Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aikido7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Welcome back to the WHMBR! threads aikido7. Fill us in on what you've been doing since the last time you graced us with your moral relativist presence:

How many homosexual 'weddings' have you attended?

How many homosexual funerals have you attended?

How many HRC/GLSEN/GLAAD meetings have you attended and what is new when it comes to the homosexual agenda?

I look to people like you to keep me informed aikido7, so don't let me down.



But still as spiritually dead as before.



You act as if you're ashamed to admit that you have friends that engage in homosexual behavior and partake in faux marriage ceremonies and because of their extremely harmful behavior, go to the grave way before they should.

Why is that?



I questioned the "original intent" behind those terribly confusing verses and passages in my last post. I'm currently looking into that extremely confusing verse "Thou shalt not commit adultery" to find what God really meant when He said that.



i.e. the Old and New Testaments will be burned and replaced with the new "state authorized version" :

The Queen James Bible.



I've been meaning to ask:

How many homosexual 'weddings' have you attended?

How many homosexual funerals have you attended?

How many HRC/GLSEN/GLAAD meetings have you attended and what is new when it comes to the homosexual agenda?

There is not a single Greek word or phrase in the entire New Testament that should be translated into English as "homosexual"

In fact, the very notion of homosexuality—like that of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and even sexual orientation—is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers.

The word "homosexuality" came into use only in the latter part of the nineteenth century. You and your minions presume an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychological and sociological analysis.

In other words, the ancient writers were operating without the vaguest conception of what we have learned to call "sexual orientation."

You are not only adding to the Word, you refuse to remove your
21st century modern glasses. Which actually makes sense, given the science and moral common sense the rest of the globe is concerned with.

You are making a "Purity Code" issue here: some things just don't belong together. The Jews of Jesus's day felt the same way.

But we all know what Jesus taught.

 

[aikido7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Do you still consider yourself a "Christian Libertarian"? You do realize that the term itself is an oxymoron don't you? In any event, I showed in Part 2 (thanks to active participation by your fellow Paulbot, Christian Liberty, aka the Jr. Libertarian) how your false doctrine of not getting government involved in moral matters such as homosexuality fueled the LGBTQueer movement.



A couple of things:

1). There is only one kind of Christian, i.e. someone that follows the teachings of God as seen in Holy Scripture, i.e. they conserve His values:
conserve: to use or manage wisely; preserve; save

2). If you're a Christian why the need to add the term "Libertarian" onto it?



A righteous government (which we pretty much had up until a few decades ago) wouldn't make something a crime unless there are victims. We've seen the victims that come with the homosexual movement (children, families, invaluable institutions), and the people themselves that partake in the abominable act (disease, misery and death).

Of course you Libertarians don't think that a person can be a victim of their own actions (so much for Jesus' 2nd greatest commandment).

But it really doesn't matter what you and your fellow Libertarians "think", it all comes down to what the proper role of government is and the basis of that role (where it comes from).

A Christian acknowledges that it comes from the Bible, such as in Romans 13:4.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
And how would you focus on "protecting our rights" without people who believe in decency (and that isn't only Christians, it involves people of other faiths and people who aren't necessarily believers as well) getting the power back that government has through legislation?

It was a long process to get where we are today, it'll take awhile to return to a land that embraces God and decency.



Where in the Constitution does it say that sexually confused people have a right to sodomize one another? Refer to the index under the Founding Fathers to see what they thought about the act of homosexuality. Needless to say, their original intent wasn't to give sexual deviants and people with an immoral agenda "constitutional rights".



Which church, the numerous ones that are performing homosexual weddings?

Besides, it's not the role of the Church to legislate laws (unless you want to live in a Muslim theocracy).

Each institution that God ordained for the governance of man has it's own role (the Church, the Family and Civil Government) and civil government's role is to legislate righteous laws as seen through God's Eyes.

Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm



When people like you who call themselves "Christian" harp about government staying out of areas where there are no "victims" it certainly doesn't help the cause to restore decency in America.



I had forgotten how out of touch you Libertarians are with reality. Since the African National Congress took control of South Africa, the LGBTQ movement is flourishing.

From the sodomite periodical The Advocate:

"South Africa is the only African nation that grants full marriage equality and constitutional discrimination protection to it's LGBT citizens".
http://repronetafrica.org/the-state-of-lgbt-equality-in-africa/



These words keep ringing in my ears:



Decide which side you're on: God's and what the righteous role of government is, or secular humanist's man's.

Many of the answers to the problems in today's society are in the title to my 4 part thread:

"Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!"

None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that--as far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality.

You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. We simply have no way of determining what his attitude toward it might have been.

Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Further, homosexuality is not mentioned in ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul.

It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality.

The lack of the references we have in the New Testament suggests that it was not a matter of major concern either for Jesus or for the early Christian movement.

I know you think differently but barring the discovery of a new text we simply don't have the evidence.

It is not there.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's do it right now:

"Why cohabitation MUST be recriminalized!"

Out of wedlock sex has brought nothing but misery to our nation. Laws against cohabitation (two unwed people of the opposite sex living together in a romantic relationship), adultery, abortion and laws allowing no-fault divorce MUST be legislated once again.

The floor is yours Art, tell us how 'consenting adults" should be able to do anything that they want, but be sure to ignore all of the harm that comes with such actions.

Er, this is just lame. Where's the lugubrious cut 'n' pastes? The links to far right nutball blogs? Put your back into it man. Anyone would think you only get on your soapbox properly when the subject is about gay men...

Here's a riddle for you Art:

What do you call a male and female's relationship that are living an immoral lifestyle by cohabitating together but decide to get married?

"A moral relationship".

What do you call two same sex perverts who are living together and decide to get married?

"Two same sex perverts."

An immoral relationship can be rectified through marriage, but a perversion is always a perversion.

 

[aikido7]

Welcome back to the WHMBR! threads aikido7. Fill us in on what you've been doing since the last time you graced us with your moral relativist presence:

How many homosexual 'weddings' have you attended?

How many homosexual funerals have you attended?

How many HRC/GLSEN/GLAAD meetings have you attended and what is new when it comes to the homosexual agenda?

I look to people like you to keep me informed aikido7, so don't let me down.

Based on your previous comments, I doubt if you are a curious and voracious reader who loves to be a lifelong learner. But if you accept the traditions of Christian historical study, here's my two cents:


Two of the three passages that you and your minions believe refer to homosexuality are simply more-or-less miscellaneous catalogues of behaviors that are regarded as unacceptable, with no particular emphasis placed on any individual item in the list.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 says that certain types of people “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” The list of such people begins with fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers, and it ends with thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Near the middle—between adulterers and thieves—are the two Greek words translated in the New Revised Standard Version as male prostitutes (that is, homosexual male prostitutes) and sodomites.

No matter what you say or claim, no special emphasis is placed on these people. They are simply listed along with the others.

First Timothy 1:8–11 says that the law was given not for good people but for bad people, and it then provides a list, giving representative examples of who these "bad people" might be. Included in the list—this time near the end but again without any special emphasis—is the Greek word translated in the New Revised Standard Version as "sodomites."

And the story in Sodom was a cautionary tale to criticize the sin of inhospitality to the stranger. It had nothing to do with homosexual love as you seem to be fixated on.

Other people are mentioned simply in passing, in more-or-less miscellaneous catalogues of unacceptable behaviors, but with no special emphasis or attention called to them.

I have learned that such miscellaneous lists of "vices" are fairly common not only in the New Testament and other early Christian literature but also in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, and Jewish writings. They appear to have been somewhat stereotypical in nature, representing a kind of laundry list or grab bag of negative labels that could be trotted out and used for rhetorical purposes with little attention to individual items in the lists.

An important truth about ancient documents is as follows:

Different catalogues in different writings tend to be remarkably similar in content. It is obvious to many students of the Bible that it is often the case that authors often took over and adapted such lists from earlier documents.

Like it or not, this means that the New Testament writers may not actually have composed the lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11. These may simply be conventional lists, taken and adapted from earlier documents and used here for rhetorical purposes. If so, then inclusion of the words translated as "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" may be little more than coincidental.

 

[aikido7]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
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"?



While you're looking for that link I found some interesting information about Baldwin's childhood.

From the website bio.com:

Early Works and Sexuality

Baldwin had his first novel, Go Tell It on the Mountain, published in 1953. The loosely autobiographical tale focused on the life of a young man growing up in Harlem grappling with father issues and his religion. "Mountain is the book I had to write if I was ever going to write anything else. I had to deal with what hurt me most. I had to deal, above all, with my father," he later said.
http://www.biography.com/people/james-baldwin-9196635#early-works

Have I mentioned that one of the causes of same sex desires is an absent or distant father?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4417530&postcount=3

I try to understand what the original authors of a verse or a passage meant when they wrote it down.

The Greek word translated as "male prostitutes" is the adjective malakoi (the plural of malakos).

This adjective means "soft" as in a soft bed or a soft pillow. When applied to people, it can mean lazy, self-indulgent, cowardly, lacking in self-control, and the like.

When applied to males, it generally refers to what are commonly regarded as feminine-like "weaknesses" Such men might be regarded as soft, flabby, weak, cowardly, unmanly, or effeminate.

But to call a male effeminate might or might not carry implications of homosexuality. Sometimes it did, but certainly not always.

Some Christian historians assumed that malakoi does refer to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians primarily because the next term in the list is arsenokoitai. Their assumption being, of course, that the two words are somehow linked in meaning because they appear side by side in the list. This, however, is by no means necessarily the case. "The greedy" and "drunkards are also juxtaposed in the list, and it would be difficult to see any link between them.

 

[aikido7]

Even if 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 do refer to homosexuality, what they likely have in mind is not homosexuality per se but rather one particular form of homosexuality that was regarded as especially exploitative and degrading.

Have you ever heard anyone insult another by calling them a "mother%$*&#@"? Does that mean to you that the insulted party actually has coarse relations with his own mother? Or is it just another way to insult someone?

 

[aikido7]

To the extent that it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality, and it speaks on the basis of assumptions about homosexuality that are now regarded as highly mistaken.

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people tend to be conservative." --Economist John Stuart Mill

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Did I spell Meggun Kely's name wrong Al? (How can I ever live with myself after such an atrocious act?)..

It seems that Donald Trump floats your boat more than Megyn Kelly aCW, there's no accounting for taste perhaps.

Someone that is entrusted by people to tell the truth via the news media but tells nothing but lies never has "floated my boat" Al,.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I like the idea of a Ted Cruz/Donald Trump ticket, as it would get the social conservative and conservative/moderate/soft core libertarian vote.

Yes I suppose you would.

Just the right combination to get elected, i.e. "reaganesque".


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding the Trump-Kely (did I spell her name right this time Al?) "interaction".

She's a fag hag and I have no problem with her being scorned.

I wouldn't climb over her to get to you aCW.

You're just the kind of man that Megun Kellee likes Al:

Megyn Kelly’s Ex-Hubby: ‘She Wanted a Wife’
http://www.teaparty.org/megyn-kellys-ex-hubby-wanted-wife-81095/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Something makes me think that Christians in 33 AD weren't concerned about lobbying the Emperor to criminalize sinful behaviors.

Something makes me think that a self proclaimed Libertarian can't even define what Libertarianism is:

When you're able to define what Libertarianism is (without using subjective words like "liberty and freedom") then we'll talk.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There is not a single Greek word or phrase in the entire New Testament that should be translated into English as "homosexual"...

None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that--as far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality.

Based on your previous comments, I doubt if you are a curious and voracious reader who loves to be a lifelong learner. But if you accept the traditions of Christian historical study, here's my two cents:...

I try to understand what the original authors of a verse or a passage meant when they wrote it down.

The Greek word translated as "male prostitutes" is the adjective malakoi (the plural of malakos).

Even if 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 do refer to homosexuality, what they likely have in mind is not homosexuality per se but rather one particular form of homosexuality that was regarded as especially exploitative and degrading.

And to think that just a few years ago people like aikido7 HATED God so much that even the mention of His name drove him and his LGBTQueer allies even more insane then they already are (don't get me wrong, aikido7 and his LGBTQueer allies still HATE God as much as they did before, they're just driving down a different avenue of HATE by redefining His Word to meet their selfish perverted agenda).

Not to worry aikido7, we'll get you and your brethren help someday, hopefully before it's too late and you have to face God on your own judgment day.

NALT: Not All Like That

 

[alwight]

It seems that Donald Trump floats your boat more than Megyn Kelly aCW, there's no accounting for taste perhaps.

Someone that is entrusted by people to tell the truth via the news media but tells nothing but lies never has "floated my boat" Al,.

Nonsense aCW, TV journalists are simply doing a job of work for their station not taking up holy orders. If both you and Donny Fart have a hard time dealing with her then she must be doing something right imo.
Cue the snide comments about her private life.

Yes I suppose you would.

Just the right combination to get elected, i.e. "reaganesque".

Naa no chance, Reagan was at least fairly affable if bumbling, but not misogynistic nor innately unpleasant ...and had proper hair.

Ron still got shot though...obviously not enough guns around, right?

She's a fag hag and I have no problem with her being scorned.

Did someone say misogynist?
What is it with you right wing nutters? :idunno:

You're just the kind of man that Megun Kellee likes Al:

Yes, I could really turn her life around aCW. lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Someone that is entrusted by people to tell the truth via the news media but tells nothing but lies never has "floated my boat" Al,.

Nonsense aCW, TV journalists are simply doing a job of work for their station not taking up holy orders. If both you and Donny Fart have a hard time dealing with her then she must be doing something right imo.
Cue the snide comments about her private life.

Speaking of LGBTQueer biased so-called "journalists" from a supposed conservative news network:

AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera has an excellent video on Kim Davis and Fox News so-called tv journalist Shep Smith (who if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, not only is real flamer, but is a valuable tool of the LGBTQueer movement).



Subject breakdown: In the 41-minute program we discussed:
•4:00 – Kincaid and Peter LaBarbera (PL) on how the Supreme Court itself violates the “Rule of Law,” most recently with its anti-Constitutional Obergefell ruling;
•7:00 – Background on Kim Davis case and rally on her behalf today (Sept. 8) at 3;00 ET at the Carter Co. Detention Center in Grayson, KY
•8:00 – Shep Smith’s comments on Fox News disparaging Kim Davis and her past life (without mentioning her Christian conversion four years ago (shows Fox clip);
•9:45 – PL on the Left as the “New Pharisees” — with their harsh judgment of Davis and her past sins;
•12;45 – Christians like racists? More on Shep Smith: his comments on Fox News comparing Christians seeking exemptions to pro-homosexual laws to southern, pro-segregationists seeking Civil Rights exemptions: (shows second Fox clip) … [more time breakouts follow after jump and beneath video]:

http://americansfortruth.com/2015/0...ith-aftahs-labarbera-on-americas-survival-tv/

Since Shep feels free to talk about Kim Davis' past life, why not talk about his current life?

I don't know if Shep and Giovanni Graziano are still an "item", after all their "romance" was 3 months old at the time this article was written.
http://www.fabcouples.com/shepard-smiths-boyfriend-giovanni-graziano/

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
She's a fag hag and I have no problem with her being scorned.

Did someone say misogynist?
What is it with you right wing nutters?

For those of you that don't follow the tactics of the left, Al is just warming up for the upcoming election if Queen Hilary is nominated.

Liberals cried "racist!" every time someone questioned B. Hussein Obama's policies, they'll cry "misogynist!/woman hater!" every time someone questions her or any other liberals woman's policies.

 

[alwight]

Nonsense aCW, TV journalists are simply doing a job of work for their station not taking up holy orders. If both you and Donny Fart have a hard time dealing with her then she must be doing something right imo.
Cue the snide comments about her private life.

Speaking of LGBTQueer biased so-called "journalists" from a supposed conservative news network:

AFTAH's Peter LaBarbera has an excellent video on Kim Davis and Fox News so-called tv journalist Shep Smith (who if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, not only is real flamer, but is a valuable tool of the LGBTQueer movement).



Subject breakdown: In the 41-minute program we discussed:
•4:00 – Kincaid and Peter LaBarbera (PL) on how the Supreme Court itself violates the “Rule of Law,” most recently with its anti-Constitutional Obergefell ruling;
•7:00 – Background on Kim Davis case and rally on her behalf today (Sept. 8) at 3;00 ET at the Carter Co. Detention Center in Grayson, KY
•8:00 – Shep Smith’s comments on Fox News disparaging Kim Davis and her past life (without mentioning her Christian conversion four years ago (shows Fox clip);
•9:45 – PL on the Left as the “New Pharisees” — with their harsh judgment of Davis and her past sins;
•12;45 – Christians like racists? More on Shep Smith: his comments on Fox News comparing Christians seeking exemptions to pro-homosexual laws to southern, pro-segregationists seeking Civil Rights exemptions: (shows second Fox clip) … [more time breakouts follow after jump and beneath video]:

http://americansfortruth.com/2015/0...ith-aftahs-labarbera-on-americas-survival-tv/

Since Shep feels free to talk about Kim Davis' past life, why not talk about his current life?

I don't know if Shep and Giovanni Graziano are still an "item", after all their "romance" was 3 months old at the time this article was written.
http://www.fabcouples.com/shepard-smiths-boyfriend-giovanni-graziano/

As before I think that Ms Davis should not be allowed to obstruct the law, go find another job, she doesn't have to be in jail unless she wants to be, but of course playing martyr is her real ploy.
It seems that homophobic bigotry is just the start of your fundie world of vitriolic hatred aCW...

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
She's a fag hag and I have no problem with her being scorned.

Did someone say misogynist?
What is it with you right wing nutters?

For those of you that don't follow the tactics of the left, Al is just warming up for the upcoming election if Queen Hilary is nominated.

Liberals cried "racist!" every time someone questioned B. Hussein Obama's policies, they'll cry "misogynist!/woman hater!" every time someone questions her or any other liberals woman's policies.

...Let's just call it misogyny if that's what it is aCW, since in this case that's clearly what it is, which fits in so nicely with all your other endearing and charming features aCW. lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

As before I think that Ms Davis should not be allowed to obstruct the law, go find another job, she doesn't have to be in jail unless she wants to be, but of course playing martyr is her real ploy.
It seems that homophobic bigotry is just the start of your fundie world of vitriolic hatred aCW...

Whatsamatta Al, you don't want to talk about the LGBTQueer activists that are working at Faux News?

...Let's just call it misogyny if that's what it is aCW, since in this case that's clearly what it is, which fits in so nicely with all your other endearing and charming features aCW. lain:

If you want to talk about misogyny Al, I would love to.

How about we start with how many baby girls are murdered in the womb from surgical abortions each year here in the United States by your "pro choice" movement? (With 1.2 million surgical abortions done each year here in the US, I would say well over 600,000 of them involve baby girls who will never get the chance to grow up and be a woman).

OR, we could talk about how the LGBTQueer movement indoctrinates children (in this case little girls and teens) into accepting an absolutely filthy disease ridden behavior as something normal, and even promotes the "experimentation" of that behavior to these youth, not telling them the harmful effects that behavior brings both here on earth and for eternity?

 

[alwight]

Whatsamatta Al, you don't want to talk about the LGBTQueer activists that are working at Faux News?

Perhaps, if you simply weren't picking on Shepard Smith just because he is gay and for no good other reason. You simply aren't a person who can be reasoned with aCW, you don't even have the slightest concept of "fair and balanced", it never enters your head. You even make Bill O'Reilly seem moderate, tolerant, fair and balanced.

If you want to talk about misogyny Al, I would love to.

How about we start with how many baby girls are murdered in the womb from surgical abortions each year here in the United States by your "pro choice" movement? (With 1.2 million surgical abortions done each year here in the US, I would say well over 600,000 of them involve baby girls who will never get the chance to grow up and be a woman).

How exactly is that misogyny or are you really telling me that abortions in the US are based on the foetus' gender?
In China perhaps, but the US? Where is your evidence of this?
Perhaps abortion is just your excuse for hating women more generally?
Women have abortions therefore right wing fundies hate women. :idea:
I see, maybe the penny has finally dropped for me. :hammer:

OR, we could talk about how the LGBTQueer movement indoctrinates children (in this case little girls and teens) into accepting an absolutely filthy disease ridden behavior as something normal, and even promotes the "experimentation" of that behavior to these youth, not telling them the harmful effects that behavior brings both here on earth and for eternity?

You do understand that misogyny is a hatred of women aCW?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Whatsamatta Al, you don't want to talk about the LGBTQueer activists that are working at Faux News?

Perhaps, if you simply weren't picking on Shepard Smith just because he is gay and for no good other reason.

Like CNN's proud and unrepentant homosexuals Donnie Lemon and Andy Cooper (see the index under "people profiles" to find out more about Donnie and Andy), Shepard Smith is biased when it comes to the subject of homosexuality because he engages in that behavior.

You simply aren't a person who can be reasoned with aCW, you don't even have the slightest concept of "fair and balanced", it never enters your head. You even make Bill O'Reilly seem moderate, tolerant, fair and balanced.

As Peter LaBarbera and Cliff Kincaid pointed out in the above video: When it comes to the truth, there is no need to be fair and balanced about it. The truth is the truth, period.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you want to talk about misogyny Al, I would love to.

How about we start with how many baby girls are murdered in the womb from surgical abortions each year here in the United States by your "pro choice" movement? (With 1.2 million surgical abortions done each year here in the US, I would say well over 600,000 of them involve baby girls who will never get the chance to grow up and be a woman).

How exactly is that misogyny or are you really telling me that abortions in the US are based on the foetus' gender?
In China perhaps, but the US? Where is your evidence of this?
Perhaps abortion is just your excuse for hating women more generally?
Women have abortions therefore right wing fundies hate women.
I see, maybe the penny has finally dropped for me.

One would think that if you truly loved women you wouldn't put 29 million of them to death in a 43 year period or have the mothers of those little angels go through the pain, agony and grief that comes with aborting her own flesh and blood.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
OR, we could talk about how the LGBTQueer movement indoctrinates children (in this case little girls and teens) into accepting an absolutely filthy disease ridden behavior as something normal, and even promotes the "experimentation" of that behavior to these youth, not telling them the harmful effects that behavior brings both here on earth and for eternity?

You do understand that misogyny is a hatred of women aCW?

And the opposite of hatred is love. When you love someone you do what's best for them.

If you want to get more specific on the subject of misogyny, we could talk about the misogynists in the LGBTQueer movement and why they hate women so much.

I'm pretty much convinced that because so many of them were overly mothered, they have a issue with woman all together.

MOTHERS AND SONS

Bieber's study of homosexual male patients found that in many cases the detached, hostile father was matched by a mother who was "close-binding and intimate with her son." About 70% of the mothers of Bieber's patients met this criteria. The analysts also reported their patients' mothers were more restrictive of active play, over-anxious concerning health, more afraid of injury, and more overprotective than the controls' mothers.

The case histories presented by Bieber reveal psychologically destructive mother/son relationships. In one case the mother kept her son in bed most of the time between age four and seven because of a minor intestinal condition. Her daily ritual was to rub her son's back, pat and kiss his buttocks. The boy became terrified when he reacted to this inappropriate behavior by becoming visibly sexually aroused. In addition the patient reported that his mother sabotaged his relationships with his father and his peers: "It was as if she demanded that I give her all my attention. She criticized my friends and did it so nicely that it hurt more." (Bieber 1962, p.59)

According to Bieber:

By the time the H[omosexual]-son has reached the preadolescent period, he has suffered a diffuse personality disorder. Maternal over-anxiety about health and injury, restriction of activities normative for the son's age and potential, interference with assertive behavior, demasculinizing attitudes, and interference with sexuality -- interpenetrating with paternal rejection, hostility, and lack of support -- produce an excessively fearful child, pathologically dependent upon his mother and beset by feelings of inadequacy, impotence, and self-contempt. He is reluctant to participate in boyhood activities thought to be physically injurious -- usually grossly overestimated. His peer group responds with humiliating name-calling and often with physical attack which timidity tends to invite among children... Thus he is deprived of important empathic interaction which peer groups provide. (Bieber 1962, p.316)
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/childhood_of_homosexual_men_3.htm
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3980248&postcount=918

 

[Lexington'96]

Something makes me think that a self proclaimed Libertarian can't even define what Libertarianism is:

When you're able to define what Libertarianism is (without using subjective words like "liberty and freedom") then we'll talk.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that seeks to maximize personal liberty. It means that individuals should be left alone provided what they are doing is not harming others. Our government worked like this for the most part from 1776-1930 with a few exceptions such as the 1910s.

 

[alwight]

Like CNN's proud and unrepentant homosexuals Donnie Lemon and Andy Cooper (see the index under "people profiles" to find out more about Donnie and Andy), Shepard Smith is biased when it comes to the subject of homosexuality because he engages in that behavior.

How is that any different from simply claiming that heterosexuals are all biased against homosexuals because they proudly indulge in heterosexual behaviour? Fact is you are simply making it up because you hate homosexuals, not that Smith actually is biased and your bias simply won't tolerate him doing anything.

As Peter LaBarbera and Cliff Kincaid pointed out in the above video: When it comes to the truth, there is no need to be fair and balanced about it. The truth is the truth, period.

Yeah but the truth isn't true just because Porno Pete says it is, in fact it's more likely to be the opposite imo.

One would think that if you truly loved women you wouldn't put 29 million of them to death in a 43 year period or have the mothers of those little angels go through the pain, agony and grief that comes with aborting her own flesh and blood.

Again, how is that anything to do with misogyny, a hatred of women?

And the opposite of hatred is love. When you love someone you do what's best for them.

Oh yes I've often noticed how you simply oose with love and kindness to all aCW. lain:

If you want to get more specific on the subject of misogyny, we could talk about the misogynists in the LGBTQueer movement and why they hate women so much.

Clearly like Porno Pete, I'm sure you must have had first hand experience including many years of trawling the net for anything LGBT, but personally I don't sense any particular hatred for women from presumably gay men, often quite the opposite imo. However I do rather sense considerably more misogyny coming from right wing homophobic bigots.

I'm pretty much convinced that because so many of them were overly mothered, they have a issue with woman all together.

MOTHERS AND SONS

Bieber's study of homosexual male patients found that in many cases the detached, hostile father was matched by a mother who was "close-binding and intimate with her son." About 70% of the mothers of Bieber's patients met this criteria. The analysts also reported their patients' mothers were more restrictive of active play, over-anxious concerning health, more afraid of injury, and more overprotective than the controls' mothers.

The case histories presented by Bieber reveal psychologically destructive mother/son relationships. In one case the mother kept her son in bed most of the time between age four and seven because of a minor intestinal condition. Her daily ritual was to rub her son's back, pat and kiss his buttocks. The boy became terrified when he reacted to this inappropriate behavior by becoming visibly sexually aroused. In addition the patient reported that his mother sabotaged his relationships with his father and his peers: "It was as if she demanded that I give her all my attention. She criticized my friends and did it so nicely that it hurt more." (Bieber 1962, p.59)

According to Bieber:

By the time the H[omosexual]-son has reached the preadolescent period, he has suffered a diffuse personality disorder. Maternal over-anxiety about health and injury, restriction of activities normative for the son's age and potential, interference with assertive behavior, demasculinizing attitudes, and interference with sexuality -- interpenetrating with paternal rejection, hostility, and lack of support -- produce an excessively fearful child, pathologically dependent upon his mother and beset by feelings of inadequacy, impotence, and self-contempt. He is reluctant to participate in boyhood activities thought to be physically injurious -- usually grossly overestimated. His peer group responds with humiliating name-calling and often with physical attack which timidity tends to invite among children... Thus he is deprived of important empathic interaction which peer groups provide. (Bieber 1962, p.316)
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/childhood_of_homosexual_men_3.htm
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3980248&postcount=918

So what? NARTH at least found what it wanted to find here apparently.
Some more effeminate men were overprotected by their mothers, big deal, but there's nothing here to suggest that such mothers create gay men or that gay men all hate their mothers/women.
So, some mothers are overprotective and perhaps do burden their already gay offspring with even more problems than just having to deal with your everyday homophobic bigots.

Face facts Life's a female dog and then you die (as I like to say), we are what we are and have to deal with whatever hand we are dealt in an all too often harsh and cruel world.
Those are the breaks, clearly we are all born different aCW.

Why not try to become somewhat tolerant and understanding of any such differences instead of simply being part of other people's problems?
Where is your love aCW? lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here's a riddle for you Art:

What do you call a male and female's relationship that are living an immoral lifestyle by cohabitating together but decide to get married?

"A moral relationship".

What do you call two same sex perverts who are living together and decide to get married?

"Two same sex perverts."

An immoral relationship can be rectified through marriage, but a perversion is always a perversion.

Nope, this will just not do.

I asked you to campaign against heterosexual cohabitation with the same vigour and vitriol you do with homosexuality.

That means long, tedious spiel. Propaganda from nutcase blogs, misinformation from ludicrous sites, laborious cut 'n' pastes and unfunny dialogue etc etc.

Now get on with it and make an effort this time.

(dear oh dear)

:nono:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Since this now 4 part thread has existed, numerous authors (Fischer, Barber, etc.) have shown that the sexual anarchist/LGBTQueer movement cannot "coexist" with people of faith (those who embrace Judeo-Christian values). I challenge secular humanists regularly to show me how the two can without one side giving up their religious rights or the benefits that go with the decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion.

I'm currently attempting in another thread to get a devout hater of God and everything decent (shagster01, aka the Doper) to show me how the two sides (right v wrong, good v evil) can "coexist", but he hasn't been able to do so.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4452922&postcount=95

I'm moving that debate over here as it will go to blind eyes in the thread that will die out in a day or two.

Ok shag, show me that coexistence can happen without the *.