Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

GFR7

New member
Now that I've done some Sunday morning mockery, back to bidness.



It reminds me when your movement disallowed NAMBLA from marching in moral degenerate parades. It's all about PR.

Strategies of the Homosexual Movement-"The Overhauling of Straight America"

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/overhauling.html

The_Overhauling_Of_Straig000001.jpg
You get A+ for perception!!! :BRAVO: VERY good :D
(did ye see how goofy-looking you are compared to the noble Peter? :think: )
 

GFR7

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
That being said: If my buddy's little girl had come out of the restroom crying and had said "That lady touched me where mommy said no one should touch me!", I know my buddy well enough to say that the tranny's makeup would have been...ahem...'smeared' before the police arrived to arrest him.

Recoil in horror alwight and GayForReal7, but that's how us dad's think and react.



Ask Coleen Francis, who exposed himself to young girls (a story I covered in an earlier thread).

transgender.jpg


Monday, 05 November 2012
College Lets “Transgendered” Man Expose Self to Girls in Locker Room

Officials at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, said that state law renders them powerless to prevent a "transgender" man from using the women's locker room at the school because he supposedly identifies as a woman. The 45-year-old man, who calls himself Colleen Francis, reportedly exposed himself on several occasions to young girls who were using the locker room as part of swimming clubs. But instead of having the man arrested, school officials have insisted that a state non-discrimination law protects the “transgendered” man from prosecution.

“We have to follow a non-discrimination policy with the state,” Jason Wettstein, a spokesman for the college, told CampusReform.org. “State law doesn’t allow us to ignore gender identity as one of the protected classes. Therefore the transgendered individual has the right to use our facilities, including the locker rooms.”

The school rents its swimming pool and locker facilities to local high school swimming teams, as well as to a pair of swimming clubs, and on multiple occasions girls as young as six years old have witnessed the full frontal nudity of Francis as he used the women's facilities. But instead of banning Francis from the locker room, the school has instead installed curtains and directed women and girls using the locker room to change behind them...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...ered”-man-expose-self-to-girls-in-locker-room
I am 100% against Transgender using Girls' Restroom, and always have been :AMR1: - but the other argument was regarding Trans Queens as pedophiles. This states that the children were exposed to her as she changed.
 

PureX

Well-known member
1. I have no problem with a transgender male using a ladies room. In most cases, no one would even know they were there, and in any case no one would be 'seeing' anything, anyway.

2. I am not a woman, and do not use the ladies' room, myself, so I have nothing to say about it. And most of the women I know really don't care about this issue all that much. Mostly because of point #1.

3. Pedophiles are pedophiles regardless. It has nothing to do with gender, clothing styles, or toilet facilities.
 

GFR7

New member
@aCW : I recall back in 2000, when my family and I were staying in the Poconos in PA while our NJ house was being built, there was a case of a transvestite/transsexual known as "Anna Hart" AKA Kevin Simon molesting male children[not females] in foster care

State: How Did Suspected Impersonator Fool System?

Foster 'Mom' Charged in Sex Assaults on Minors


On the surface, James and Anna Hart seemed like ideal foster parents. They lived in a large home in a gated community, were willing to care for the most troubled children, and set firm rules for their charges.

This vision of a stable home lasted for nearly two years.

Then, in August came a disturbing accusation:

"Anna" was really a man named Kevin Simon who allegedly had sex with many of the disturbed youths entrusted to his care.

bilde



http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...KsuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NNoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1269,5596797

Insurer wants out of 'Anna Hart' transsexual assault case

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040126/NEWS/301269990&cid=sitesearch

Monroe Foster Parent To Face Court On Sex Abuse Charges At Preliminary Hearing, Boys Testify Against Kevin Simon. He Is Told To Stop Muttering At The Witnesses.
November 10, 2000


As the first two boys testified Thursday, a Monroe County man accused of sexually abusing at least nine foster children while posing as a woman muttered, glared at them and covered his face.

A prosecutor later complained that the antics of Kevin Simon of Tobyhanna were a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate the tough, street-smart teenagers from testifying.



The attempt failed.

District Justice Clancy Dennis of Coolbaugh Township had Simon's lawyer tell him to behave. Then after hearing testimony from nine teens, Dennis ordered the 37-year-old man the boys once knew as Anna Hart to stand trial on 116 counts.

The charges against Simon include 80 felonies. With many charges having mandatory sentences of five to 10 years, Simon could face life in prison.

Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Sherri Stephan called the teens, who ranged in age from 15 to 19, to testify.

They spoke matter-of-factly, many using street language, about their sexual contact with Simon in bedrooms, the kitchen and other parts of his home near Tobyhanna. A 17-year-old was brought to the courtroom in shackles to testify, then taken away after he finished.

A few of the boys who testified said they saw one another having sexual contact with Simon. Some said it was a daily occurrence.

Several said Simon approached them as they slept or were about to fall asleep. One said the contact started with a rub of his belly.

"She said she usually rubs the kids' bellies to help them sleep at night," he said.


Simon, dressed in blue prison garb, sat with legs folded and wept before the hearing started. But once testimony began, he began mouthing words at a boy and tapping his long, well-manicured nails on the table.

http://articles.mcall.com/2000-11-10/news/3333357_1_simon-s-lawyer-boys-foster
 

alwight

New member
Ask Coleen Francis, who exposed himself to young girls (a story I covered in an earlier thread)...

..Monday, 05 November 2012
College Lets “Transgendered” Man Expose Self to Girls in Locker Room
Help me to understand a bit more aCW. :think:

When you say "exposed" do you mean in the sense say that men in male locker rooms might be said to "expose" themselves, quite innocently, to any younger males who might also happen to be using the facilities for their intended purpose?
Or are you claiming that this particular person above, who is arguably now a woman and who perhaps indeed should be allowed to use the female facilities as a woman, is actually only there for nefarious sexual purposes directed at girls and younger women?
It gets so confusing doesn't it, is this person actually even a homosexual?
What actual threat is this person to females of any age, if there is any risk it would be to boys wouldn't it?:liberals:

Maybe it's simpler than that, perhaps you are a highly sensitive person, someone who is easily offended by seeing other people's private parts?
Perhaps you think (prudishly?) that any such exposure of certain body parts (yes genitalia), is shocking and offensive whatever the context?
You might even faint or swoon perhaps should you be thus confronted by such exposure?
Maybe you were towel whipped in the Police locker rooms and never got over it? :chuckle:

Should individuals be made to use private cubicles just in case someone else of the same sex might see something? Never mind communal showers aCW, as an abomination perhaps? :shocked:

Anyway, what I think you are trying to do, going by your usual "standards", is to misrepresent this case as something that it actually isn't. This is simply a person who now considers herself to be female and wants to do what other females do without any intent to molest young girls, who is not even attracted to women, who is probably just safe to be around women and girls as any more naturally born female?
 

GFR7

New member
@aCW - Oh, and their "Family-Friendly G-rated" Pride Parade has already angered the leather boys:

So not really a good PR move. . . :think:

US: Oakland Pride causes controversy over ‘ban’ on leather groups

A Pride parade in Oakland, California has drawn controversy, after organisers allegedly discouraged leather groups from attending.

The city’s first Pride parade, due to be held today, has opted for a ‘family friendly’ theme, discouraging people from wearing fetish-themed outfits common at Prides.

According to SFGate, organiser Carlos Uribe said: “We had some leather groups from San Francisco who wanted to come, and we politely declined. We want to keep this G-rated.

“We don’t want to compete with San Francisco Pride, we just want to offer a more family-friendly, diverse celebration. Sort of an end-of-summer bookend to SF Pride.

“We’ve always been a little less pretentious in Oakland, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a lot to celebrate.”

After an angry reaction online, Oakland Pride posted an apology, claiming it was “misquoted”, and does not ban leather groups.
A statement from Mr Uribe said: “Let me apologise to anyone who was offended by the quote in the article. Those are not my sentiments and not my words. What the article should have said is that we are not allowing nudity.”

The group continued: “Although it is correct that Oakland Pride will not allow nudity or sexually explicit materials at the Parade or Festival, this in no way denies the leather community from participating.”

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/08/31/us-oakland-pride-causes-controversy-over-ban-on-leather-groups/
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ask Coleen Francis, who exposed himself to young girls (a story I covered in an earlier thread)...

..Monday, 05 November 2012
College Lets “Transgendered” Man Expose Self to Girls in Locker Room

Help me to understand a bit more aCW.

When you say "exposed" do you mean in the sense say that men in male locker rooms might be said to "expose" themselves, quite innocently, to any younger males who might also happen to be using the facilities for their intended purpose?
Or are you claiming that this particular person above, who is arguably now a woman and who perhaps indeed should be allowed to use the female facilities as a woman, is actually only there for nefarious sexual purposes directed at girls and younger women?
It gets so confusing doesn't it, is this person actually even a homosexual?

Yes Al, the LGBT etc. etc. etc. movement that you, GayForReal7 and PureX incessantly defend is without a doubt....

"confusing".

Someday we'll get you and lost souls like "Coleen" Francis the help that you so desperately need so that things like having sex with someone of your own gender, cross-dressing, genital mutilation and exposing oneself to little girls and boys is no longer "confusing" for you or society.
 

alwight

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ask Coleen Francis, who exposed himself to young girls (a story I covered in an earlier thread)...

..Monday, 05 November 2012
College Lets “Transgendered” Man Expose Self to Girls in Locker Room



Yes Al, the LGBT etc. etc. etc. movement that you, GayForReal7 and PureX incessantly defend is without a doubt....

"confusing".

Someday we'll get you and lost souls like "Coleen" Francis the help that you so desperately need so that things like having sex with someone of your own gender, cross-dressing, genital mutilation and exposing oneself to little girls and boys is no longer "confusing" for you or society.
Was there any particular reason to believe that this hapless "Coleen" wasn't simply using the locker room quite innocently as a changing room and was only a concern to homophobic bigots and hate groups aCW?
If the only people who got all upset about "Coleen" were homophobic bigots and the Christian Taliban then there doesn't really seem to be much of a problem.

But do we really need a miserable homophobic army of bigoted self righteous Christian Taliban vigilantes intent on forcing their will on people who may be a bit different, just to simplify the human condition for us?
I say not aCW, vive la difference!
Criminalise the Christian Taliban and hate groups instead! :loser:
 

Nazaroo

New member
But do we really need
a miserable homophobic army of
bigoted self righteous Christian Taliban vigilantes

intent on forcing their will on people
who may be a bit different,
just to simplify the human condition for us?

There is no such army, idiot. Except in your paranoid mind.

But there IS an army of freaked out parents and victimized children,
who most assuredly will be getting justice
from the hand of the Almighty and Living God,
Lord God of Israel, and Creator of Heavens and Earth.

I suggest all child-molesting jerks kill themselves.
This might secure a small amount of leniency before the
Judgement Throne of the Most High and Living God,
and the King of King, and Lord of Lords, Jesus of Nazareth,
Redeemer of Israel and Saviour of the World.

Jesus told you what to do:



"while you are on your way with your opponent to appear before the Judge, make an effort to settle with him beforehand, so that he doesn't drag you before the judge, and the judge throws you into prison. I say to you, you will not get out until you have paid the very last cent."

Luke 12: 57-59




Criminalise the Christian Taliban and hate groups instead!
Find one first.
 

alwight

New member
There is no such army, idiot. Except in your paranoid mind.
I presume you usually realise when a metaphor is being used Naz?

But there IS an army of freaked out parents and victimized children,
who most assuredly will be getting justice
from the hand of the Almighty and Living God,
Lord God of Israel, and Creator of Heavens and Earth.
No doubt whipped up into a frenzy of fear and hatred by the above army of homophobic bigots aka "hate groups".

I suggest all child-molesting jerks kill themselves.
This might secure a small amount of leniency before the
Judgement Throne of the Most High and Living God,
and the King of King, and Lord of Lords, Jesus of Nazareth,
Redeemer of Israel and Saviour of the World.
Nice, so typically Christian of you Naz. :AMR:
How about showing a bit of leniency for those like "Coleen" who simply wanted to use changing room facilities just like anyone else, who is no risk to women or young girls but is however personally at risk by hate mongers and religious bigots like you?

Jesus told you what to do:
His example was to show you not to be a homophobic bigot or hate those who might just be a bit different in some way.



"while you are on your way with your opponent to appear before the Judge, make an effort to settle with him beforehand, so that he doesn't drag you before the judge, and the judge throws you into prison. I say to you, you will not get out until you have paid the very last cent."

Luke 12: 57-59




Find one first.


Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.


I don't feel obliged by the first one here but unlike you I concur with the second.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ask Coleen Francis, who exposed himself to young girls (a story I covered in an earlier thread)...

..Monday, 05 November 2012
College Lets “Transgendered” Man Expose Self to Girls in Locker Room

Yes Al, the LGBT etc. etc. etc. movement that you, GayForReal7 and PureX incessantly defend is without a doubt....

"confusing".

Someday we'll get you and lost souls like "Coleen" Francis the help that you so desperately need so that things like having sex with someone of your own gender, cross-dressing, genital mutilation and exposing oneself to little girls and boys is no longer "confusing" for you or society.


Was there any particular reason to believe that this hapless "Coleen" wasn't simply using the locker room quite innocently as a changing room and was only a concern to homophobic bigots and hate groups aCW?

Note how alwight the atheist is calling 6 year old girls who didn't want to see a 46 year old male dressed in drag in the nude "homophobic bigots" and are part of "hate groups".

If the only people who got all upset about "Coleen" were homophobic bigots and the Christian Taliban then there doesn't really seem to be much of a problem.

But do we really need a miserable homophobic army of bigoted self righteous Christian Taliban vigilantes intent on forcing their will on people who may be a bit different, just to simplify the human condition for us?
I say not aCW, vive la difference!
Criminalise the Christian Taliban and hate groups instead! :loser:

When it comes to cross-dressers/transvestites and genital mangulators, like you, something happened to them when they were young that caused them to be gender/sexually confused.

I'll talk about one such lost soul who turned to murder later today.
 

GFR7

New member
Please stop altering my poster name, thank you.
And if I defend this, why does PureX hate me for being anti-gay? :think:
Of course, you care nothing for the story of the Trans-sexual who abused all those little boys.
I figured as much. :nono:
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Regarding the transvestite (someone who dresses in opposite gender clothing and uses the mannerisms) Coleen Francis:

I found the police report from Evergreen State College. It appears that "Coleen" likes to sit in saunas with his legs spread exposing himself to little girls.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/EvergreenPoliceReport.pdf

315d54o.jpg


I'd pointed out in early threads that sexual identity doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have your genitals mutilated, you can think that you're a member of the opposite sex and that is grounds for that person (in many states) to enter and use opposite sex facilities.
 

Nazaroo

New member
Twinkie-Piehole said:
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ...

I don't feel obliged by the first one here but unlike you I concur with the second.
You don't even understand EITHER commandment.



Lets take a good look at what the commandment DOESN'T say:

(1) The Commandment DOESN"T say:

' Thou shalt love thy enemy as thyself.'

There is no point in citing Matthew 5:43-44:



…"You have heard that it was said,
'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,...



First of all, its clear from Jesus' own quotation
that there was a common teaching, which clarified "neighbor"
and defined the scope of the commandment.

That is, Jewish hearers understood there was an obvious distinction
between 'neighbor' and 'enemy'
,
and Jewish Rabbinic interpretation openly applied this commandment
in a narrower sense, namely only to fellow Jews and peaceful 'neighbours'
who one lived in community with,
and did daily business with, including Gentiles living in the Holy Land.

The Gospel of John makes it clear that
this interpretation of
'Neighbor' did not even extend to Samaritans,
because by mutual agreement in hostility,
they actually did no business between them, and so weren't 'neighbors'
in the sense interpreted by the Rabbis in regard to the commandment.

It is quite true that Jesus, in addressing His church,
expands the scope of the commandment in a limited way,
imploring Jewish Christians to keep the door open to Jews
who had rejected Him as Messiah.
Thus Christians were not to cut off unbelieving Jews and others,
but keep forgiving them in order to continue announcing the "gospel"
which is the good news of an offer of Amnesty to All who will repent.

Their neighbors had actually become their 'enemies', over the rejection
of Jesus as Messiah, and the offer of Amnesty for all who would repent.
Christianity was not to become a closed 'private club' with a fixed membership,
but to have a potential 'open door' policy for those who would stop sinning,
which includes rejecting the gospel, and would switch sides.

But Jesus did not extend the 'love' mentioned in this commandment
to become an unconditional permission to sin or grant forgiveness
automatically to all, including unrepentant evil-doers.

The first step in forgiveness and acceptance into the Church is repentance:


...Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying,
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;
repent and believe in the gospel."
Mark 1:14-15



This makes it clear what the conditions of the Amnesty are,
and what the limits of 'love' are, for those OUTSIDE the church.

In fact, again Jesus avoids the Liberal Pseudo-Gospel,
in describing His Church:


"A new commandment I give to you,
that you love one another, even as I have loved you,
that you also love one another.

"
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for
one another."

John 13:34-35




Notice Jesus DOESN'T Say:
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for
your enemies."


This would be TOO MUCH even for Christians to bear.

How can a mother of a murdered child be expected to
'love her enemies' as much as Jesus loves Christians?
Absurd.

How can a person molested as a child be expected to
'love their molestor' as much as Jesus loves Christians?
Unreasonable.

What Jesus DOES expect is that the bereaved mother,
and the abused victim be able to love OTHER CHRISTIANS
the way Jesus loves them.

And this is not a burden too heavy to bear.



(2) The Commandment DOESN"T say:


Thou shalt love the known criminal as thyself.

Thou shalt love the murderer as thyself.

Thou shalt love the serial killer as thyself.

Thou shalt love the child predator as thyself.

Thou shalt love the unrepentant homosexual offender as thyself.

Thou shalt love the lobbyist for NAMBLA as thyself.


I'd like everyone to understand the gravity of what Jesus DID NOT SAY.

Had Jesus meant any of these things, He could have, and would have said so.
But these things are actually unreasonable things.

One is not supposed to 'love' a home-invader more than one loves one's own life.

One is not supposed to 'love' a rapist more than one loves one's own wife or daughter.

One is not supposed to 'love' a child molestor more than one loves one's own children.

One is not supposed to 'love' a hostage-taker more than the hostage.


Hostage-taker Shot: Jesus Approves


Case Closed.


 

GFR7

New member
You don't even understand EITHER commandment.



Lets take a good look at what the commandment DOESN'T say:

(1) The Commandment DOESN"T say:

' Thou shalt love thy enemy as thyself.'

There is no point in citing Matthew 5:43-44:



…"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,...



First of all, its clear from Jesus' own quotation
that there was a common teaching, which clarified "neighbor"
and defined the scope of the commandment.

That is, Jewish hearers understood there was an obvious distinction
between 'neighbor' and 'enemy'
,
and Jewish Rabbinic interpretation openly applied this commandment
in a narrower sense, namely only to fellow Jews and peaceful 'neighbours'
who one lived in community with,
and did daily business with, including Gentiles living in the Holy Land.

The Gospel of John makes it clear that
this interpretation of
'Neighbor' did not even extend to Samaritans, because by mutual agreement in hostility,
they actually did no business between them, and so weren't 'neighbors'
in the sense interpreted by the Rabbis in regard to the commandment.

It is quite true that Jesus, in addressing His church,
expands the scope of the commandment in a limited way,
imploring Jewish Christians to keep the door open to Jews
who had rejected Him as Messiah.
Thus Christians were not to cut off unbelieving Jews and others,
but keep forgiving them in order to continue announcing the "gospel"
which is the good news of an offer of Amnesty to All who will repent.

Their neighbors had actually become their 'enemies', over the rejection
of Jesus as Messiah, and the offer of Amnesty for all who would repent.
Christianity was not to become a closed 'private club' with a fixed membership,
but to have a potential 'open door' policy for those who would stop sinning,
which includes rejecting the gospel, and would switch sides.

But Jesus did not extend the 'love' mentioned in this commandment
to become an unconditional permission to sin or grant forgiveness
automatically to all, including unrepentant evil-doers.

The first step in forgiveness and acceptance into the Church is repentance:


...Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:14-15



This makes it clear what the conditions of the Amnesty are,
and what the limits of 'love' are, for those OUTSIDE the church.




(2) The Commandment DOESN"T say:


Thou shalt love the known criminal as thyself.

Thou shalt love the murderer as thyself.

Thou shalt love the serial killer as thyself.

Thou shalt love the child predator as thyself.

Thou shalt love the unrepentant homosexual offender as thyself.

Thou shalt love the lobbyist for NAMBLA as thyself.


I'd like everyone to understand the gravity of what Jesus DID NOT SAY.

Had Jesus meant any of these things, He could have, and would have said so.
But these things are actually unreasonable things.

One is not supposed to 'love' a home-invader more than one loves one's own life.

One is not supposed to 'love' a rapist more than one loves one's own wife or daughter.

One is not supposed to 'love' a child molestor more than one loves one's own children.

One is not supposed to 'love' a hostage taker more than the hostage.

Case Closed.


I agree with all - 100% correct.

I recall seeing a documentary of the Green River serial killer, and at his sentencing they were allowing the victims' families to speak. One grandfather whose granddaughter had been raped and killed by the killer said to him in court, "I'm a Christian, and my religion says I have to forgive. Not just some people, but everyone. So I forgive you." I thought he had taken it way too far.
 

Nazaroo

New member
I agree with all - 100% correct.

I recall seeing a documentary of the Green River serial killer, and at his sentencing they were allowing the victims' families to speak. One grandfather whose granddaughter had been raped and killed by the killer said to him in court, "I'm a Christian, and my religion says I have to forgive. Not just some people, but everyone. So I forgive you." I thought he had taken it way too far.

Christians can forgive a few offences against themselves,
but they can't grant forgiveness for a person's entire catalog of crimes.
Only God can forgive ALL sins.


Yes. There is a PURPOSE for true forgiveness, which only God can grant.

Its to inspire a loving repentant response in the sinner.

If it does not do this, the forgiveness is wasted.

One can say that if a homosexual abuser does not repent,
then he was not forgiven, and he is destined for the Lake of Fire.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
And now a few words from a patronizing parrot.

I agree with all - 100% correct.

Looking at your buddy list GayForReal7
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Gay-for-Real-(GFR).html

I see that you and Naz are friends. Do you two private message each other and compare what mental institutions you've been in and talk about the medications that you're on?

http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=about_medications

He's a cop. No explanation needed.

He deals with criminals all day, and now he sees everyone as a criminal.


He has the classic and all too common case of Pig-itis.

I've haven't seen many cases this extreme,
but then I'm not a criminal so I don't deal with cops daily.

I can understand the insane paranoia though:

Think about it: if he is who he really says he is,
he could be the last heterosexual cop on the force,
at least where he works.
And he's too dumb to quit.

Thats like being the Last of the Mohecans:
Not only do the Whites want to kill you,
so do the indigenous Natives.

When I asked in you a previous post if your HATRED of law enforcement came from when you were a teenager and a big bad policeman took a bag of dope away from you, you stated that you never use drugs (I assume you meant recreational ones).

I have to ask you this Naz:

Did men in uniforms carrying guns help strap you down to a gurney and remove you from your home to go to a psychiatric hospital anytime in your life?

gurney2.jpg


GayForReal7 and other homosexuals as I've shown have their own reasons for HATING police authority, is the above yours?
 

GFR7

New member
No drugs.
Gay for Real not my user name (GFR stands for gianfranco R.): I am Gianfranco R on a Catholic forum.
Naz and I are not on psych drugs and don't PM :AMR1:
Sorry. Your conspiracy theory has failed.
 

GFR7

New member
And abbreviationsdotcom says this is what YOUR intitals stand for , aCW:

CW
Certifiable Whacko
Career Woman
Child Worship
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top