Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

violahalle6

New member
We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are—whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda," said Obama.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Oh dear aCW, gay marriage is now legal across the good ol' U.S. Of A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341

Should you manage to get them sent to jail they can then get married! :thumb:
Care to comment?

notice not a single one of those gay marriage laws was based on popular opinion, which is exactly what would be required by liberals who adhere to legal positivism and reject objective morality. Instead you invoke some type of godless morality as described in the scripture (Isaiah 5:20) to justify your worldview
 

jeffblue101

New member
The more I read from this ruling, the more convinced I become that american is headed to moral decay

from justice Kennedy
The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.

:vomit: really!! I wonder how then that multiple partner marriages can't be considered part of that constant "continuity and change"? Father and Son marriages? no problem just part of "continuity and change" what a joke
 

alwight

New member
notice not a single one of those gay marriage laws was based on popular opinion, which is exactly what would be required by liberals who adhere to legal positivism and reject objective morality. Instead you invoke some type of godless morality as described in the scripture (Isaiah 5:20) to justify your worldview
I may not know too much about American law but my understanding is that the Supreme Court is indirectly appointed, but by a democratic system?:think:
 

jeffblue101

New member
I feel bad for Christian universities they might lose there Tax exempt status
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html
Conservative religious schools all over the country forbid same-sex relationships, from dating to couples’ living in married-student housing, and they fear they will soon be forced to make a wrenching choice. If the Supreme Court this month finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the schools say they will have to abandon their policies that prohibit gay relationships or eventually risk losing their tax-exempt status

The religious schools are concerned that if they continue to ban gay relationships, the Internal Revenue Service could take away their tax-exempt status as a violation of a “fundamental national public policy” under the reasoning of a 1983 Supreme Court decision that allowed the agency to revoke the tax-exempt status of schools that banned interracial relationships.

by making it a "right" how can Congress create a law that allows universities to ignores that "right" for christian universities?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
You seem angry Al, how about if I share a spot (I believe that's what the Brit's use instead of "a bit") of good LGBTQueer news with you?

I realise that you have been ploughing a lonely furrow here for months, nay years aCW, so if anyone should be angry at losing all that time and effort spent on your, often imo undervalued, "Table of Contents" (much lamented of course) it's you, so I do understand.
If you want to let all that anger and frustration out on me then fire away, I can take it aCW.:)

However, if it's now not all homosexuals that you think should be criminalised just those in "push-back" LGBT type organisations because they are the ones that seem to get your goat so much, then the title of your new upcoming, much anticipated, bigotry thread really should reflect that, right?:thumb:

(Oh! And thank you for allowing me somewhere to practice typing and editing on this new mouseless iPad thingy I just got, I really appreciate it, thanks a lot.)

With proud and unrepentant sodomite Sean Conroy being the first openly disease ridden-child molesting homosexual to play professional baseball (I'd never heard of the Sonoma Swishers Stompers before, they must be a farm team for the San Franswishco Giants), this should give our good buddy Art Brain inspiration to move up from that manly sport ping pong and give a larger ball a try.

That being said: I saved the best part of the article for last:

"But he understands the potential positive influence his experience can have on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people struggling with their identities...

“I hope that in leading by example, more LGBT youth will feel confident to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be.”

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/4106229-181/openly-gay-player-making-historic?page=1

Ah yes, Sean wants to be an inspiration for homosexual children and those cross dressing/someday genitally mutilated transgender children.

So much for homosexuality only being for "consenting adults" ey Al?
 

jeffblue101

New member
I may not know too much about American law but my understanding is that the Supreme Court is indirectly appointed, but by a democratic system?:think:

the supreme court doesn't have the authority to create "rights" out of thin air, only a constitutional amendment can do that.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Oh dear aCW, gay marriage is now legal across the good ol' U.S. Of A.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341

Should you manage to get them sent to jail they can then get married! :thumb:
Care to comment?

What a coincidence, yet another point on the 1972 'gay' agenda has been fulfilled.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

Boy Al, that doesn't leave much left on the agenda other than this one:

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

But then we know how homosexuals don't want anything to do with little boys (and for lesbos little girls), so that will never happen, right Al?

Regarding the SCOTUS decision: I'd shown in Part 1 how the LGBTQueer movement "judge shops" and had everything in place to make certain that God's institution of marriage was perverted.

I'd also shown in Part 2 the importance that the God ordained institution of marriage has on a society (it's invaluable).

So forgive me if I don't seem surprised at all at this recent ruling, as the LGBTQueer movement has worked hard to mock God.

8605998.jpg
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
here is the full text of the court's immoral decision
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

notice not a single one of those gay marriage laws was based on popular opinion, which is exactly what would be required by liberals who adhere to legal positivism and reject objective morality. Instead you invoke some type of godless morality as described in the scripture (Isaiah 5:20) to justify your worldview

The more I read from this ruling, the more convinced I become that american is headed to moral decay

from justice Kennedy


:vomit: really!! I wonder how then that multiple partner marriages can't be considered part of that constant "continuity and change"? Father and Son marriages? no problem just part of "continuity and change" what a joke

From Kennedy


:vomit:

I feel bad for Christian universities they might lose there Tax exempt status
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html


by making it a "right" how can Congress create a law that allows universities to ignores that "right" for christian universities?

the supreme court doesn't have the authority to create "rights" out of thin air, only a constitutional amendment can do that.

I realize that this SCOTUS decision surprises and disappoints many people, but we students of the sexual anarchist movement saw this coming long ago (needless to say I'm neither shocked nor disappointed, I shrug it off as yet another institution the godless LGBTQueer movement has permeated and will destroy).

I don't wish to use space on the closing end of Part 3's thread on this subject, so would you be so kind as to start another thread dedicated to this subject?

Thanks.
 

alwight

New member
With proud and unrepentant sodomite Sean Conroy being the first openly disease ridden-child molesting homosexual to play professional baseball (I'd never heard of the Sonoma Swishers Stompers before, they must be a farm team for the San Franswishco Giants), this should give our good buddy Art Brain inspiration to move up from that manly sport ping pong and give a larger ball a try.

That being said: I saved the best part of the article for last:

"But he understands the potential positive influence his experience can have on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people struggling with their identities...

“I hope that in leading by example, more LGBT youth will feel confident to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be.”

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/4106229-181/openly-gay-player-making-historic?page=1

Ah yes, Sean wants to be an inspiration for homosexual children and those cross dressing/someday genitally mutilated transgender children.

So much for homosexuality only being for "consenting adults" ey Al?
It isn't that I don't trust you aCW *, or that for some reason I keep thinking of Sean Connery, but be honest, is Conroy actually "disease ridden" and a "child molester" or is this just more of your bigot's licence to invent all kinds of untrue stuff for the sake of a presumed righteous purpose? :liberals:

(* I lied)
 

alwight

New member
What a coincidence, yet another point on the 1972 'gay' agenda has been fulfilled.
Why, they'll soon have just the same rights as anyone else at this rate. :shocked:
A rather large blow to the homophobic bigot's agenda it seems.:(

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
People being allowed to choose for themselves who they live with?
That's truly outrageous aCW, something must be done. :IA:

http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

Boy Al, that doesn't leave much left on the agenda other than this one:

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
I think you'll find that underage sex is actually rejected by almost the entire population, so personally I wouldn't worry that it would even come close to reality, but fear not aCW it can no doubt remain a bigot's core argument and propaganda, as enshrined in their anti-gay agenda, for many years to come.:thumb:

But then we know how homosexuals don't want anything to do with little boys (and for lesbos little girls), so that will never happen, right Al?
Homosexuals as whole are as varied and individual as anyone else, so your question is false aCW.

Regarding the SCOTUS decision: I'd shown in Part 1 how the LGBTQueer movement "judge shops" and had everything in place to make certain that God's institution of marriage was perverted.

I'd also shown in Part 2 the importance that the God ordained institution of marriage has on a society (it's invaluable).

So forgive me if I don't seem surprised at all at this recent ruling, as the LGBTQueer movement has worked hard to mock God.

8605998.jpg
Actually the institution of marriage was something created by the church in the middle ages.
It was designed to create strict rules that sex was only allowed for procreation.
Until then people just went ahead and decided for themselves whom they wanted to be married to, and to live with, and when and with whom they had sex.
How dare they think for themselves! Right aCW?
The good old days?:)
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
You seem angry Al, how about if I share a spot (I believe that's what the Brit's use instead of "a bit") of good LGBTQueer news with you?



With proud and unrepentant sodomite Sean Conroy being the first openly disease ridden-child molesting homosexual to play professional baseball (I'd never heard of the Sonoma Swishers Stompers before, they must be a farm team for the San Franswishco Giants), this should give our good buddy Art Brain inspiration to move up from that manly sport ping pong and give a larger ball a try.

That being said: I saved the best part of the article for last:

"But he understands the potential positive influence his experience can have on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people struggling with their identities...

“I hope that in leading by example, more LGBT youth will feel confident to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be.”

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/4106229-181/openly-gay-player-making-historic?page=1

Ah yes, Sean wants to be an inspiration for homosexual children and those cross dressing/someday genitally mutilated transgender children.

So much for homosexuality only being for "consenting adults" ey Al?

Nah, don't think I'll be taking up baseball any time soon Connie, and I certainly wouldn't recommend you do so either. You strike out often enough on here as it is...
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With proud and unrepentant sodomite Sean Conroy being the first openly disease ridden-child molesting homosexual to play professional baseball (I'd never heard of the Sonoma Swishers Stompers before, they must be a farm team for the San Franswishco Giants), this should give our good buddy Art Brain inspiration to move up from that manly sport ping pong and give a larger ball a try.

That being said: I saved the best part of the article for last:

"But he understands the potential positive influence his experience can have on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people struggling with their identities...

“I hope that in leading by example, more LGBT youth will feel confident to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be.”
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/...istoric?page=1

Ah yes, Sean wants to be an inspiration for homosexual children and those cross dressing/someday genitally mutilated transgender children.

So much for homosexuality only being for "consenting adults" ey Al?


It isn't that I don't trust you aCW *, or that for some reason I keep thinking of Sean Connery, but be honest, is Conroy actually "disease ridden" and a "child molester" or is this just more of your bigot's licence to invent all kinds of untrue stuff for the sake of a presumed righteous purpose? :liberals:

(* I lied)

It was established long ago in my 3 part thread that anyone who doesn't tell the truth about this abhorrent behavior to children, is responsible for "molesting" their minds.

Does Seannie have a taste for underage boys? Perhaps he's rare bird (notice I didn't say queer) in the LGBTQueer movement and actually abides by age of consent laws.

Regarding the disease aspect: If he gloves up while shaking one of his many boyfriend's hands, the chances are that he will remain disease free (if he should actually partake in any sex act, then according to the new politically correct FDA blood donation regulations, he's "at risk").

I see that you didn't want to touch the homosexual youth comment with the proverbial 10 foot pole (this is the only time I will call alwight the atheist a "wise man").
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What a coincidence, yet another point on the 1972 'gay' agenda has been fulfilled.

Why, they'll soon have just the same rights as anyone else at this rate...

Let's just hope that LGBTQueer's will someday have the same "right" as Christians (and others who dare speak out against homosexuality) to be prosecuted for acts of discrimination and "hate crimes".


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

People being allowed to choose for themselves who they live with?
That's truly outrageous aCW, something must be done.

"Institutions ? (that keep a society in moral order), we don't need no stinkin institutions!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissu...atform1972.htm

Boy Al, that doesn't leave much left on the agenda other than this one:

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

I think you'll find that underage sex is actually rejected by almost the entire population, so personally I wouldn't worry that it would even come close to reality, but fear not aCW it can no doubt remain a bigot's core argument and propaganda, as enshrined in their anti-gay agenda, for many years to come.

Send a memo out to the LGBTQueer movement to advise their icons (Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Terry Bean, James Baldwin, Peter Tatchell, etc. etc. etc.) that they're to keep their filthy hands off of little boys (and little girls for the lesbos out there) per alwight the atheist's TOL post dated 6-26-15.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
But then we know how homosexuals don't want anything to do with little boys (and for lesbos little girls), so that will never happen, right Al?

Homosexuals as whole are as varied and individual as anyone else, so your question is false aCW.

That's the problem Al, they write their own moral code.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View
Regarding the SCOTUS decision: I'd shown in Part 1 how the LGBTQueer movement "judge shops" and had everything in place to make certain that God's institution of marriage was perverted.

I'd also shown in Part 2 the importance that the God ordained institution of marriage has on a society (it's invaluable).

So forgive me if I don't seem surprised at all at this recent ruling, as the LGBTQueer movement has worked hard to mock God.

Actually the institution of marriage was something created by the church in the middle ages.
It was designed to create strict rules that sex was only allowed for procreation.

It isn't that I don't trust you and your vast knowledge of history when it comes to the institution of marriage Al*, but God did establish it in Genesis. The Church and later civil government (out of necessity...it's that Mormon multiple wives thing) later become involved with it for various reasons.

*(I lied)


The fact is that the traditional family was and should still be the nucleus of society. If you would like to see the importance the traditional family/marriage plays in a society, I suggest that you contact a TOL moderator and they'll hopefully open the thread where I documented it for you.

vBulletin Message
No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Gotta love Seattle (aka Sodomy and Gonorrhea North), as they paint pretty rainbow crosswalks (at the expense of taxpayers ) for the proud and unrepentant residents of the Capitol Hill District of Seattle (aka "The Swish Alps").

Seattle unveils rainbow-colored crosswalks for Pride Week

June 24, 2015

SEATTLE – Residents and visitors in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood are walking on rainbows in honor of LGBTQ pride.

On Tuesday morning, Mayor Ed Murray unveiled one of 11 new rainbow colored crosswalks in the historically gay-friendly neighborhood. Murray said the display "says something about Seattle," that it's a city of diverse neighborhoods and character.

The crosswalks are east of Broadway on 10th and 11th Avenues in downtown Seattle

The cost of the sidewalks -- about $6,000 each -- is being covered by fees for new private developers on Capitol Hill. They're expected to last three to five years, but the city said it will continue to maintain them.

Seattle Pride Week is Tuesday through Sunday.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...inbow-colored-crosswalks-pride-week/29210989/

safe_image.php

https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/s...749025135129_1536156558_o.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1
 

alwight

New member
It isn't that I don't trust you aCW *, or that for some reason I keep thinking of Sean Connery, but be honest, is Conroy actually "disease ridden" and a "child molester" or is this just more of your bigot's licence to invent all kinds of untrue stuff for the sake of a presumed righteous purpose? :liberals:

(* I lied)
It was established long ago in my 3 part thread that anyone who doesn't tell the truth about this abhorrent behavior to children, is responsible for "molesting" their minds.
Others might say however that what you like to claim to have established and what actually has been are invariably two different things aCW.

Does Seannie have a taste for underage boys? Perhaps he's rare bird (notice I didn't say queer) in the LGBTQueer movement and actually abides by age of consent laws.
Calling him "Seannie" rather suggests to me that you like to think of him as a young boy yourself.
Anyway let's give both you and him the benefit of the doubt and that neither of you would ever molest young boys. :plain:

Regarding the disease aspect: If he gloves up while shaking one of his many boyfriend's hands, the chances are that he will remain disease free (if he should actually partake in any sex act, then according to the new politically correct FDA blood donation regulations, he's "at risk").
So we have established then that with the right precautions there is no greater or innate risk of disease to gay men than straight ones in similar situations. Progress at last. :king:

I see that you didn't want to touch the homosexual youth comment with the proverbial 10 foot pole (this is the only time I will call alwight the atheist a "wise man").
If we could establish some honesty and integrity from you occasionally then I might occasionally give some credence to things you raise and cite.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

It was established long ago in my 3 part thread that anyone who doesn't tell the truth about this abhorrent behavior to children, is responsible for "molesting" their minds.

Others might say however that what you like to claim to have established and what actually has been are invariably two different things aCW.

Of course those "others" would be proud and unrepentant homosexuals who don't care about their own lives let alone the lives of innocent youth to share the truth about the disease, drug and alcohol, violent ridden lifestyle that homosexuality is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Does Seannie have a taste for underage boys? Perhaps he's rare bird (notice I didn't say queer) in the LGBTQueer movement and actually abides by age of consent laws.

Calling him "Seannie" rather suggests to me that you like to think of him as a young boy yourself.
Anyway let's give both you and him the benefit of the doubt and that neither of you would ever molest young boys.

Amongst others, society gave HRC founder and accused pederast/child rapist Terry Bean the benefit of the doubt and look what happened.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding the disease aspect: If he gloves up while shaking one of his many boyfriend's hands, the chances are that he will remain disease free (if he should actually partake in any sex act, then according to the new politically correct FDA blood donation regulations, he's "at risk").

So we have established then that with the right precautions there is no greater or innate risk of disease to gay men than straight ones in similar situations. Progress at last.

Yes, we can both agree that if shaking the hand of another male is considered a "sex act" in the LGBTQueer community, then there is not likely to be any risk involved. The facts still remain the same:

Homosexuality is inherently a disease ridden behavior.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I see that you didn't want to touch the homosexual youth comment with the proverbial 10 foot pole (this is the only time I will call alwight the atheist a "wise man").

If we could establish some honesty and integrity from you occasionally then I might occasionally give some credence to things you raise and cite.

Have I mentioned that you don't want to touch the homosexual youth comment with the proverbial 10 foot pole Al?
 

alwight

New member
Let's just hope that LGBTQueer's will someday have the same "right" as Christians (and others who dare speak out against homosexuality) to be prosecuted for acts of discrimination and "hate crimes".
Thankfully aCW all Christians are not like you, why, it seems that Christians are clearly not all singing off the same hymn sheet any more than gay people and everyone else.

"Institutions ? (that keep a society in moral order), we don't need no stinkin institutions!".
I'm simply not as dogmatic about institutions as you, it seems. But deciding if an institution is actually beneficial or not imo requires a critical relative individual appraisal of its value or morality rather than a dogmatic mindless acceptance of it.

Send a memo out to the LGBTQueer movement to advise their icons (Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Terry Bean, James Baldwin, Peter Tatchell, etc. etc. etc.) that they're to keep their filthy hands off of little boys (and little girls for the lesbos out there) per alwight the atheist's TOL post dated 6-26-15.
Yes but have you managed to keep your filthy hands off little boys aCW?

That's the problem Al, they write their own moral code.
You seem to have a major problem with individuals actually being individuals and not a flock of sheep.

It isn't that I don't trust you and your vast knowledge of history when it comes to the institution of marriage Al*, but God did establish it in Genesis. The Church and later civil government (out of necessity...it's that Mormon multiple wives thing) later become involved with it for various reasons.
That's your individual opinion anyway, well I assume it is at least and that you aren't told what to think.

*(I lied)
Yes we know aCW. :plain:

The fact is that the traditional family was and should still be the nucleus of society. If you would like to see the importance the traditional family/marriage plays in a society, I suggest that you contact a TOL moderator and they'll hopefully open the thread where I documented it for you.
As evolved creatures a traditional family unit can often vary according to circumstances but typically it does seem to revolve around a man and a woman. But then it has done since long before Christianity came along and didn't require any adherence to arcane scripture to bring it about. :nono:

vBulletin Message
No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
Looks as though another one of your links has disappeared aCW. You should talk to Sherman about it. :idea:
 
Last edited:

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's just hope that LGBTQueer's will someday have the same "right" as Christians (and others who dare speak out against homosexuality) to be prosecuted for acts of discrimination and "hate crimes".

Thankfully aCW all Christians are not like you, why, it seems that Christians are clearly not all singing off the same hymn sheet any more than gay people and everyone else.

Thankfully, I have not been fired*, harassed, threatened with death, assaulted or had my children's lives threatened for standing up for God's Word by the ever so "tolerant" LGBTQueer movement. Other Christians haven't been so lucky.

*But any more emails to the HR Dept. from me asking them not to flaunt the LGBT/rainbow flag in the faces of Christians, Buddhists and Muslims that work at my place of employment could change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"Institutions ? (that keep a society in moral order), we don't need no stinkin institutions!".

I'm simply not as dogmatic about institutions as you, it seems. But deciding if an institution is actually beneficial or not imo requires a critical relative individual appraisal of its value or morality rather than a dogmatic mindless acceptance of it.

Let me to put this way Al: these institutions (be it marriage, the traditional family, the righteous role of civil government, the Church) have been around for thousands of years for a reason :

Because they work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Send a memo out to the LGBTQueer movement to advise their icons (Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Terry Bean, James Baldwin, Peter Tatchell, etc. etc. etc.) that they're to keep their filthy hands off of little boys (and little girls for the lesbos out there) per alwight the atheist's TOL post dated 6-26-15.

Yes but have you managed to keep your filthy hands off little boys aCW?

Oh my, I do believe talking about homosexual icons raping little boys "man-boy love" has struck a sour chord with Al (note to self: Be more sensitive and talk less about the NAMBLA faction of the LGBTQueer movement, as it appears to be stressing Al out, and the last thing Al needs is stress, being that he's surpassed that 46.6 year mark and is living on borrowed time).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
That's the problem Al, they write their own moral code.

You seem to have a major problem with individuals actually being individuals and not a flock of sheep.

Here is a flock of rainbow colored sheep who think that they can do their own "thing" without any physical, psychological or spiritual repercussions:

pride_parade.jpg


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The fact is that the traditional family was and should still be the nucleus of society. If you would like to see the importance the traditional family/marriage plays in a society, I suggest that you contact a TOL moderator and they'll hopefully open the thread where I documented it for you.

As evolved creatures a traditional family unit can often vary according to circumstances but typically it does seem to revolve around a man and a woman. But then it has done since long before Christianity came along and didn't require any adherence to arcane scripture to bring it about.

Yes, history has shown that the traditional family unit worked best it when "revolved around a man a woman" (what a coincidence, God spoke about that in Genesis).

I've shown how messed up (to put it mildly) LGBTQueer families are on a small scale in the short period of time that adoption and marriage has been legal for sodomites; we'll see how that works out on a large scale here in the US in the next few years.

Needless to say Al, I will have plenty to write about in the upcoming months and years.

Next up: How the homosexual icons of the LGBTQueer movement rape little boys.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top