Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Go and Sin No More – Misinterpreting Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4573242
https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/g...n-in-adultery/

"if this b***h f***s up once more then stone the B-Jesus out of her." And verily it was noted.

Hang on, I'm sure Jesus never said that, I think this was the teaching:

If Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh was some kind of anarchist, make your case. Show how He went into the Roman jails and demanded that those being incarcerated for crimes such as homosexuality and adultery should be set free.

Both the Apostles Peter and Paul explained the standard for civil government:

1 Peter 2:13-14
Romans 13:4

 

[SabathMoon]

While he is many things, Trump is not a libertarian.

He most certainly is socially libertarian. His hands are tied on abortion, and he doesn't care one way or the other. It's not like abortion is some great principle.

 

[Nihilo]

it was illegal based on many factors.

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said that it would help people if the proclivity for SSB were judged a medical disorder, because then people could receive professional medical treatment for the disorder, if they wanted to, and their health plan could pay for the services.

Where does this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior come from, in this specific case homosexuality?

It's a religious liberty issue. My religion and your religion doesn't necessarily believe that we have a right to commit SSB, but those who preach otherwise have the right to do so, and that's the controlling factor in the case of SSB. Many Christians do now believe, it is true, that we have a right to commit SSB, but this then leads into your next question.

And how can society acknowledge that those who engage in homosexuality have that "right", yet at the same time condemn it as an immoral practice?

Do we have the right to overeat? To covet? To get drunk? How do we acknowledge these "rights," yet at the same time condemn it as an immoral practice?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He most certainly is socially libertarian. His hands are tied on abortion, and he doesn't care one way or the other. It's not like abortion is some great principle.

Yet Donald Trump recently (for the 3rd time this year) sided with his fellow sexual anarchists and funded Planned Parenthood.

So much for Donald Trump's "hands being tied on abortion".

 

[SabathMoon]

The word 'Libertarian' is such a filthy word, how can it be abused?

I'm well aware that you're one of the many Libertarians here on TOL. Please explain why someone who stands for Libertarian so-called values, isn't a Libertarian.

Many Libertarians subscribe to old conservative old school classical liberalism, which can fit well in the republican party.

 

[SabathMoon]

Yet Donald Trump recently (for the 3rd time this year) sided with his fellow sexual anarchists and funded Planned Parenthood.

So much for Donald Trump's "hands being tied on abortion".

Well, that is why you are here. To point out, the inconsistencies in Trump. Does he even care about what LGBT wants? I don't think anyone does, for example.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
it (homosexuality) was illegal based on many factors.

I didn't say that it wasn't. I said that it would help people if the proclivity for SSB were judged a medical disorder, because then people could receive professional medical treatment for the disorder, if they wanted to, and their health plan could pay for the services.

"If they wanted to" (I love exposing people like Nihilo). Health plans currently pay for things like HIV/AIDS medications and dealing with the long list of diseases that those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately contract.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Where does this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior come from, in this specific case homosexuality?

It's a religious liberty issue. My religion and your religion doesn't necessarily believe that we have a right to commit SSB, but those who preach otherwise have the right to do so, and that's the controlling factor in the case of SSB. Many Christians do now believe, it is true, that we have a right to commit SSB, but this then leads into your next question.

I'll ask you again: Where doe this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior, in this case homosexuality come from?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
And how can society acknowledge that those who engage in homosexuality have that "right", yet at the same time condemn it as an immoral practice?

Do we have the right to overeat? To covet? To get drunk? How do we acknowledge these "rights," yet at the same time condemn it as an immoral practice?

Let's keep the topic on sexual sins such as homosexuality, incest, bestiality and adultery shall we?

Regarding coveting: It's a desire that if carried to the next level, would be prosecuted as theft.

Regarding intoxication: At one time there were many laws against it, laws against public intoxication and selling alcoholic beverages on Sunday. There are still some laws that prohibit intoxication under certain circumstances.

Again: Please don't blow a big smokescreen on this subject by comparing homosexuality with coveting and alcohol consumption (although those who engage in homosexuality are disproportionately guilty of both).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The word 'Libertarian' is such a filthy word, how can it be abused?

I'm well aware that you're one of the many Libertarians here on TOL. Please explain why someone who stands for Libertarian so-called values, isn't a Libertarian.

Many Libertarians subscribe to old conservative old school classical liberalism, which can fit well in the republican party.

What values are Libertarians 'conserving' and where did those values originate?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet Donald Trump recently (for the 3rd time this year) sided with his fellow sexual anarchists and funded Planned Parenthood.

So much for Donald Trump's "hands being tied on abortion".

Well, that is why you are here.

I'm here to expose your fraudulent Libertarian ideology and political movement. When are you going to start defending it?

To point out, the inconsistencies in Trump. Does he even care about what LGBT wants? I don't think anyone does, for example.

Your Degenerate in Chief is very consistent when it comes to embracing the LGBTQ/abortion movement. Need I review all of the things that Donald Trump has said and done in his past and present to confirm that statement?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Go and Sin No More – Misinterpreting Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery
http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post4573242
https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/g...n-in-adultery/



If Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh was some kind of anarchist, make your case. Show how He went into the Roman jails and demanded that those being incarcerated for crimes such as homosexuality and adultery should be set free.

Both the Apostles Peter and Paul explained the standard for civil government:

1 Peter 2:13-14
Romans 13:4

No that interpretation is wrong this is the teaching you need:

Matthew 18:21-22
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No that interpretation is wrong this is the teaching you need:

Obviously don't believe in civil laws, or maybe it's this particular behavior and movement that you're against recriminalizing?

 

[Nihilo]

"If they wanted to" (I love exposing people like Nihilo).

Yes, if they wanted to. I'm not proposing forcing the Church's morality upon people. You exposed me. :chuckle:

Health plans currently pay for things like HIV/AIDS medications and dealing with the long list of diseases that those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately contract.

So add to that coverage professional medical treatment, assistance, and advice, for those afflicted with the disorder of desiring SSB, and hopefully those other treatments drop in time.

I'll ask you again: Where doe this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior, in this case homosexuality come from?

The right of religious liberty, which includes morals, that are not against other laws.

Let's keep the topic on sexual sins such as homosexuality, incest, bestiality and adultery shall we?

They're analogous, in that they are moral matters concerning consenting people.

Regarding coveting: It's a desire that if carried to the next level, would be prosecuted as theft.

Right, but the commandment forbids coveting.

Regarding intoxication: At one time there were many laws against it, laws against public intoxication and selling alcoholic beverages on Sunday. There are still some laws that prohibit intoxication under certain circumstances.

So then it is fully legal, apart from when it is a crime.

Again: Please don't blow a big smokescreen on this subject by comparing homosexuality with coveting and alcohol consumption (although those who engage in homosexuality are disproportionately guilty of both).

How about overeating?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"If they wanted to" (I love exposing people like Nihilo).

Yes, if they wanted to. I'm not proposing forcing the Church's morality upon people. You exposed me.

i.e. you don't want laws enforced that say a person can't have sex with animals, his relatives, someone of the same sex, etc. That makes you an anarchist Nihilo.

Remember: When it comes to civil laws, someone's moral code is going to be enforced: Either secular humanist man's, or God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'll ask you again: Where doe this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior, in this case homosexuality come from?

The right of religious liberty, which includes morals, that are not against other laws.

So men, not God say that it is a "right" to engage in immoral behaviors such as homosexuality.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's keep the topic on sexual sins such as homosexuality, incest, bestiality and adultery shall we?

They're analogous, in that they are moral matters concerning consenting people.

There's that word again: "consent" (have I mentioned that I just love exposing people like Nihilo?)

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again: Please don't blow a big smokescreen on this subject by comparing homosexuality with coveting and alcohol consumption (although those who engage in homosexuality are disproportionately guilty of both).

How about overeating?

Let's talk about how your homosexual Catholic Priests raped 12 year old boys in multitude. Do you think in some cases those boys gave their...

"consent"?

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a0/c7/39/...793b7f--catholic-priest-catholic-churches.jpg

 

[Nihilo]

i.e. you don't want laws enforced that say a person can't have sex with animals, his relatives, someone of the same sex, etc. That makes you an anarchist Nihilo.

People who want those things should also be judged to have a serious medical disorder, and should be provided with professional medical treatment for their affliction. They are victims. Nobody chooses to be attracted to such behavior, and if they do choose such desires, then that's another medical disorder that they need help with.

Remember: When it comes to civil laws, someone's moral code is going to be enforced: Either secular humanist man's, or God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture.

And that is a religious argument, and it violates the right of religious liberty.

So men, not God say that it is a "right" to engage in immoral behaviors such as homosexuality.

People have the right to not believe in God, and those who do, still have the right to believe that SSB is not immoral.

There's that word again: "consent" (have I mentioned that I just love exposing people like Nihilo?)

You didn't make a point.

Let's talk about how your homosexual Catholic Priests raped 12 year old boys in multitude. Do you think in some cases those boys gave their...

"consent"?

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a0/c7/39/...793b7f--catholic-priest-catholic-churches.jpg

No, and nobody is arguing that sexual assault should be legal, just as it isn't legal today.

 

[MrDante]

It is hard to say if he preferred women. Most gay people prefer the opposite gender for sex.

If this were so then they wouldn't be gay

 

[MrDante]

Or, if proclivity for SSB was judged a medical disorder, as it was before.

The desire of black persons not wanting to be slaves was at one time also judged to be a disorder

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
i.e. you don't want laws enforced that say a person can't have sex with animals, his relatives, someone of the same sex, etc. That makes you an anarchist Nihilo.

People who want those things should also be judged to have a serious medical disorder, and should be provided with professional medical treatment for their affliction.

Now that it's been confirmed that you're an anarchist, i.e. someone who doesn't believe in using laws to help control immoral behavior, let's talk about if it's possible to have that mindset and still be a follower of Christ.

Your ideology goes against Jesus' 2 greatest commandments: Matthew 22: 36-40

Regarding your claim that the above immoral sexual behaviors should be treated as a "medical disorder":

Those who engage in heterosexual incest, heterosexual adultery and bestiality aren't known for having medical problems, unlike those who engage in homosexuality (review the index on page 1 under "disease").

They are victims. Nobody chooses to be attracted to such behavior, and if they do choose such desires, then that's another medical disorder that they need help with.

I've pointed out throughout this 4 part thread that children are subjected to things that later in life cause same sex desires, therefore they are victims. When a person grows into adulthood and still chooses to engage in immoral acts, he or she is no longer of the "victim" status, they have to be held accountable for their immoral behavior, and in a righteous society would be.

But you want to use "consent" as the basis for civil laws, which opens up a can of the nastiest smelling worms known to mankind.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Remember: When it comes to civil laws, someone's moral code is going to be enforced: Either secular humanist man's, or God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture.

And that is a religious argument, and it violates the right of religious liberty.

Judeo-Christian doctrine which our country's laws were once based on vs the doctrine of secular humanist man which our country's laws are now based on. Pick a side, there is no middle ground.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So men, not God say that it is a "right" to engage in immoral behaviors such as homosexuality.

People have the right to not believe in God, and those who do, still have the right to believe that SSB is not immoral.

Based on that lame attempt at an argument, then those same people can believe that murder, rape and stealing is not immoral (the LGBTQ movement fits into all three of those categories).

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Let's talk about how your homosexual Catholic Priests raped 12 year old boys in multitude. Do you think in some cases those boys gave their...

"consent"?

No, and nobody is arguing that sexual assault should be legal, just as it isn't legal today.

But you said "consenting people" in your earlier post. Certainly if secular humanist laws prevail, 12 year old children could give "consent" to have sex with a homosexual elder.

 

[Nihilo]

The desire of black persons not wanting to be slaves was at one time also judged to be a disorder

Why don't you think homosexuals deserve professional medical treatment, if they decide that their condition is a medical disorder?

 

[Nihilo]

Now that it's been confirmed that you're an anarchist, i.e. someone who doesn't believe in using laws to help control immoral behavior

Another religious argument that violates our right to religious liberty, our human right, and one that the Church values.

, let's talk about if it's possible to have that mindset and still be a follower of Christ.

It is. Are we done now?

Your ideology goes against Jesus' 2 greatest commandments: Matthew 22: 36-40

Opinions, like garbage cans; we've all got at least one, and they all stink.

Regarding your claim that the above immoral sexual behaviors should be treated as a "medical disorder":

Those who engage in heterosexual incest, heterosexual adultery and bestiality aren't known for having medical problems, unlike those who engage in homosexuality (review the index on page 1 under "disease").

The desire itself is a medical disorder, and its victims deserve to have professional medical treatment for their disorder, as with any other medical disorder, if they so choose.

I've pointed out throughout this 4 part thread that children are subjected to things that later in life cause same sex desires, therefore they are victims. When a person grows into adulthood and still chooses to engage in immoral acts, he or she is no longer of the "victim" status, they have to be held accountable for their immoral behavior, and in a righteous society would be.

They are victims for having the desire. They are afflicted with it.

But you want to use "consent" as the basis for civil laws

Not really, that's just what the other side is doing, and I recognize in it the right to religious liberty.

, which opens up a can of the nastiest smelling worms known to mankind.

I think that we agree on what is and what is not moral and immoral behavior.

Judeo-Christian doctrine which our country's laws were once based on vs the doctrine of secular humanist man which our country's laws are now based on. Pick a side, there is no middle ground.

The secular humanist side must recognize my right to religious liberty too, that's crucial.

Based on that lame attempt at an argument, then those same people can believe that murder, rape and stealing is not immoral (the LGBTQ movement fits into all three of those categories).

Do we have a right to think what we like?

But you said "consenting people" in your earlier post. Certainly if secular humanist laws prevail, 12 year old children could give "consent" to have sex with a homosexual elder.

What is the legal age of consent? It isn't 12. If anybody pushes for lowering that age, in order to engage in criminal sexual assault, then I'm against that.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Now that it's been confirmed that you're an anarchist, i.e. someone who doesn't believe in using laws to help control immoral behavior

Another religious argument that violates our right to religious liberty, our human right, and one that the Church values.

God created civil government and set the standard for it's use (along with the family and the Church) for the governance of mankind.

Your issue is with God, not me.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
, let's talk about if it's possible to have that mindset (if consent is given, then it should be acceptable as seen through the eyes of the law) and still be a follower of Christ.

It is. Are we done now?

I'm having way too much fun exposing you, so no, we're not done.

How is it possible to love God with all of your mind, heart and soul when you stand for things that goes against His teachings?

And how is it possible to love your neighbor as you'd love yourself when you embrace a behavior and lifestyle (based on "consent") that is downright deadly?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Your ideology goes against Jesus' 2 greatest commandments: Matthew 22: 36-40

Opinions, like garbage cans; we've all got at least one, and they all stink.

Attending a church that is full of pedophile/pederast priests, you must be used to the smell of garbage.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding your claim that the above immoral sexual behaviors should be treated as a "medical disorder":

Those who engage in heterosexual incest, heterosexual adultery and bestiality aren't known for having medical problems, unlike those who engage in homosexuality (review the index on page 1 under "disease").

The desire itself is a medical disorder, and its victims deserve to have professional medical treatment for their disorder, as with any other medical disorder, if they so choose.

It's a psychological and spiritual disorder in most cases*, until the person acts on those desires (i.e. you can't contract HIV/AIDS by just thinking about having homosex).

*Some people (in our sick moral relativist society) actually choose to engage in homosexuality, it's called "experimentation".

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
But you want to use "consent" as the basis for civil laws

Not really, that's just what the other side is doing, and I recognize in it the right to religious liberty.

Quit pretending that we're allies, that's the highest insult that you can say to me.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
, which opens up a can of the nastiest smelling worms known to mankind.

I think that we agree on what is and what is not moral and immoral behavior.

We agree on nothing. Your basis for moral behavior is "consenting people", not God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture.

You bore me, i.e. I'm...

moving on.

 

[SabathMoon]

If this were so then they wouldn't be gay

Which is a flat-out lie. I need not be so gullible.