Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[Christian Liberty]

What about the blind?

Even the blind.

Now, that's not to say that blind people should own guns or drive. It would be completely appropriate for private property owners to prevent them from doing so on their property. It would be appropriate for family, friends, and neighbors to encourage them not to do so. And if they cause damage, they are responsible for the damage they cause, just as anyone else. But no, the government has no right to decide. Because again, only aggressive acts should be punished.

 

[GFR7]

As much as I dislike aCW, I also completely reject this idea that "society" has a right to decide who has a right to own a gun or drive a car. Doubly so on basis of free speech, even if the speech in question is stupid.

For the record, I don't think homosexuality should be recriminalized either. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 would be my primary reason.

Of course, aCW doesn't actually believe in the golden rule, he won't defend the rights of people who he disagrees with, and he wants me imprisoned because I'm a "pervert." I definitely think he's a scary person, doubly so if he is a former cop as he claims. I'm not defending him at all. But I think this idea that government has a right to regulate who can own firearms or drive really needs to be challenged. Only acts of aggression should be illegal, period.

From the libertarian purview, of course what you say is right. But as you yourself note, aCW would be the first to take our rights away. He is horrendously mean-spirited, and I think he'd shoot me if he could get away with it. Could a special exception be made in aCW's case? :idunno:

 

[Christian Liberty]

From the libertarian purview, of course what you say is right. But as you yourself note, aCW would be the first to take our rights away. He is horrendously mean-spirited, and I think he'd shoot me if he could get away with it. Could a special exception be made in aCW's case? :idunno:

I think aCW would probably get himself killed within 30 seconds in a libertarian society... he couldn't live without violating other people's rights. But structurally speaking, if he is a former cop, its possible that he could be nuremberg trialed for something he legally did in the past, depending on your particular take on libertarian theory. Walter Block explores this here: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-17.pdf (Note that its been a long time since I've read this, so while I do find his premises interesting, I may not endorse every single point.) Assuming, on the other hand, that he is lying about his former criminal profession, or could not have been proven to have violated anyone's rights while in said profession, than no, there'd be no way to actually make an exception. But again, I don't think aCW could live very long if he couldn't violate anyone else's rights.

EDIT: I just skimmed really quick, and some of Block's utilitarian allowances are awful. Awful and completely unlibertarian. He makes some key mistakes on those issues. I'm only posting this to give a basic framework of how a libertarian nuremberg type trial could potentially work.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While GayForReal7 has been the best thing to happen to the thread since the cross-dresser who was engaged to a guy who was going to have genital mutilation surgery done posted here

[picture of drag queen Persephone66, aka "Chuck"]

, the thread definitely needs some new blood.

Welcome to the thread Caledvwich. Post away!

You are a strange person. And there's no "i."

I post a picture of someone who is a cross dresser and who is "engaged" to a guy that wants to be genitally mutilated so that he can become a pretend woman, i.e. someone that represents the behavior and movement that you defend, and you call me "strange"? (This atheist is going to be fun).

And I disagree. Your insanity is the best thing about this thread. While it's an unfortunate reminder that you are presumably eligible to own firearms and drive a car, it's also thoroughly entertaining to have you as a reference point for woo.

Yes, us God worshipping, gun-totin, car driving Christian conservatives are a scary lot. Never forget that Caldevwlch (without an "i").

 

[GFR7]

I think aCW would probably get himself killed within 30 seconds in a libertarian society... he couldn't live without violating other people's rights. But structurally speaking, if he is a former cop, its possible that he could be nuremberg trialed for something he legally did in the past, depending on your particular take on libertarian theory. Walter Block explores this here: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-17.pdf (Note that its been a long time since I've read this, so while I do find his premises interesting, I may not endorse every single point.) Assuming, on the other hand, that he is lying about his former criminal profession, or could not have been proven to have violated anyone's rights while in said profession, than no, there'd be no way to actually make an exception. But again, I don't think aCW could live very long if he couldn't violate anyone else's rights.

EDIT: I just skimmed really quick, and some of Block's utilitarian allowances are awful. Awful and completely unlibertarian. He makes some key mistakes on those issues. I'm only posting this to give a basic framework of how a libertarian nuremberg type trial could potentially work.

Yes, it's a shame, because the cure ends up being worse than the disease. But it is interesting, the thought of aCW being Nuremberged :think: Of course, this is what he is looking to do to gays when his ReCrim kicks in. :jawdrop: (of course he insists that you, me, Arthur, and many others will be swept away. But only if there is false testimony against us....)

 

[Caledvwlch]

I post a picture of someone who is a cross dresser and who is "engaged" to a guy that wants to be genitally mutilated so that he can become a pretend woman, i.e. someone that represents the behavior and movement that you defend, and you call me "strange"? (This atheist is going to be fun)..

Well, yeah. You're the one who posted the picture (which appeared as a broken link, btw).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The revelation came courtesy of Vidal’s half-sister Nina Straight and her son, Burr Steers, while talking to Tim Teeman, author of the new book In Bed with Gore Vidal. Both Straight and Steers were quite close to the writer during his last years; Vidal died in 2012 at age 86.

Since Gore Vidal seems to be representing all homosexuals here, 86? Why that's over twice the age that you told us is the life expectancy of homosexuals aCW, you haven't been feeding us misleading information have you?

As I'd mentioned before Al: You don't catch AIDS from 8 year old boys.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Vidal made no secret of his ravenous homosexual appetites and had affairs with actors such as Rock Hudson, Fred Astaire, Charles Laughton, and Noel Coward and also cruised male prostitutes from England to Egypt.

It seems to me aCW that such famous people and many more were not all somehow corrupted or influenced to be gay, they just were. Fred Astaire was married with kids I believe. Sexual orientation is simply what it is, genetic, and not always exclusively one way either, right aCW?

It's likely that the homosexual pedophile Gore Vidal was lying about Fred Astaire and was just infatuated with him, kinda like our GayForReal7 is infatuated with the married-with 5 children Peter LaBarbera.

So are you saying that the homosexual pedophile/pederast Gore Vidal was born with a child molesting gene Al?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I think aCW would probably get...

Welcome back Jr. I worry about you so when you're at the pro homosexual-pro pedophile RPF. Be sure to get tested!

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, it's a shame, because the cure ends up being worse than the disease. But it is interesting, the thought of aCW being Nuremberged :think: Of course, this is what he is looking to do to gays when his ReCrim kicks in. :jawdrop: (of course he insists that you, me, Arthur, and many others will be swept away. But only if there is false testimony against us....)

I actually just read the whole Block article, and there are a TON of conclusions which I don't agree with. I do, however, agree with his core premise, which is to say that legal positivism is not a thing, and thus that it is at least potentially possible that people could be charged for aggressive acts they engaged in while the State allowed them to do so. Whether it should actually be done would be case by case, IMO, depending on the willingness of arbitrators to pursue such cases, and the desire of victims to follow through with such a process.

Welcome back Jr. I worry about you so when you're at the pro homosexual-pro pedophile RPF. Be sure to get tested!

I'm still a virgin. I don't know of anyone on RPF who's pro-pedophile, and there are many people who are not pro-homosexual. Actually, there's even one theonomist who posts there (though I'm not sure if he still does, and he's an actual theonomist unlike the quasi-theonomists here...)

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Christian Liberty

For the record, I don't think homosexuality should be recriminalized either. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 would be my primary reason.

From the libertarian purview, of course what you say is right. But as you yourself note, aCW would be the first to take our rights away

I've asked this question many times before and will do it again:

Where does this supposed "right" to buggerize someone come from?

 

[Caledvwlch]

I've asked this question many times before and will do it again:

Where does this supposed "right" to buggerize someone come from?

:rotfl:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I don't know of anyone on RPF who's pro-pedophile,...

What about Walter Block and his defense of selling a 4 year old boy (who is not an adult) to a NAMBLA pedophile?

 

[Christian Liberty]

What about Walter Block and his defense of selling a 4 year old boy (who is not an adult) to a NAMBLA pedophile?

First of all, Block does not post on RPF.

Second of all, Block's reasoning comes from the same secular utilitarianism that his assertion about concentration camp guards (the idea that a libertarian could legitimately be one if he tries to subvert the system and save as many people as he can) comes from. I think he's fundamentally utilitarian, and that he simply sees maximum liberty as being the primary measure of utility, rather than being a deontological Christian libertarian as I am.

My views would be far closer to these guys
than it is to Walter Block.
Even still, I think its a bit of a stretch (and by "a bit", I actually mean "an obscenely large amount") to assert that Block "defended" pedophilia. He was simply saying that given the choice between selling one's child into sexual slavery and watching them starve to death, in a situation in which that was a dichotomous choice, he would choose the former. I actually agreed with you that it isn't a dichotomous choice because you can kill the pedophile and take food from him, which I feel would be morally justifiable in that instance. Even if that wasn't an option, I'd sooner let a child die than prostitute them. So, I don't agree with Block. But he still wasn't "defending" pedophilia. He wasn't saying that pedophilia is morally acceptable or even that it should be legal in anything other than a life-boat type situation. Its like saying someone who says they would engage in cannibalism in order to avoid starving to death while stranded on a deserted island is therefore actually supporting cannibalism.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Originally Posted by Christian Liberty

For the record, I don't think homosexuality should be recriminalized either. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 would be my primary reason.




I've asked this question many times before and will do it again:

Where does this supposed "right" to buggerize someone come from?

I'll actually grant that there is no such right. But based on New Testament precedent (1 Corinthians 5:9-13), Christians shouldn't support criminalizing it in the New Testament either.

Mind you, sometimes I equivocate a little bit with regards to the term "rights." The problem is that that term isn't actually Biblical, but is a western word that we use to attempt to explain a Biblical concept. I would say that while nobody has a right to sin, there are certain sins for which nobody has a right to use violence to prevent, which would create a de facto legal right to engage in that sin.

The real right in this case is the right not to be kidnapped. Arresting someone for something the Bible doesn't teach should be a crime is kidnapping.

 

[GFR7]

Originally Posted by Christian Liberty

For the record, I don't think homosexuality should be recriminalized either. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 would be my primary reason.




I've asked this question many times before and will do it again:

Where does this supposed "right" to buggerize someone come from?

Nice try, Kentucky. :BRAVO:

But I was responding to CL's assertion that government has no right to control who owns a firearm.

Oh, and I never said I was infatuated with LaBarbera. I said I admired him, think him handsome, and have had cordial communications with him. Only YOU would take this to mean I want to have sex with him.
Our Lady a Culture Warrior Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks :think:

OMG: I see it now. You are projecting your OWN ........Your own.......
desires about Peter onto ME! Horrible. NOOOooo

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nice try, Kentucky. But I was responding to CL's assertion that government has no right to control who owns a firearm.

Oh, and I never said I was infatuated with LaBarbera. I said I admired him, think him handsome, and have had cordial communications with him. Only YOU would take this to mean I want to have sex with him. Your own desires are projected onto ME, about Peter. Horrible. :nono:

I think men are ugly by definition

 

[GFR7]

I think men are ugly by definition

I don't, actually. Why do you think men are ugly? :think:
But I was trying to put across to aCW, that I was not raised in a beet field in Kentucky, as he was. I was raised in an Italian family in Manhattan, where men call each other 'handsome' and it has nothing to do with sexual attraction.

 

[alwight]

As I'd mentioned before Al: You don't catch AIDS from 8 year old boys.

So Vidal wasn't actually homosexual rather a paedophile in your "mind" then? That doesn't seem to tally with what I've read about him aCW.

Vidal made no secret of his ravenous homosexual appetites and had affairs with actors such as Rock Hudson, Fred Astaire, Charles Laughton, and Noel Coward and also cruised male prostitutes from England to Egypt.

Or this ^.

It's likely that the homosexual pedophile Gore Vidal was lying about Fred Astaire and was just infatuated with him, kinda like our GayForReal7 is infatuated with the married-with 5 children Peter LaBarbera.

I think that you're just making it all up, as usual aCW. You're pulling my leg.

So are you saying that the homosexual pedophile/pederast Gore Vidal was born with a child molesting gene Al?

We each have the genes we were born with, even you aCW, they fashion who we are, and maybe even your own homophobic bigotry is to some extent genetically innate.

 

[GFR7]

@aCW:

I also notice Kentucky failed to see a glaring fact in his Gore Vidal Pedophile story:

If Buckley and Vidal's family had the scoop on Gore all those years, and never said anything or went to law enforcement, then it seems they weren't too overly concerned about the boy victims, no? :think:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What about Walter Block and his defense of selling a 4 year old boy (who is not an adult) to a NAMBLA pedophile?

First of all, Block does not post on RPF.

Of course not. The atheist leader of your cult has more important things to do than to blog with his lemming followers. On a side note: I see that they've add Rand's name to the forum.

Second of all, Block's reasoning comes from the same secular utilitarianism that his assertion about concentration camp guards (the idea that a libertarian could legitimately be one if he tries to subvert the system and save as many people as he can) comes from...

What happened in your life that caused you, the supposed son of a Christian minister, to take up the ideology of a bunch of consensual moralist degenerates Jr.?