Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Again, how is saying it should be legal to expose your genitals to children conspiracy to commit a crime or contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
- Thread starter aCultureWarrior
- Start date
- Status
Again, how is saying it should be legal to expose your genitals to children conspiracy to commit a crime or contributing to the delinquency of a minor?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ah, too bad, ya missed out. I think Scott Lively even wrote a treatise on it as to determine it's authenticity...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I know this seems odd to you Art, but there are some people that aren't aware that children are taken to places where moral degenerates march in the nude in the name of "pride".
You tell me Art.
Does it make you uncomfortable for people to show the "homosexual culture" Art?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I know this seems odd to you Art, but there are some people that aren't aware that children are taken to places where moral degenerates march in the nude in the name of "pride".
You tell me Art.
Does it make you uncomfortable for people to show the "homosexual culture" Art?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
It certainly makes me uncomfortable. You're a pervert.Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I know this seems odd to you Art, but there are some people that aren't aware that children are taken to places where moral degenerates march in the nude in the name of "pride".
You tell me Art.
Does it make you uncomfortable for people to show the "homosexual culture" Art?
As we've seen throughout the thread, currently it isn't illegal for perverts to congregate and propose legislation that involves the indoctrination/mental molestation of children. In a society with righteous laws, these perverts would be institutionalized for the safety of innocent children, and of course for their own safety, as if a parent overheard such talk...
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
You're advocating arresting people for speech?
Do you think anyone should be allowed to disagree with you on anything?
Lon
Well-known member
Over pediphilia. Why is it that this thread is so easily distracted? I suppose the subject matter is very disturbing so can understand but we need to stick to facts. That parade had ugly naked men parading their packages before children. Those and the parents who brought these kids should have a day in jail to think about their crime. It is a crime, I believe, appropriately punishable. Is it everywhere? Unfortunately not. I don't always get what I wish but it would be nice to live in a society that was truly interested in protecting kids from garbage.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Does it make you uncomfortable for people to show the "homosexual culture" Art?
Really? I thought that this type of behavior is applauded by the perverts at ronpaulforums in the name of "liberty"?
Does it make you uncomfortable for people to show the "homosexual culture" Art?
Really? I thought that this type of behavior is applauded by the perverts at ronpaulforums in the name of "liberty"?
Lon
Well-known member
It really is if you traversed to the website. If you didn't, you are commended for being pragmatic and prudish. It just makes/d me see red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As we've seen throughout the thread, currently it isn't illegal for perverts to congregate and propose legislation that involves the indoctrination/mental molestation of children. In a society with righteous laws, these perverts would be institutionalized for the safety of innocent children, and of course for their own safety, as if a parent overheard such talk...
Where does this supposed 'right' to talk about molesting the minds and bodies of children come from Jr.? If you're using the lame Libertarian argument that it comes from the 1st Amendment, we've already discussed what the Founding Fathers thought of homosexuals.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As we've seen throughout the thread, currently it isn't illegal for perverts to congregate and propose legislation that involves the indoctrination/mental molestation of children. In a society with righteous laws, these perverts would be institutionalized for the safety of innocent children, and of course for their own safety, as if a parent overheard such talk...
Where does this supposed 'right' to talk about molesting the minds and bodies of children come from Jr.? If you're using the lame Libertarian argument that it comes from the 1st Amendment, we've already discussed what the Founding Fathers thought of homosexuals.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
OK, I thought you were saying that people who disagreed with you that it should be illegal should go to jail. I was confused.
Now that I understand what you were actually advocating, I'll respond.
There's no denying that bringing a child to a gay pride parade is repulsive, and that parading in front of children is repulsive. I'm with you on that.
Even still, I don't think more legislation is the right solution. The right solution, in my opinion, is as follows
1. Private property. The very idea of public property is collectivist, and it leads to conflicts like this. A group of gay guys want to parade and show off their immorality (yet without using violence.) Christian parents rightly don't want their kids exposed to such filth. Now what? Well, in the end, government makes a decision, uses violence to defend its position, and somebody loses out (and based on society's track record, its unlikely to be the perverts.) Privatizing all property and eliminating discrimination laws prevents a need for a "law" or a one size fits all solution. I certainly wouldn't allow gay pride parades and streaking on my property. I wouldn't think much of any Christian who did. And I wouldn't think much of any parent who decided they would expose their children to that. But its not my decision to make for someone else. God will ultimately deal with anyone who leads their children astray.
2. Preaching the gospel. This is more important than point #1. Its no good for people to have Christian morals if they do not believe the gospel. The Pharisees had the right morals, and Jesus used harsher words to describe them than he did to describe prostitutes. Jesus told the prostitutes to repent, but did he advocate using government force to punish them? No. And again, he saved his harshest words for the self-righteous Pharisees.
3. If necessary, shunning. If people want to continue to expose their perversity to children, have nothing to do with them and encourage others to do likewise.
As disgusting as it is, no I don't think exposing one's genitals in the presence of children is just cause to lock them up, as immoral as it is. It isn't actually a physical threat. Spiritual threats can be avoided other ways.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Have you ever been over there? You have no idea what you are talking about. Many of the people there (not all) are Christians. Many (again, not all) agree with Christian doctrines on homosexuality. Just because I don't think something should be illegal does not mean I applaud it.
Did the Founders support arresting people for advocating that homosexuality be legalized? I doubt it.
Jr. thinks these type of things should be legal:
Welcome back Jr. You're a goldmine, i.e. a Persephone66 without the cheap makeup and nylons (I'm giving the kid the benefit of the doubt here).
"I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. "
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-fathers-and-homosexuality.html
Again: Where does this supposed 'right' to talk about molesting the minds and bodies of children come from Jr.?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3932616&postcount=177
Seek help son.
Last edited:
WizardofOz
New member
We do? How do you know? I see some skinny legs and some female ankles with flats on the feet. :idunno:
Either way, you're still completely missing the point.
EDIT: Now that aCW tracked down the original :idea: it is a woman's legs, clearly.
So you assume. Turns out, it isn't.
You've been had.
Because the way it is superimposed upon makes it look as though the shot of the kid is a closeup from that picture. Turns out, it isn't.
It kinda does.
There is no foreground. There is one picture on top of another. No one knows what the closeup pic is from. That is the point.
Who is? I know I'm not and never did. :idunno:
There are some legs in tights and a nasty nearly naked man in front of a child. That's all we know.
No, the child should not be exposed to such a scene (where are his parents?) but we don't know if the picture is question has anything to do with homosexuality, which is the point aCW is borrowing from Matt Barber's site.
Sin? You're going to have to explain that one.
No one is overlooking the fact or making it something else. Rather, I was trying to determine exactly what it really is without presumption and assumption.
It does seem that presuming and assuming is what you are doing.
Shame on you for buying into and thereby legitimizing aCW's deceitful tactics.
Now that you see the original, do you see any gay activity going on? I see a weird dude who should be arrested for indecency. Everyone else is dressed and looking rather, well, straight. :idunno:
Notice the man and woman holding hands?
Pt 3, Nice.
Obama to sign executive order curbing so-called discrimination
Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:
Obama to sign executive order curbing so-called discrimination
Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:
Lon
Well-known member
Uhhhggg. I hate doing this over and over and over again: If you cannot be bothered to go to the website, don't be telling me what you do and do not see. Even the 'blown up' picture still isn't the whole picture. :doh:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Jr. thinks these type of things should be legal:
Welcome back Jr. You're a goldmine, i.e. a Persephone66 without the cheap makeup and nylons (I'm giving the kid the benefit of the doubt here).
And yet you refused to quote the part in which I said doing that is repulsive, that no private property owner should permit such to occur on their property, and that people who do such things should be shunned.
I'm reporting this because you are a liar. If you're going to quote me, quote me in context.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Just because he didn't want to talk about it doesn't mean he would have locked anyone else up for talking about it.
And even if he would have, that would just mean he was wrong.
WizardofOz
New member
- Status