Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[TracerBullet]

How about we discuss one (federal bureaucratic) law at a time? I like the last one that protect children that are up for adoption, like the little boy below:

Share your thoughts and then we can discuss some of the other laws that are protecting children from sexual deviants like homosexual icon Dan Savage and his wife/husband Terry Miller.

first let's discuss laws protecting fathers like Savage and Miller from libel

 

[aCultureWarrior]

ACW , I'm an agnostic . I don't know whether a God exists or not . Atheists dogmatically claim that no God exists . They are not the
same thing .

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

How about we discuss one (federal bureaucratic) law at a time? I like the last one that protect children that are up for adoption, like the little boy below: [the adopted son of homosexual icon Dan Savage & his public toilet playmate Terry Miller]

Share your thoughts and then we can discuss some of the other laws that are protecting children from sexual deviants like homosexual icon Dan Savage and his wife/husband Terry Miller.

first let's discuss laws protecting fathers like Savage and Miller from libel

Sheesh TracerBullet, it's not as if I stated that Dan and Terry invited the little guy to partake in their threesomes, give me a break.

Homosexual Activist Dan Savage’s Three-Way Sex Partners Were Not Strangers
http://americansfortruth.com/2011/0...es-three-way-sex-partners-were-not-strangers/

 

[alwight]

Dead people probably don't know anything aCW, which is nevertheless more than you probably know. lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You have Kim Davis and me confused with LGBTQueer activist Judges who ignore civil laws that were voted in by the citizens of respective states and enacted by the state legislatures of those respective states Al.

I think you'll find instead that the judge has a job to do too, which by definition isn't ever likely to please all the people, never mind extremist nutters like your good self of course aCW.

And his or her "job " is to overturn any legitimate legislation that displeases the LGBTQueer movement.

When the appointed judge decides how civil law is interpreted then that is just how the process works in practice and how the law will operate until perhaps another judge changes it.

i.e. which side can do the best "Judge shopping". No more rule of law, just total anarchy.

Pleasing all the people all the time isn't a requirement of it.

And the people that voted in that legislation? (What do they know, after all they're only citizens of that respective city, county, state or nation).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Laws, even if they are unjust, apply to everyone. If the people of a state (such as Washington State has done) vote to allow sodomites to 'marry', then even we Christians have to live with it until we go through a legitimate legal process (which doesn't mean finding an activist Judge to overturn the will of the people) to repeal that law.

Generally speaking aCW I think that civil laws are not designed to police the choices and actions of what consenting adult individuals may or may not be doing together in private, nor to deny a civil status of "marriage" already granted to some.

Back to that "consenting adults" attempt at an argument (note how Al interchanges the word "adults" with "people" frequently).

I need not go over again what type of behaviors would be legal if your rules were legislated (many of them are already legal: adultery, homosexuality, cohabitation, pornography).

Hence the reason you and your movement are referred to as "sexual anarchists".

Here's a good article that talks about judicial activist Judges:

Is a right invented by a judge the same as the law of the land?

Sept. 6, 2015

We hear from Hillary Clinton about upholding the law. She wants the clerks in Kentucky to obey the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (By the way, did Hillary Clinton call on President Obama to uphold the law when he refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a real law passed by a real legislature and signed by President Clinton?)

But what law are we talking about today? What legislature passed this law? What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land? Frankly, I missed it if he did. I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage.

Again, what law is Kim Davis violating?

Same-sex marriage, or marriage equality, as some like to call it, was arrived at by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that denied the American people the opportunity to debate the issue in the political arena...

Like Roe v. Wade, it is the opinion of a judge who found something in the U.S. Constitution that isn't there. Also, there were deep divisions in the Court about creating this right.

Should we create rights this way? Do the happy supporters of same-sex marriage understand how dangerous it is for judges to invent rights?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._a_judge_the_same_as_the_law_of_the_land.html

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn
ACW , I'm an agnostic . I don't know whether a God exists or not . Atheists dogmatically claim that no God exists . They are not the
same thing .

But that's simply not true, I'm an agnostic because I don't think I can know if gods exist or not, but I am also an atheist because I don't tend to believe that any god is likely or true,

Poor Al, he's not even sure about what he doesn't believe in.

 

[alwight]

Poor Al, he's not even sure about what he doesn't believe in.

I at least don't claim to know the unknowable aCW.

 

[alwight]

I need not go over again what type of behaviors would be legal if your rules were legislated (many of them are already legal: adultery, homosexuality, cohabitation, pornography).

Except I'm no extremist nutter aCW, what we have now seems pretty reasonable to me.

Hence the reason you and your movement are referred to as "sexual anarchists".

The real truth here is that anything you can't control with your fire and brimstone is deemed as anarchy. You personally seem to hate the idea of homosexuals ignoring your theocratic spin, which is the real reason you want to criminalise them rather than a more reasonable and tolerant celebration of human difference.

We hear from Hillary Clinton about upholding the law. She wants the clerks in Kentucky to obey the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (By the way, did Hillary Clinton call on President Obama to uphold the law when he refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a real law passed by a real legislature and signed by President Clinton?)

But what law are we talking about today? What legislature passed this law? What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land? Frankly, I missed it if he did. I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage.

I get that you don't want to allow gay couples the right to be married aCW, yes it maybe hard for you to accept that despite the above most reasonable people do not seem to agree with you nor indeed want your theocratic doctrinal control enshrined into secular civil law, it's tough get over it.

Again, what law is Kim Davis violating?

Contempt of the law.
My understanding is that she is impeding the current law from being carried out in her area. I gather too that she was elected and is not just an employee, who perhaps feels she has a mandate. However I think she has no right to block the current law and has ideas above her station, she should have simply stood aside for someone less arrogant and bigoted.

Same-sex marriage, or marriage equality, as some like to call it, was arrived at by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that denied the American people the opportunity to debate the issue in the political arena...

Simple, get a new SCOTUS.
However I suspect you wouldn't be whinging if the vote was 4-5.

Like Roe v. Wade, it is the opinion of a judge who found something in the U.S. Constitution that isn't there. Also, there were deep divisions in the Court about creating this right.

Should we create rights this way? Do the happy supporters of same-sex marriage understand how dangerous it is for judges to invent rights?

As Judge Judy would say "That's just baloney".
In a few years I suspect that nobody but fundies will give a rat's about gays getting married and the sky will not fall down aCW.
Who knows, maybe more gay couples would perhaps remain in lasting monogamous relationships instead of sleeping around? That would surely be a good thing, right aCW?

 

[Ktoyou]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

How about we discuss one (federal bureaucratic) law at a time? I like the last one that protect children that are up for adoption, like the little boy below: [the adopted son of homosexual icon Dan Savage & his public toilet playmate Terry Miller]

Share your thoughts and then we can discuss some of the other laws that are protecting children from sexual deviants like homosexual icon Dan Savage and his wife/husband Terry Miller.

I agree with some of your thinking. My problem is you cannot do anything about it!

There was a time, i tell you, when persons like me did keep this crisis from happening. Now it is all talk, and nothing but talk. While these homos are suing workers all over the country and all you can do is talk.

I'm sick of talking. This, at my time in life, is not am issue I can do anything about.

Not being able to stop it, I would rather ignore it and spend my last days with my family. and only if this plague affects them, I have no intent to deal with it!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I need not go over again what type of behaviors would be legal if your rules were legislated (many of them are already legal: adultery, homosexuality, cohabitation, pornography).

Except I'm no extremist nutter aCW, what we have now seems pretty reasonable to me.

(Al's a "moderate sexual anarchist"). You surely wouldn't deny legalizing 'close family relationships' or man-beast love (not to be confused with man-boy love, which Al is strictly against...don't let his constant defense of Peter the pedophile Tatchell fool you) if those movements were to seek the legalization of such acts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Hence the reason you and your movement are referred to as "sexual anarchists".

The real truth here is that anything you can't control with your fire and brimstone is deemed as anarchy. You personally seem to hate the idea of homosexuals ignoring your theocratic spin, which is the real reason you want to criminalise them rather than a more reasonable and tolerant celebration of human difference.

Anarchy is anarchy (i.e. the truth is the truth) no matter what stance I take on it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

(From the article: Is a right invented by a judge the same as the law of the land?)

We hear from Hillary Clinton about upholding the law. She wants the clerks in Kentucky to obey the law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (By the way, did Hillary Clinton call on President Obama to uphold the law when he refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a real law passed by a real legislature and signed by President Clinton?)

But what law are we talking about today? What legislature passed this law? What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land? Frankly, I missed it if he did. I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage.

I get that you don't want to allow gay couples the right to be married aCW, yes it maybe hard for you to accept that despite the above most reasonable people do not seem to agree with you nor indeed want your theocratic doctrinal control enshrined into secular civil law, it's tough get over it.

(Note how Al doesn't want to talk about the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to ignoring laws that were actually passed by Congress and signed by the President as opposed to a judicial activist Judge's ruling).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, what law is Kim Davis violating?

Contempt of the law. for an unconstitutional judicial activist's ruling.

Fixed that for ya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Same-sex marriage, or marriage equality, as some like to call it, was arrived at by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that denied the American people the opportunity to debate the issue in the political arena...

Simple, get a new SCOTUS.
However I suspect you wouldn't be whinging if the vote was 4-5.

Except for SCOTUS isn't the law of the land, the United States Constitution is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Like Roe v. Wade, it is the opinion of a judge who found something in the U.S. Constitution that isn't there. Also, there were deep divisions in the Court about creating this right.

Should we create rights this way? Do the happy supporters of same-sex marriage understand how dangerous it is for judges to invent rights?

As Judge Judy would say "That's just baloney".

How did I know that your so-called "knowledge" of the American legal system is owed to a television court judge?

I see that political prisoner Kim Davis has been released from jail,

Kim Davis Freed From Jail, Lawyers Say She Plans To Again Block Licenses
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-release-federal-custody


I'll follow this case for a few more days before I get started on the Education segment of the thread.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

(Re: aCW's response to Art Brain)

How about we discuss one (federal bureaucratic) law at a time? I like the last one that protect children that are up for adoption, like the little boy below: [the adopted son of homosexual icon Dan Savage & his public toilet playmate Terry Miller]

Share your thoughts and then we can discuss some of the other laws that are protecting children from sexual deviants like homosexual icon Dan Savage and his wife/husband Terry Miller.

I agree with some of your thinking.

What do you disagree with?

My problem is you cannot do anything about it!

On what grounds?

There was a time, i tell you, when persons like me did keep this crisis from happening. Now it is all talk, and nothing but talk. While these homos are suing workers all over the country and all you can do is talk.

I'm sick of talking. This, at my time in life, is not am issue I can do anything about.
Not being able to stop it, I would rather ignore it and spend my last days with my family.

Yet you started a thread about homosexuality.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4443934&postcount=1

and only if this plague affects them, I have no intent to deal with it!

Two questions:

Why do you think that this "plague" doesn't affect them and what exactly do you think I'm asking you to do?

 

[TracerBullet]

Sheesh TracerBullet, it's not as if I stated that Dan and Terry invited the little guy to partake in their threesomes, give me a break.

Why not? It's not like you haven't falsely accused people of such before

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Now this is classy:

FreeKimDavis.com Purchased to Deceptively Raise Funds for Homosexual Activist Human Rights Campaign

Sept. 8, 2015

...When the domain is entered, one is redirected to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) website, specifically its donation page.

“Donate to HRC today. Or give the gift of equality to a friend or loved one,” the page reads. “Please note: An HRC sticker is included as part of your donation.”

Read more: http://christiannews.net/2015/09/08...-freekimdavis-com-to-deceptively-raise-funds/

I dare not type in the web address for fear I'll have to see pictures of HRC founder and accused "chicken hawk" Terry Bean having sex with underage boys.

 

[alwight]

(Al's a "moderate sexual anarchist"). You surely wouldn't deny legalizing 'close family relationships' or man-beast love (not to be confused with man-boy love, which Al is strictly against...don't let his constant defense of Peter the pedophile Tatchell fool you) if those movements were to seek the legalization of such acts?

I have no idea what a "sexual anarchist" is, but I suspect it's anyone whose sex life doesn't meet with your approval. I know when you have nothing to say when you bring up my supposed support for someone that you can't actually manage to show is any more a paedophile than you are.

Anarchy is anarchy (i.e. the truth is the truth) no matter what stance I take on it.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter aCW.

But what law are we talking about today? What legislature passed this law? What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

If you don't like the system then get it changed, don't go whinging only when things happen go against you, it simply makes you appear even more dishonest and opportunist than you already do.

Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land? Frankly, I missed it if he did. I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage.

Then get a president who only does things that you approve of, but I rather suspect that if Obama had unilaterally criminalised homosexuality you'd not be complaining about procedural etiquette too much.

(Note how Al doesn't want to talk about the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to ignoring laws that were actually passed by Congress and signed by the President as opposed to a judicial activist Judge's ruling).

Oh please do stop whinging about your system just because you don't like its current conclusions, I've talked about your own hypocrisy many times aCW, here is some more of it.

Except for SCOTUS isn't the law of the land, the United States Constitution is.

:yawn:

Should we create rights this way? Do the happy supporters of same-sex marriage understand how dangerous it is for judges to invent rights?

Whinging, when it is convenient for you to (iow hypocrisy), about your system aside, perhaps it isn't actually about granting rights at all, and is actually more about whether human rights are denied to some people just because they happen to be gay?
As I see it, it's about removing laws that restrict some people's human rights, not the granting of new ones.

How did I know that your so-called "knowledge" of the American legal system is owed to a television court judge?

I see that political prisoner Kim Davis has been released from jail,

Kim Davis Freed From Jail, Lawyers Say She Plans To Again Block Licenses
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-release-federal-custody


I'll follow this case for a few more days before I get started on the Education segment of the thread.

But Judge Judy's cases are real, her courtroom is real, her findings are real, and binding...etc.:IA:
(There's one on my TV right now. )
A judge nevertheless is the one who has to come to the best conclusions he/she can based on the law otherwise there is no way to resolve legal disputes. If you don't allow judges to do that then that would lead to anarchy aCW, surely you wouldn't want that, right?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:

(Al's a "moderate sexual anarchist"). You surely wouldn't deny legalizing 'close family relationships' or man-beast love (not to be confused with man-boy love, which Al is strictly against...don't let his constant defense of Peter the pedophile Tatchell fool you) if those movements were to seek the legalization of such acts?

I have no idea what a "sexual anarchist" is, but I suspect it's anyone whose sex life doesn't meet with your approval.

Not mine, God's. Sexual anarchy is anything outside of God's design for human sexuality: one man, one woman, united in matrimony.

I know when you have nothing to say when you bring up my supposed support for someone that you can't actually manage to show is any more a paedophile than you are.

As shown below, you paraphrase the words of famous pedophiles frequently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Anarchy is anarchy (i.e. the truth is the truth) no matter what stance I take on it.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter aCW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
But what law are we talking about today? What legislature passed this law? What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

If you don't like the system then get it changed, don't go whinging only when things happen go against you, it simply makes you appear even more dishonest and opportunist than you already do.

The system isn't broken, as the United States Constitution still works as good today as when it was written. It's just a matter of electing people who abide by it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Did President Obama ask Congress to send him a bill making marriage equality the law of the land? Frankly, I missed it if he did. I guess that I'm still watching that YouTube video from 2008 where he agrees with Kim Davis about marriage.

Then get a president who only does things that you approve of,

Which would be abiding by the supreme law of the land (the constitution)

but I rather suspect that if Obama had unilaterally criminalised homosexuality you'd not be complaining about procedural etiquette too much.

While the Founding Fathers never considered sexual perversion a "states rights matter", I suppose in today's day and age it should be considered so (since we are no longer a moral and religious people), i.e. leave things like homosexuality up to the respective states until an Amendment is passed either supporting or criminalizing it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
(Note how Al doesn't want to talk about the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to ignoring laws that were actually passed by Congress and signed by the President as opposed to a judicial activist Judge's ruling).

Oh please do stop whinging about your system just because you don't like its current conclusions, I've talked about your own hypocrisy many times aCW, here is some more of it.

(Note how Al still doesn't want to talk about the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to ignoring laws)...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How did I know that your so-called "knowledge" of the American legal system is owed to a television court judge?

I see that political prisoner Kim Davis has been released from jail,

Kim Davis Freed From Jail, Lawyers Say She Plans To Again Block Licenses
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...ederal-custody


I'll follow this case for a few more days before I get started on the Education segment of the thread.

But Judge Judy's cases are real, her courtroom is real, her findings are real, and binding...etc.
(There's one on my TV right now. )
A judge nevertheless is the one who has to come to the best conclusions he/she can based on the law otherwise there is no way to resolve legal disputes. If you don't allow judges to do that then that would lead to anarchy aCW, surely you wouldn't want that, right?

Show me a case where she throws legal precedent (rulings based on established laws) out the window and decides a case based on her own prejudices.

 

[TracerBullet]

As shown below, you paraphrase the words of famous pedophiles frequently.

and here you are falsely accusing yet another person of child abuse.

In the interview where he makes this statement the topic was being a gay teenager. “I’m very glad that it seems to be easier for a boy to admit that he’s in love with a boy, or for a girl to admit that she’s in love with a girl." James Baldwin: Looking towards the Eighties. Kalamu ya Salaam From the Black Collegian 1979


Not that i think truth matters to you. I'm sure you will repeat this lie about Baldwin many many times. It is what you do.

 

[ok doser]

and here you are again, linking black people with perversion

you should really stop doing that

 

[alwight]

I have no idea what a "sexual anarchist" is, but I suspect it's anyone whose sex life doesn't meet with your approval.

Not mine, God's. Sexual anarchy is anything outside of God's design for human sexuality: one man, one woman, united in matrimony.

Oh right, I keep forgetting your status as "God's" official spokesperson on Earth aCW. You innately know the mind and intent of "God".

I know when you have nothing to say when you bring up my supposed support for someone that you can't actually manage to show is any more a paedophile than you are.

As shown below, you paraphrase the words of famous pedophiles frequently.

Except that your conclusions about who actually is a paedophile is pretty worthless, as anyone can tell from reading your output. Clearly anyone gay is someone you want disingenuously associated with paedophilia, all part of your spin.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter aCW.

But what law are we talking about today? What legislature passed this law? What executive signed it in a fancy ceremony?

So you're not a winner this time, better luck next time aCW.
But perhaps it goes beyond party politics and that in fact the system is about right, most people these days have no interest in state sponsored persecution of gays nor in denying them their human rights or anything else that encourages bigotry. I suggest you join them.

If you don't like the system then get it changed, don't go whinging only when things happen go against you, it simply makes you appear even more dishonest and opportunist than you already do.

The system isn't broken, as the United States Constitution still works as good today as when it was written. It's just a matter of electing people who abide by it.

In fact these days I'm genuinely surprised and gratified how, despite some residual organised bigotry and racism, American civil society does seem to be nevertheless well organised and reasonably fair minded to all. That clearly wasn't the case even when I was young and it amuses me that you seem to see it as a decline in standards rather than progress.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Re: Openly homosexual activist James Baldwin's quote:

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.

and here you are falsely accusing yet another person of child abuse.

Add that to my on-going class action libel suit.

In the interview where he makes this statement the topic was being a gay teenager.

Oh, so homosexuality isn't just for "consenting adults"?

“I’m very glad that it seems to be easier for a boy to admit that he’s in love with a boy, or for a girl to admit that she’s in love with a girl." James Baldwin: Looking towards the Eighties. Kalamu ya Salaam From the Black Collegian 1979

(TracerBullet acts like "man-boy love" is an aberration in the LGBTQueer community...Hay, Kameny, Thorstad, Vidal, Bean, Milk, etc. etc. etc.).
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4417535&postcount=7

Not that i think truth matters to you. I'm sure you will repeat this lie about Baldwin many many times. It is what you do.

So that the good name of proud and unrepentant sodomite James Baldwin is no longer tarnished, how about you link the full quote in it's entirety from "James Baldwin: Looking towards the Eighties. Kalamu ya Salaam From the Black Collegian 1979"?

 

[GFR7]

aCW:

Could not resist asking your opinion on this Traditionalist Youth Network piece?
It reminded me of you :think:

*warning: Graphic content*

http://www.tradyouth.org/2015/09/th...ding-hiv-on-purpose-and-its-being-covered-up/