl.
Fat Bottom Girls.
Girl from Ipanema.
Girlfriend.
Girl from the North Country.
It's Different for Girls....​

All reasonably famous songs by many different top artists, I'll let you figure out which for yourself aCW.
Are you really telling me that these are all songs about paedophilia?
That if a heterosexual claims to have a girlfriend then they are singing/talking about underage girls?
Are they all paedophiles?

When Rod Stewart sung about "Baby Jane" was it about a real baby?

Why exactly shouldn't a homosexual be allowed to talk about loving a boy (or baby?) without it necessarily being disingenuously presented by your ilk as automatically about paedophilia and not colloquial?

When talking about child rape "man-boy love", one must always remember the words of UK homosexual activist Peter the pedophile Tatchell:

As we've seen throughout this 3 part thread: The LGBTQueer movement has attained the "power" to force their godless secular humanist agenda on others who don't goosestep to their marching orders.

This on the other hand was indeed specifically in the context of underage sex and involves both sexes.
If two perhaps underage people choose to have sex together then we can deem it wrong as adults but it's not unwanted by them at least. Is masturbation always unwanted, harmful and wrong?
So technically then he is correct though it might have been better left unsaid by him perhaps imo.
Anyway I've already made it clear that Tatchell does not condone underage sex and as far as I know there is no reason to believe he has ever partaken in it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

(Sigh) As I recall aCW I have already attempted to clear up this misinformation more than once, but you obviously don't want to understand it seems.
Let me mention a few random song titles:
Brown Eyed Girl...

And to think all of these years that I've enjoyed listening to Van Morrison's Brown Eyed Girl, he was singing about pedophilia (and here I thought it was about two teenagers in love).



(I called my wife "my brown eyed girl" once; she slapped me because her eyes are blue...oops!).

Are you really telling me that these are all songs about paedophilia?

No, you are.

Why exactly shouldn't a homosexual be allowed to talk about loving a boy (or baby?) without it necessarily being disingenuously presented by your ilk as automatically about paedophilia and not colloquial?

Baldwin wasn't talking about loving a close family member like a nephew, he was talking about the romantic love (pedophilia/pederasty) with little boys in general.

"Everybody's journey is individual. If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality.”

Anyway I've already made it clear that Tatchell does not condone underage sex and as far as I know there is no reason to believe he has ever partaken in it.

Peter the pedophile Tatchell's words speak for themselves.

 

[alwight]

(I called my wife "my brown eyed girl" once; she slapped me because her eyes are blue...oops!).

Perhaps she just wanted any excuse to slap you aCW?

Are you really telling me that these are all songs about paedophilia?

No, you are.

That thing on the end of my sentence is called a question mark aCW, it means that I was asking you a question not telling you anything. Now I realise that that is probably why you don't usually answer questions.

Baldwin wasn't talking about loving a close family member like a nephew, he was talking about the romantic love (pedophilia/pederasty) with little boys in general.

Really? Then show me the specific context, since he appears to be known for his struggles against three things, being black, poor and homosexual. I haven't found anything about a supposed paedophile element and given your track record I rather suspect that I never will. lain:

"Everybody's journey is individual. If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality.”

No it looks to me that he was talking about being a homosexual who might fall in love with a "boy" just as a heterosexual might fall in love with a "girl". Only in your warped mind aCW is there any paedophilia going on.

Peter the pedophile Tatchell's words speak for themselves.

Yes and in it he says that it is "impossible to condone paedophilia".
Maybe the British spelling made you word blind aCW? lain:

 

[aikido7]

http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm

 

[aikido7]

3). People who belong to an organized movement that engages in immoral behavior don't have the right to subjugate or persecute those who don't.

Perhaps you are failing to be accountable for how actions and beliefs like yours only contribute the formation of this movement.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight
Are you really telling me that these are all songs about paedophilia?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
No, you are.

That thing on the end of my sentence is called a question mark aCW, it means that I was asking you a question not telling you anything. Now I realise that that is probably why you don't usually answer questions.

You made a list of songs, many that I've enjoyed listening to over the years. The idea that somehow pedophilia is involved solely because of the word "girl" is in the title is beyond pathetic Al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Baldwin wasn't talking about loving a close family member like a nephew, he was talking about the romantic love (pedophilia/pederasty) with little boys in general.

Really? Then show me the specific context, since he appears to be known for his struggles against three things, being black, poor and homosexual. I haven't found anything about a supposed paedophile element and given your track record I rather suspect that I never will.

If you fall in love with a boy, your fall in love with a boy".

I'm "in love" with my wife; I "love" my sons and nephews.

Boy Al, you're not only buckin for the Disclaimer Award, but you're close to ousting Art Brain from his Queen of Denial throne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior Peter the pedophile Tatchell's words speak for themselves.

Yes and in it he says that it is "impossible to condone paedophilia".
Maybe the British spelling made you word blind aCW?

Followed by:

(It's a good thing Peter the pedophile Tatchell isn't a TOL'er, he'd most definitely bump Al from the front of the line for next years "Disclaimer Award".

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Gasp! The next thing you'll be telling me is that conservative icon Ronald Reagan was responsible for defeating the Briggs Initiative.

http://spectator.org/articles/42050/reagan-and-milk

On a sad note: It appears that Part 1 and Part 2 of the thread have been deleted from the TOL archives .

 

[StanJ]

I like this one:
People who belong to an organized movement that engages in immoral behavior don't have the right to subjugate or persecute those who don't.

So does this mean you have seen the light and are not going to post your verbal diatribe anymore?
PTL!

:banana:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Quote:
You made a list of songs, many that I've enjoyed listening to over the years. The idea that somehow pedophilia is involved solely because of the word "girl" is in the title is beyond pathetic Al.

That was his point...

Grief, you really make a box of rocks look bright...

:doh:

 

[alwight]

You made a list of songs, many that I've enjoyed listening to over the years. The idea that somehow pedophilia is involved solely because of the word "girl" is in the title is beyond pathetic Al.

Can you really be this dim? I've tried to spell it out for you!
If a gay man talks about his "boyfriend" or about falling in love with a "boy" that doesn't mean he was a paedophile any more than John Lennon was in the song "Thank You Girl", get it?
After you first met your wife did you not become "boyfriend" and "girlfriend"?
What did you think "California Girls" was about?
A girl's school playground perhaps?
The Beach Boys were all paedophiles?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You made a list of songs, many that I've enjoyed listening to over the years. The idea that somehow pedophilia is involved solely because of the word "girl" is in the title is beyond pathetic Al.

Can you really be this dim? I've tried to spell it out for you!
If a gay man talks about his "boyfriend" or about falling in love with a "boy" that doesn't mean he was a paedophile any more than John Lennon was in the song "Thank You Girl", get it?
After you first met your wife did you not become "boyfriend" and "girlfriend"?
What did you think "California Girls" was about?
A girl's school playground perhaps?
The Beach Boys were all paedophiles?

Good ole reliable Al: Downplaying the huge role that pedophilia and pederasty plays in the LGBTQueer movement by using popular songs and implying that they too promote sex with underage people.

On a bright note: Al's smokescreen allows me to play DJ a bit more than I had been.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Looking ahead to the future of this very important subject.

As I'd mentioned a few posts ago, it appears that part's 1 and 2 of this 3 part thread have been deleted. I've contacted a couple of TOL moderators and stated that if space is an issue, that I could go back and delete many of the insignificant posts, as both threads have great points of reference to various topics that relate to the subject of homosexuality and the sexual anarchist movement in general.

If I need to start over, so be it. While the table of contents has been helpful for me, it's not nearly as organized (i.e. user friendly) as I would like it to be.

Look for a change in that with the upcoming Part 4.