Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[freelight]

Open to reconsider your stance.......

Open to reconsider your stance.......

I'm a man who likes options. While I would prefer to go with the option where you and your fellow homosexualists* accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, I'll settle for option #2 where you slither back underneath the rock whence you came.

*A homosexualist is someone who practices same sex sodomy and/or promotes the homosexual agenda.

I can play with compound terms too -

Maybe you can read 'Homosexianity', and get a better perspective on things. There's a lot more involved in the what homosexuality is, and what religious passages meant back then, and how they are to be interpreted in modern times,....we are out of the Dark Ages, if you hadn't noticed.

 

[Town Heretic]

Since you felt comfortable stepping into a thread appreciating my position on another matter and launching a series of mistaken and distorted notions before scuttling out prior to the answer to your last errant insult:

It just so happens that I have a copy of a debate that you had with a TOL'er that goes by the name of "Huckleberry" back on June 2 of 2013. The thread has been deleted, but I copied it word for word.

If you can't quote it I'm sorry, but I don't trust the source. But lets look at a post from the Gazette in Quixote's on the subject on the heels of the Court ruling. You may recognize the parties: Post #1897

Can't link because the thread was closed:

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While we're handing our congratulations, I can imagine you were overjoyed with the SCOTUS decision.

Well, if the source material you so often use is proof of anything it's that you appreciate imagination.

But no. It was inevitable and within the context of the law, the correct call, but I'm never encouraged when sin is accommodated. Should they have the right? Yes. Do you have the right to do any number of things I don't actually approve of? You do. Is some of that sinful? It is.

And ultimately we make our choices and answer to God.

Didn't want you to miss that. Carry on.

 

[patrick jane]

I just imagined ACW having a file cabinet or folder with copied posts of nearly every poster, especially if he thinks he can use it against that person. He's the J. Edgar Hoover of TOL, maybe with the same afflictions ?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I'm a man who likes options. While I would prefer to go with the option where you and your fellow homosexualists* accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, I'll settle for option #2 where you slither back underneath the rock whence you came.

*A homosexualist is someone who practices same sex sodomy and/or promotes the homosexual agenda.

I can play with compound terms too -

Maybe you can read 'Homosexianity', and get a better perspective on things. There's a lot more involved in the what homosexuality is, and what religious passages meant back then, and how they are to be interpreted in modern times,....we are out of the Dark Ages, if you hadn't noticed.

"HBIT community"? (Homosexual, Bisexual, Intersexual and Transsexual). Just when I figured out what LGBTQQI&A means (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersexed and Allies) you God haters go changing the acronym on me.

Regarding "the Dark Ages": If you need proof that the "HBIT community" has put itself into "the Dark Ages", just take a look at the index on page 1.

On a related note: I've been holding off diving into the segment on Education for several reasons: One of them being that it's such an extensive topic and I really don't know where to start.

As I watch the God-haters attack Christianity (people who were atheists a few years ago, but now call themselves "Gay Christians"), perhaps I should go full force into the 3 tenets of atheism segment that I've talked about in past threads:

1). There is no God
2). I HATE Him
3). I HATE Him so much that I'll rewrite Holy Scripture to meet my selfish perverted desires.

While I did touch briefly on the "Gay Christian movement" (not to be confused with the "Incestuous Christian movement" or "Bestiality Christian movement") in Part 3, perhaps I should make that the main topic of discussion for now, showing the history behind it and all of the key players?

What say you freelight?

 

[Ktoyou]

A true conservative would argue that the state has no business intruding into the bedrooms of the nation or presuming to dictate to American adults as to what constitutes a legal "marriage."

Yah, that can do that and keep it in their bedrooms with the door locked.

I am a true conservative is the old sense; so yes, as long as they do not tread on established conventions, then fine with me. They are free to be weird

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I just imagined ACW having a file cabinet or folder with copied posts of nearly every poster, especially if he thinks he can use it against that person. He's the J. Edgar Hoover of TOL, maybe with the same afflictions ?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3922003&postcount=3

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgarden
A true conservative would argue that the state has no business intruding into the bedrooms of the nation or presuming to dictate to American adults as to what constitutes a legal "marriage."

Yah, that can do that and keep it in their bedrooms with the door locked.

I am a true conservative is the old sense; so yes, as long as they do not tread on established conventions, then fine with me. They are free to be weird

Actually my friend, you're more of a Libertarian than a conservative.

In what venue do you think all of the diseases and disorders that those who engage in homosexual behavior are afflicted with take place in? (besides public restroom toilet stalls, bathhouses and in the bushes of public parks).

And let's not forget that unless these lost souls repent, they'll spend eternity in damnation.

Regarding "treading on established conventions" (i.e. invaluable institutions) : Why not? Either their morally lost souls who engage in a deviant behavior (yet a changeable behavior) that God abhors, who need help through righteous laws and spirituality, or they should be afforded all of the rights that other citizens have.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Since you felt comfortable stepping into a thread appreciating my position on another matter and launching a series of mistaken and distorted notions before scuttling out prior to the answer to your last errant insult:

Here's the thread that Town Heretic is referring to: (where he allegedly supports American values and culture).

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115074


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It just so happens that I have a copy of a debate that you had with a TOL'er that goes by the name of "Huckleberry" back on June 2 of 2013. The thread has been deleted, but I copied it word for word.

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

There's much more to being male/female that a collection of behavioral characteristics that themselves are too complex even to be quantified.
Furthermore, I'll plainly call the characterization of gender itself as irrelevant and interchangeable nothing short of evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Then all that reduces to is that you believe in a Biblical model and that this model should be the model used for a secular compact. And the next guy, with a different religious view might feel that you shouldn't be allowed to marry across races and that this view should control.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
Can two parents of the same gender raise a child adequately?


Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
I've seen studies going both ways. But seriously, I have. And that presumes that children are a necessary part of what they clearly aren't. It's another issue. The elderly, the infertile and even those who just don't want kids can file by the magistrate and get hitched.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

But if you're arguing for gay marriage by asserting gender is meaningless and irrelevant, and all that to establish there are no arguments against gay marriage that are not religious.

Quote:Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Relevant but immaterial to the contract. That is, it's relevance is established by the current debate, but it isn't or shouldn't be an impediment to contracting for marriage because outside of the purely religious the only thing you end up saying is, "But he isn't a she" or vice versa, which isn't an argument, though it is a neat enough circle.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

As for the question of non-religious arguments against gay marriage...there are a million non-religious arguments against gay marriage. Five minutes on Google will turn up twenty of them. Why are we pretending otherwise?

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
There are probably as many against race mixing. Doesn't make them good or compelling enough to overwhelm equality in right before the law.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

1. It Is Not Marriage

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Sounds circular already. It isn't a contract until it is.


Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

2. It Violates Natural Law

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
So does penicillin. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Marriage isn't about children. Having children is about having children and you don't have to be married to do that any more than you have to have them if you are. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Sounds like a moral presumption resting upon a moral presumption. You could say not denying people of varying races to marry encourages it, but mostly it just doesn't deny them a right without sufficient reason to.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
A purely religious turn in a compact that doesn't cede that authority. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
As noted above and prior, we don't have any trouble with sterile, elderly or indifferent people entering into a union which won't or can't produce children. And so they don't reap the additional benefits that actually do have to do with procreation. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Nope. The state has more than one interest, which is why we allow those marriages I only just noted. And gay people could produce children, through artificial insemination for women or by adoption for men or women.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
What's the imposition again? Being outraged? Because I'm fairly sure that outrage is also felt by people being denied a right without sufficient reason. So racists will have to be uncomfortable with mixed race marriages. Those who see marriage as a purely religious function will have to live with knowing atheists and agnostics are forgoing churches for the aforereferenced magistrate, etc. Just as the Amish have to suck it up and deal with weapons being made from their taxes.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
That's not even an argument, but assuming a domino doesn't always pan out. For instance, the sexual revolution and subsequent moral laxity and removal of purely religiously motivated law from the books hasn't helped the pedophile, who finds greater, not lesser protection in law for children.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

10. It Offends God

Quote: Originally Posted by Town Heretic
Secular compact, not ruled by Islamic principle. Or did you mean Christian? Same answer.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4559188&postcount=24

If you can't quote it I'm sorry, but I don't trust the source...

So that the reputation of someone who is such a staunch supporter of "American values and culture" isn't defamed, I suggest that TOL'er Huckleberry be called to the witness stand and asked if indeed he did have that conversation with you back in June of 2013.

After that we can return to where we left off in this thread.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4439516&postcount=382

 

[alwight]

You really are a very sad person aCW, your life would be so empty without homosexuals. lain:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You really are a very sad person aCW, your life would be so empty without homosexuals. lain:

Welcome back to the thread Al. It just hasn't been the same without your kind loving words.

 

[alwight]

Welcome back to the thread Al. It just hasn't been the same without your kind loving words.

My words probably won't change what you are aCW.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Welcome back to the thread Al. It just hasn't been the same without your kind loving words.

My words probably won't change what you are aCW.

No they won't Al, but I pray daily that the information that I've put in this 4 part thread will change what you are.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Back to celebrating the birth of Christ:

Truly a classic:

Bing Crosby - Do You Hear What I Hear (1963)

 

[freelight]

Beating bigotry with love......

Beating bigotry with love......

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I'm a man who likes options. While I would prefer to go with the option where you and your fellow homosexualists* accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, I'll settle for option #2 where you slither back underneath the rock whence you came.

*A homosexualist is someone who practices same sex sodomy and/or promotes the homosexual agenda.

"HBIT community"? (Homosexual, Bisexual, Intersexual and Transsexual). Just when I figured out what LGBTQQI&A means (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersexed and Allies) you God haters go changing the acronym on me.

Regarding "the Dark Ages": If you need proof that the "HBIT community" has put itself into "the Dark Ages", just take a look at the index on page 1.

On a related note: I've been holding off diving into the segment on Education for several reasons: One of them being that it's such an extensive topic and I really don't know where to start.

As I watch the God-haters attack Christianity (people who were atheists a few years ago, but now call themselves "Gay Christians"), perhaps I should go full force into the 3 tenets of atheism segment that I've talked about in past threads:

1). There is no God
2). I HATE Him
3). I HATE Him so much that I'll rewrite Holy Scripture to meet my selfish perverted desires.

While I did touch briefly on the "Gay Christian movement" (not to be confused with the "Incestuous Christian movement" or "Bestiality Christian movement") in Part 3, perhaps I should make that the main topic of discussion for now, showing the history behind it and all of the key players?

What say you freelight?

Will just nibble on your bait cautiously ACW to make clear some points below -

After Pastor Weekly's book, covering all the passages that people use for 'clobber verses' explaining their 'cultural-context' and more,...try Matthew Vine's book 'God and the Gay Christian' which is making inroads into religious communities for 'inclusion', recognizing that we are all God's children, and re-illuminating passages in the Bible that have been misconstrued. You could learn a thing or two, instead of parroting the same ole hate-speech. Notice that you are the one bringing up 'hate'. If you want to honestly look at homosexuality in all its dimensions and facets, you'll accept the full spectrum of knowledge and research on it, not just your own biased opinion of it, or shock-jock antics to slur and demonize at every turn, based on presuppositions, pre-conclusions, hate and bigotry.

If you have the right to rant n rave against homosexuality, criminalizing it (which is quite insane on various levels), then so do we who have alternative voices and opinons.....who look at the scriptures and interpret them appropriately in our modern age, understanding the cultural-context back then, and what we know today affecting a proper translation. We've come a long way. My reference to the 'Dark Ages' was figurative of 'backward thinking' and 'retarded out-dated theology', for the most part. All language is 'figurative'.

I reject your convoluted, mistaken assumptions above of putting myself in a category of 'God-hater', which is so far from truth that it bears not the dignity of a response, since my own testimony, character and manners here in this forum for over 10 years speaks for itself.

Since I have no intention or time to give to 'hatred' which you magnify above with your 'assumptions', I will not entertain a dialogue upon those mistaken grounds as it would be futile.

 

[CherubRam]

Will just nibble on your bait cautiously ACW to make clear some points below -

After Pastor Weekly's book, covering all the passages that people use for 'clobber verses' explaining their 'cultural-context' and more,...try Matthew Vine's book 'God and the Gay Christian' which is making inroads into religious communities for 'inclusion', recognizing that we are all God's children, and re-illuminating passages in the Bible that have been misconstrued. You could learn a thing or two, instead of parroting the same ole hate-speech. Notice that you are the one bringing up 'hate'. If you want to honestly look at homosexuality in all its dimensions and facets, you'll accept the full spectrum of knowledge and research on it, not just your own biased opinion of it, or shock-jock antics to slur and demonize at every turn, based on presuppositions, pre-conclusions, hate and bigotry.

If you have the right to rant n rave against homosexuality, criminalizing it (which is quite insane on various levels), then so do we who have alternative voices and opinons.....who look at the scriptures and interpret them appropriately in our modern age, understanding the cultural-context back then, and what we know today affecting a proper translation. We've come a long way. My reference to the 'Dark Ages' was figurative of 'backward thinking' and 'retarded out-dated theology', for the most part. All language is 'figurative'.

I reject your convoluted, mistaken assumptions above of putting myself in a category of 'God-hater', which is so far from truth that it bears not the dignity of a response, since my own testimony, character and manners here in this forum for over 10 years speaks for itself.

Since I have no intention or time to give to 'hatred' which you magnify above with your 'assumptions', I will not entertain a dialogue upon those mistaken grounds as it would be futile.

Hate is not necessarily a bad thing. Hate can be good, bad, or indifferent. The same is true about love.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

"HBIT community"? (Homosexual, Bisexual, Intersexual and Transsexual). Just when I figured out what LGBTQQI&A means (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersexed and Allies) you God haters go changing the acronym on me.

Regarding "the Dark Ages": If you need proof that the "HBIT community" has put itself into "the Dark Ages", just take a look at the index on page 1.

On a related note: I've been holding off diving into the segment on Education for several reasons: One of them being that it's such an extensive topic and I really don't know where to start.

As I watch the God-haters attack Christianity (people who were atheists a few years ago, but now call themselves "Gay Christians"), perhaps I should go full force into the 3 tenets of atheism segment that I've talked about in past threads:

1). There is no God
2). I HATE Him
3). I HATE Him so much that I'll rewrite Holy Scripture to meet my selfish perverted desires.

While I did touch briefly on the "Gay Christian movement" (not to be confused with the "Incestuous Christian movement" or "Bestiality Christian movement") in Part 3, perhaps I should make that the main topic of discussion for now, showing the history behind it and all of the key players?

What say you freelight?

Will just nibble on your bait cautiously ACW to make clear some points below -

After Pastor Weekly's book, covering all the passages that people use for 'clobber verses' explaining their 'cultural-context' and more,...try Matthew Vine's book 'God and the Gay Christian' which is making inroads into religious communities for 'inclusion', recognizing that we are all God's children, and re-illuminating passages in the Bible that have been misconstrued. You could learn a thing or two, instead of parroting the same ole hate-speech...

Ah yes, lil Mattie Vines. I've talked about him a fair amount in this 4 part thread. Lil Mattie was even mentioned in Part 3's OP.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3921996&postcount=1

In fact, lil Mattie Vines is on the "Gay Christian Movement Watch's False Teacher Hall of Shame" :

Matthew Vines, the childish founder of Reformation Project who’s two year study of the bible and progay theologians prompted him to declare 2,000 of proven truth to be wrong.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4357612&postcount=8657

Back to the "3 tenets of atheism" (Pastor Doug Wilson, seen here with the late atheist/bisexual Christopher Hitchens, coined the first two tenets, I added the 3rd) :

1. There is no God
2. I HATE Him
2. I HATE Him so much that I'll redefine Holy Scripture to meet my own perverted selfish desires.

So why do you think homosexual activist lil Mattie Vines HATES God so much that he would spend all of that time and effort to redefine over 2,000 years of proven truths freelight?

Looking at the index on page 1 showing what causes homosexual desires (sexual molestation, being raised in a fatherless/dysfunctional home), I can't help but believe that these pathetic lost souls believe that God sold them out and want to get even by bastardizing His Word.

I posted a link to Professor Robert Gagnon's "Jesus, Scripture, and the Myth of New Knowledge Arguments about Homosexual Unions" in Part 3. I highly suggest that people review it to see how flawed the "gay Christian movement" really is when it comes to attempting to redefine God's Word.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4215040&postcount=5422

Dr. Michael Brown also 'debated' lil Mattie Vines. I'll pull articles and videos up on that supposed 'debate' and share them soon.

If you have the right to rant n rave against homosexuality, criminalizing it (which is quite insane on various levels), then so do we who have alternative voices and opinons.....

I would lover nothing more than to review the numerous reason "Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized!".

You start off with the "various levels" of why homosexuality should remain decriminalized, and I'll give you the numerous reasons why it MUST be recriminalized.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Hate is not necessarily a bad thing. Hate can be good, bad, or indifferent. The same is true about love.

A person should be motivated to do good out of love, not hate. When I see all of the misery, disease, death and hatred brought on by homosexual behavior and the 'gay' agenda (be it the physical death of individuals, spirituality or invaluable institutions), I'm motivated by love to do something about it.

Hate will eat you alive. Love (be it through legislating righteous laws, being a good husband and father or using God's Word to witness to lost souls) will bring nothing but good results.

 

[TheDuke]

A person should be motivated to do good out of love, not hate. When I see all of the misery, disease, death and hatred brought on by homosexual behavior and the 'gay' agenda (be it the physical death of individuals, spirituality or invaluable institutions), I'm motivated by love to do something about it.

Hate will eat you alive. Love (be it through legislating righteous laws, being a good husband and father or using God's Word to witness to lost souls) will bring nothing but good results.

I would absolutely agree with your statement about motivation, however I hope that you also realize that your opinion about individual sexuality has an appearance of pure bigoted hate. Now you don't see it that way, so I'd kindly ask you to elaborate a bit about your personal motivation (I sincerely hope it's not just because of your faith) in combating our modern society.

Furthermore what terrible consequences do you reckon the "gay agenda" has brought about?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
A person should be motivated to do good out of love, not hate. When I see all of the misery, disease, death and hatred brought on by homosexual behavior and the 'gay' agenda (be it the physical death of individuals, spirituality or invaluable institutions), I'm motivated by love to do something about it.

Hate will eat you alive. Love (be it through legislating righteous laws, being a good husband and father or using God's Word to witness to lost souls) will bring nothing but good results.

I would absolutely agree with your statement about motivation, however I hope that you also realize that your opinion about individual sexuality has an appearance of pure bigoted hate.

Now you don't see it that way, so I'd kindly ask you to elaborate a bit about your personal motivation (I sincerely hope it's not just because of your faith) in combating our modern society.

One only need to review the fairly extensive index on page 1 to see how those who engage in homosexual behavior are riddled with disease, disorders and premature death.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112309


Anyone that defends that behavior and lifestyle is the true hater.

Furthermore what terrible consequences do you reckon the "gay agenda" has brought about?

Where shall I start? Permeating and destroying invaluable institutions (government, marriage, the family, Education, the Church, the media/entertainment, the military, youth mentor groups).

I'll gladly discuss the above in detail if you wish (it was covered extensively in Part 1).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Yet another big conservative/Christian endorsement for Ted Cruz. This one is from the Matt Barber: founder and editor-in-chief of BarbWire.com and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law.

December 21, 2015

Ted Cruz 'for a time such as this'

J. Matt Barber

I've never formally endorsed a candidate in any presidential primary. This time the stakes are too high not to. Look around. The world is on fire and the party of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, not to mention the GOP's Obama-enabling RINO establishment, are playing with gasoline.

And so, while he's been among my top picks all along, I am now proud to publicly endorse for president of the United States Sen. Ted Cruz, the man who best personifies the anti-establishment, principle over perceived pragmatism, survival over political correctness mood of the American electorate. I believe, God willing, that Sen. Cruz, a constitutional stalwart and steadfast statesman, is here "for a time such as this."
Read more: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/151221