Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[GFR7]

The "hippie movement", i.e. the sexual revolution/free love movement is far from collapsing.

Did you just compare the disco fad with the sexual anarchy movement?




So tell me, with incest and sex with children being illegal, are there "door to door searches" being done to make certain that those things don't take place?

I have one more question for you before I move on:

What is the purpose of you posting this? (Like disco, it's probably just a fad and it'll reach it's apex and reversal and just collapse).
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3963724&postcount=517

On that note: One of my favorite sayings over the years has been:

"Go with your gut instincts."

My gut instincts told me that you're a fraud, and once again my instincts were right.

This to me is getting scary. Why don't I have a right to cite LaBarbera? I posted it because I believe what he is saying. I don't have the right to post from him, to point out what he asserts when I go check his site? In what way did that not fit in with the general discussion? Please tell me, because I would like to know what I am being rebuked for. I can't make it out.

I am a "fraud" in what way? Because I don't fall in lockstep with everything you are saying? A "fraud" in that you believe I am really pro-gay? In this case the sin is all in the eye of the beholder, as I have no reason to be a "fraud" on a forum like this. What would it gain me? It would be better to simply say that you don't agree with my views. But "fraud"? As in deliberately deceiving? To what purpose?

And yes, believe it or not, some cultural movements do wither away and leave room in their place for fresh growth and resurgence and rejuvenation. And I did not bring up "the disco culture" lightly - I believe it was a wicked and destructive movement and was happy when it collapsed.

Do you call every poster here who does not believe in a police state a "fraud"? Really am confused as I don't know where you are coming from.

Moreover, I feel put upon, as I have been both honest and respectful and am being picked on and I don't know why. They tried to warn me and I thought they were being infantile and paranoid.

Well, the old saying goes, "No offense intended." "Then none taken." So it is no matter as if I intended no offense then it is you who are wrong to have taken it. Sorry if you find LaBarbera's post offensive; I agree with his assessment of injured manhood and let it stand.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

I'm not familiar with any Van de Ven study, and really couldn't care less about it. This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized; no study can refute that.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This to me is getting scary. Why don't I have a right to cite LaBarbera? I posted it because I believe what he is saying. I don't have the right to post from him, to point out what he asserts when I go check his site? In what way did that not fit in with the general discussion? Please tell me, because I would like to know what I am being rebuked for. I can't make it out.

Homosexuality, which in only one aspect of the sexual anarchy movement, is just a phase (like disco) that will eventually reach it's apex and collapse. Why post information from LaBarbera's website if you believe that?

I am a "fraud" in what way? Because I don't fall in lockstep with everything you are saying? A "fraud" in that you believe I am really pro-gay? In this case the sin is all in the eye of the beholder, as I have no reason to be a "fraud" on a forum like this. What would it gain me? It would be better to simply say that you don't agree with my views. But "fraud"? As in deliberately deceiving? To what purpose?

It appears that you have a problem with the recriminalization of a particular law, perhaps because you have friends and family that engage in that particular behavior and you're afraid that they'll be affected by it? Would you rather see them living on AIDS cocktails and dying way before they should?

There's a reason there have always been laws against homosexuality throughout western civilization. We're seeing the results after those laws were decriminalized.

And yes, believe it or not, some cultural movements do wither away and leave room in their place for fresh growth and resurgence and rejuvenation. And I did not bring up "the disco culture" lightly - I believe it was a wicked and destructive movement and was happy when it collapsed.

The long version, just for you GFR

Do you call every poster here who does not believe in a police state a "fraud"? Really am confused as I don't know where you are coming from.

"A police state"? Seriously? Laws that protect innocent children, valuable institutions and keep sexually confused people from killing themselves and others makes that society a "police state"?

Moreover, I feel put upon, as I have been both honest and respectful and am being picked on and I don't know why. They tried to warn me and I thought they were being infantile and paranoid.

Well, the old saying goes, "No offense intended." "Then none taken." So it is no matter as if I intended no offense then it is you who are wrong to have taken it. Sorry if you find LaBarbera's post offensive; I agree with his assessment of injured manhood and let it stand.

Seek help, you desperately need it.

 

[GFR7]

Homosexuality, which in only one aspect of the sexual anarchy movement, is just a phase (like disco) that will eventually reach it's apex and collapse. Why post information from LaBarbera's website if you believe that?



It appears that you have a problem with the recriminalization of a particular law, perhaps because you have friends and family that engage in that particular behavior and you're afraid that they'll be affected by it? Would you rather seem them living on AIDS cocktails and dying way before they should?

There's a reason there have always been laws against homosexuality throughout western civilization. We're seeing the results after those laws were decriminalized.

The long version, just for you GFR

"A police state"? Seriously? Laws that protect innocent children, valuable institutions and keep sexually confused people from killing themselves and others makes that society a "police state"?



Seek help, you desperately need it.

I really don't think I need help. What am I to do, go to a doctor and say I am having a fight with a Culture Warrior and so now am in need of help?:doh:

And saying something ought to be re-criminalized does not mean it could be enforced at this late date. Do you think Lawrence v Texas could be repealed now?

If so, when I see it I will admit that you read the signs of the times better than have I.

I do not, I repeat, do not care about any friends or family who are gay. They are a mean lot and I have already told you I don't care what happens to them.

What I meant about the "police state" is that what has happened with the state bans on SSM being overturned by federal judges has gone very far -

if pedophilia had been de-criminalized and had gone this far, it would in fact take a police state to reverse it. If you know of another way, tell us. How do you envision re-criminalization being enacted in the near future? I can only see it in the far future.

Do you imagine gay advocates and liberals would simply stay silent? There would be massive protest and mayhem.

You do not have dibs on LaBarbera. (nor do I, admittedly)
I think short of re-criminalization, he himself is praying for education, massive dissent, and a collapse. This is what he appears to be working on, to me.

Do you think a man like Brian Brown, who works steadfastly to block the advance of gay marriage, is a "fraud" because even though a devout Catholic, he calls for tolerance and Civil Unions?

The Peace of Jesus.
G

PS: Thanks for the Disco Inferno :chuckle:
Have not heard that song in a very, very long time.:devil:

addendum: I just thought of Valdamir Putin.
OK, maybe what he has done, but I cannot see it working over here with RINOS and liberals.
Putin is a warrior, and not at all American. Finis.

OK - just remembered this. So I do concede that your scenario may be less out-of-reach than I had thought (so apologies to you for that) :

INDIA: Supreme Court Recriminalizes Homosexuality In Shocking Decision, Reverses 2009 Landmark Ruling

and now I see that as recently as 2010 this was being spoken about:

Texas GOP: Recriminalize Sodomy and Make it a Felony to Marry Gay Couples

http://www.care2.com/causes/texas-r...elony-to-marry-gay-couples.html#ixzz37UNoaNOJ

Here is a recent one:

The Texas GOP Still Wants to Criminalize Homosexuality. Good For Them!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._criminalize_homosexuality_good_for_them.html

The trouble is, they are toning all this down now, being overridden by RINOs.
But I do see your point. And yours may be the best and the most manly solution.

Very best regards;
(Angels and Ministers of Grace, Defend Us)
G

 

[GFR7]

And yes , I would agree, when I see things like this on LaBarbera's site I do begin to feel strongly and not so concerned with "freedoms" or people's feelings.

I guess I am simply not as seasoned as you or as focused or whatever.

But I don't think I'm insincere and I know I am not fraudulent.

I have often been rebuked by family/friends for my suspicions about "Gay Stalinism".

Best Regards;
G

 

[TracerBullet]

I'm not familiar with any Van de Ven study, and really couldn't care less about it. This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized; no study can refute that.

you don't read your own thread?

 

[Lon]

how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

What is false?

 

[GFR7]

Anyone who fails to see that same sex marriage is not the vehicle for changing times, laws and ideology should think again:

The elimination on government documents such as passports of the words 'husband' and 'wife', 'mother' and 'father', 'widow', etc. has followed in the train of same sex marriage.

It is strange that a tiny minority would be enabled to change times and laws and to alter language which the majority has always used and understood.

I Now Pronounce You Spouse And Spouse

http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Betty Crocker's Newest Recipe: How to Support Gay Marriage

The Brand Uses Social Media and Rainbow Desserts in High-Profile Push

http://adage.com/article/news/betty-crocker-s-newest-recipe-support-gay-marriage/293853/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And yes , I would agree, when I see things like this on LaBarbera's site I do begin to feel strongly and not so concerned with "freedoms" or people's feelings.

I guess I am simply not as seasoned as you or as focused or whatever.

But I don't think I'm insincere and I know I am not fraudulent.

I have often been rebuked by family/friends for my suspicions about "Gay Stalinism".

Best Regards;
G

I should have warned you earlier about posting graphic pictures. It get's homosexualists like Brother Vinny all worked up.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm not familiar with any Van de Ven study, and really couldn't care less about it. This 3 part thread has shown what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized; no study can refute that.

you don't read your own thread?

Again, who needs studies when the realities of homosexual behavior and it's agenda speak for themselves.

Of course homosexualists like you rely on studies, as they're numbers on a graph which don't show the filthy disease ridden-violent behavior that homosexuals partake in.

For instance:

"In addition to sodomy [anal sex], homosexuals engage in oral-penile and oral-anal activity with their sexual contacts. These activities lead to warts in the mouth, gonorrhea in the throat and various hideous gastrointestinal infections in the stomach (these infections use to be called “Gay Bowel Syndrome” as the infections are almost always acquired by homosexual sex, but political correctness has forced health care workers to rename this homosexual phenomenon."

 

[GFR7]

I should have warned you earlier about posting graphic pictures. It get's homosexualists like Brother Vinny all worked up.

I received an infraction, but it was understood and apologized for. Was just trying to drive home a point.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I really don't think I need help. What am I to do, go to a doctor and say I am having a fight with a Culture Warrior and so now am in need of help?:doh:

Tell him that you think that same sex sodomy is a passing fad like disco was. I'm sure he'll fit you with a straightjacket right there.

And saying something ought to be re-criminalized does not mean it could be enforced at this late date. Do you think Lawrence v Texas could be repealed now?

This thread is about what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized at various state levels since circa 1973 and at the federal level via Lawrence v Texas. Obviously for some reason you don't think that laws criminalizing homosexuality are a good idea, and I'm trying to figure out why (could it be that GFR might be effected by these laws?)

...I do not, I repeat, do not care about any friends or family who are gay. They are a mean lot and I have already told you I don't care what happens to them.

So much for loving your neighbor as you'd love yourself. I care about them, as does a society that embraces compassion. It appears that you have that "survival of the fittest" mentality that Libertarians have.

What I meant about the "police state" is that what has happened with the state bans on SSM being overturned by federal judges has gone very far -

No you didn't, you stated in an earlier post:

As far as policing things by police state: Does anyone believe that is the best ( or only) way to achieve something great? Please tell me any further thoughts you have on this. There can be great cultural shifts in other ways.(religious Reawakenings have caused cultural shifts, historically)

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3969275&postcount=648

if pedophilia had been de-criminalized and had gone this far, it would in fact take a police state to reverse it. If you know of another way, tell us. How do you envision re-criminalization being enacted in the near future? I can only see it in the far future. Do you imagine gay advocates and liberals would simply stay silent? There would be massive protest and mayhem.

As stated earlier: By educating the public and electing good men and women into public office that aren't afraid to speak the truth. If there is bloodshed, so be it. Fear of getting a little HIV/AIDS infected blood on one's hands doesn't mean that the war against perversion shouldn't be fought.

You do not have dibs on LaBarbera. (nor do I, admittedly)
I think short of re-criminalization, he himself is praying for education, massive dissent, and a collapse. This is what he appears to be working on, to me.

Quote him saying that.

Do you think a man like Brian Brown, who works steadfastly to block the advance of gay marriage, is a "fraud" because even though a devout Catholic, he calls for tolerance and Civil Unions?

I was once a fan of Brian Brown and NOM, but I see (as the late Ken Hutcherson points out in this AFTAH article) that he and the National Organization for Marriage are going about this battle the wrong way:

AFTAH Interviews Pastor Ken Hutcherson on Washington State ‘Gay Marriage’ Measure – Part One

Hutcherson discusses the failed pro-family campaign to defeat a homosexual “marriage” bill in his state. He drew attention in pro-family circles by. criticizing national groups such as National Organization for Marriage (NOM) for coming into the state and dictating a “moderate” leadership for the pro-traditional-marriage forces–at the expense of a unified, local coalition of religious and pro-family leaders that had already formed.
http://americansfortruth.com/2012/1...shington-state-gay-marriage-measure-part-one/

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."
1 Timothy 1:8

 

[TracerBullet]

What is false?

Do you people ever fact check these claims?

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

First off an online census isn’t going to be very representative of anything. But let’s put that aside and take not of the fact that the numbers of this online census were broken down by age group. And the numbers presented by Dailey were for the 20 -40 year old demographic. Can you figure out just why there are so few relationships in this demographic lasting more than 15 years, or do I need to spell it out?

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6] 6. Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031

As already noted the Xiridou study found no such thing. The Xiridou was about promiscuity and it EXCLUDED any gay man who was in a relationship lasting longer than 1.5 years.

7. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.

What a convoluted reference. Anyone have any ideas as to why Daily didn’t reference Pollak directly? It could be that Pollack made no such finding or statement in that work or any other.

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]8. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225

1973?

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.[12] Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003):

Claiming that this study was of “partnered homosexuals” is just a blatant lie. See above

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.[14] 14. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

What Van de Ven actually said: “… men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

Meaning that 97.3% of the respondents had less than 10 lifetime sexual partners.
Meaning Daily’s numbers were made up.


So back to my original question: how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

 

[TracerBullet]

.



Again, who needs studies when the realities of homosexual behavior and it's agenda speak for themselves.

then why do conservative Christians have to present false information on the topic?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, who needs studies when the realities of homosexual behavior and it's agenda speak for themselves.

then why do conservative Christians have to present false information on the topic?

Because we're a bunch of LIARS! LIAR! LiARS!. You know that picture that shows a homosexual man with nasty sores all over his mouth?

Yep, photo shopped.

I keep forgetting to ask you Traci:

What do you believe causes homosexual desires?

 

[GFR7]

Tell him that you think that same sex sodomy is a passing fad like disco is. I'm sure he'll fit you with a straightjacket right there.



This thread is about what has happened since homosexuality was decriminalized at various state levels since circa 1973 and at the federal level via Lawrence v Texas. Obviously for some reason you don't think that laws criminalizing homosexuality are a good idea, and I'm trying to figure out why (could it be that GFR might be effected by these laws?)



So much for loving your neighbor as you'd love yourself. I care about them, as does a society that embraces compassion. It appears that you have that "survival of the fittest" mentality that Libertarians have.



No you didn't, you stated in an earlier post:


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3969275&postcount=648





As stated earlier: By educating the public and electing good men and women into public office that aren't afraid to speak the truth. If there is bloodshed, so be it. Fear of getting a little HIV/AIDS infected blood on one's hands doesn't mean that the war against perversion shouldn't be fought.



Quote him saying that.



I was once a fan of Brian Brown and NOM, but I see (as the late Ken Hutcherson points out in this AFTAH article) that he and the National Organization for Marriage are going about this battle the wrong way:

AFTAH Interviews Pastor Ken Hutcherson on Washington State ‘Gay Marriage’ Measure – Part One

Hutcherson discusses the failed pro-family campaign to defeat a homosexual “marriage” bill in his state. He drew attention in pro-family circles by. criticizing national groups such as National Organization for Marriage (NOM) for coming into the state and dictating a “moderate” leadership for the pro-traditional-marriage forces–at the expense of a unified, local coalition of religious and pro-family leaders that had already formed.
http://americansfortruth.com/2012/1...shington-state-gay-marriage-measure-part-one/

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."
1 Timothy 1:8

1. I didn't say that, no!

You misunderstood me: I did not of mean that sodomy is only a passing fad like the disco craze. I meant that public support, approval, celebration of all things gay - which the gay community now absolutely depends on - could pass away like the disco craze. I refered also to the sexual anarchy movement (the Millennial generation seems already to be rejecting most of their precepts).

This is not a crazy statement: Political fads come and go just as other fads do. Read " Nation of Rebels: How Counter Culture Became Consumer Culture". Guess what? It works in reverse, too. :think:

2. I am not gay, so how could I be affected by the re-criminalization of homosexuality?

3. I need not love persons - family or not - who have done extreme harm to me and my family, and never repented of it. Jesus tells us to forgive "7 x 70" for those who repent. These people did not. If you want to love them, be my guest. Let's see how you fare with them. I really don't think St. Paul was too loving when he consigned to hell everyone who practiced what he found sinful.

And I am not, I repeat, I am not libertarian nor Darwinian - minded. Please.

4. Right: Far better to educate people and elect good leaders than to have a police state. You yourself admit it. Only very odd persons would want a police state.

5. Brian Brown is in a no-win situation; He has to give the appearance of moderation lest the SPLC label him a hater running a hate group (in the end, they did label him and NOM such) - I have met him and believe him to be a very good man. LaBarbera indeed tries to educate wherever he can.

6. So work on the repeal of Lawrence v Texas. This is now the key of keys-- what have you done to advance it, then? Do you have a section on that?

 

[Lon]

Do you people ever fact check these claims?

Yep.

First off an online census isn’t going to be very representative of anything. But let’s put that aside and take not of the fact that the numbers of this online census were broken down by age group. And the numbers presented by Dailey were for the 20 -40 year old demographic. Can you figure out just why there are so few relationships in this demographic lasting more than 15 years, or do I need to spell it out?

You are kidding yourself. Census' are a very good way to determine a group sampling and rarely stray from other forms of data collection.
You are confusing this with 'random sampling.'

As already noted the Xiridou study found no such thing. The Xiridou was about promiscuity and it EXCLUDED any gay man who was in a relationship lasting longer than 1.5 years.

:nono: In a more discussed paper from FRC, he acknowledged that and discussed those points at length. There were no monogamous relationships or monogamous commitments. That's the sad reality of being gay.

What a convoluted reference. Anyone have any ideas as to why Daily didn’t reference Pollak directly? It could be that Pollack made no such finding or statement in that work or any other.

It was a direct quote.

WOW are you trying awfully hard.

1973?

Wow, just wow. Current stats confirm the same so the year makes little difference when no significant change occurs.

Claiming that this study was of “partnered homosexuals” is just a blatant lie. See above

:nono: Else they'd be monosexuals. Where do you get this stuff?

Are you gay and therefore making excuses? You are VERY interested in this topic. Should we wonder oh great "Born-this-way?"

What Van de Ven actually said: “… men had either 1 (28.5%)or between 2-5 (44.9%) partners and (23.9%) had had between 5 and 10 partners ever.” P. Vande Ven A Comparative DSemographic and Sexual Profile of older homosexually active Men. Journal of Sex Research 1997 Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 349-360

Meaning that 97.3% of the respondents had less than 10 lifetime sexual partners.
Meaning Daily’s numbers were made up.

:nono: much higher by all comparative studies. The modal range means that the number that popped up between these was over 100 partners. It wasn't about the percentage of males. You don't seem to know what modal means.

So back to my original question: how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

How is it not?

Not everything in the article needed to reference the Van de Ven study.
The presenter of this article has a PhD and you have what? A problem you are trying to justify?

 

[GFR7]

@Lon:

I am glad you were able to point out Tracer Bullet's confusion about research methodology, census and random sampling , and modal range.

No matter what statistics or studies I threw his way, he always insisted they were meaningless and conducted by dolts.

I would agree that nothing has changed since 1973.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You misunderstood me: I did not of mean that sodomy is only a passing fad like the disco craze. I meant that public support, approval, celebration of all things gay - which the gay community now absolutely depends on - could pass away like the disco craze. I refered also to the sexual anarchy movement (the Millennial generation seems already to be rejecting most of their precepts). This is not a crazy statement: Political fads come and go just as other fads do. Read " Nation of Rebels: How Counter Culture Became Consumer Culture". Guess what? It works in reverse, too. :think:

Do you have a source that shows that nations that had embraced sexual anarchy (abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc) have not been destroyed, but instead survived without any type of laws that counteracted those immoral and extremely harmful behaviors?

2. I am not gay, so how could I be affected by the re-criminalization of homosexuality?

Your constant use of the word "gay" was one of the many things that "outed" you GFR.

You are aware of the problem that this nation faces, yet for some reason you don't want to use the best medicine available to fix it:

Righteous laws.

3. I need not love persons - family or not - who have done extreme harm to me and my family, and never repented of it. Jesus tells us to forgive "7 x 70" for those who repent. These people did not. If you want to love them, be my guest. Let's see how you fare with them. I really don't think St. Paul was too loving when he consigned to hell everyone who practiced what he found sinful.

"Extreme harm to you"? (I'll leave that for the readers to figure out for themselves). That being said: We're talking about two different things here: Lack of repentance equaling eternal damnation vs helping those that are engaging in a 'deathstyle' leave it so that they'll live longer lives. Obviously you have some hatred towards those that partake in homosexual behavior. and I have to ask why?

4. Right: Far better to educate people and elect good leaders than to have a police state. You yourself admit it. Only very odd persons would want a police state.

Your definition of a police state is righteous laws, in this case laws forbidding homosexual behavior. So tell me GFR, was the US a "police state" for the close to 200 years that homosexuality was illegal?

5. Brian Brown is in a no-win situation; He has to give the appearance of moderation lest the SPLC label him a hater running a hate group (in the end, they did label him and NOM such) - I have met him and believe him to be a very good man. LaBarbera indeed tries to educate wherever he can.

And I shook hands with NOM's Christopher Plante when he was coordinating the pro marriage fight out here in WA.

Again: If you or anyone else thinks that you can defeat a cancer that has overtaken the entire body by fighting off only one area of it, you're gravely mistaken.

6. So work on the repeal of Lawrence v Texas. This is now the key of keys-- what have you done to advance it, then? Do you have a section on that?

So now you've changed your tune from this being a passing fad to using righteous legislation to defeat it.

You're all over the board here GFR, you really do need help.

 

[GFR7]

Do you have a source that shows that nations that had embraced sexual anarchy (abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc) have not been destroyed, but instead survived without any type of laws that counteracted those immoral and extremely harmful behaviors?



Your constant use of the word "gay" was one of the many things that "outed" you GFR.

You are aware of the problem that this nation faces, yet for some reason you don't want to use the best medicine available to fix it:

Righteous laws.



"Extreme harm to you"? (I'll leave that for the readers to figure out for themselves). That being said: We're talking about two different things here: Lack of repentance equaling eternal damnation vs helping those that are engaging in a 'deathstyle' leave it so that they'll live longer lives. Obviously you have some hatred towards those that partake in homosexual behavior. and I have to ask why?



Your definition of a police state is righteous laws, in this case laws forbidding homosexual behavior. So tell me GFR, was the US a "police state" for the close to 200 years that homosexuality was illegal?



And I shook hands with NOM's Christopher Plante when he was coordinating the pro marriage fight out here in WA.

Again: If you or anyone else thinks that you can defeat a cancer that has overtaken the entire body by fighting off only one area of it, you're gravely mistaken.



So now you've changed your tune from this being a passing fad to using righteous legislation to defeat it.

You're all over the board here GFR, you really do need help.

I use the term, "gay" because that is the word I was taught in school. Using the term 'homosexual' makes one sound like Falwell.

There was no need of a Police State when we were still a society that at least proported to follow Judeo-Christian values. If you believe that we could NOW return to that state, and the whole gay and liberal masses would not rise up in revolt, requiring martial law, then you have not noticed how things have changed, even since 2008.

Good on you for shaking hands with Plante

Yes, I am conflicted. I need help. Then why don't you help me?:madmad: Or do you want to pass me off to the same APA which endorses homosexuality?