Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7

Idolater

Idolater

Popetard
Right Divider said:
I explained your problem in this post: https://theologyonline.com/threads/...t-be-recriminalized-part-7.56961/post-1918435

Have you forgotten already?
Click to expand...

And I didn't explain already but as the thread shows, I was responding to a post that I made, where I said the president won the popular vote, which I meant as winning a majority, and so I answered my own post and clarified that he didn't win a majority.

I meant 'the popular vote' to mean the majority. I was clarifying what I meant, when I responded to my own post. Just like you did with this, your post.
 
A

Avajs

BANNED
Banned
Idolater said:
The problem isn't faggots, it's faggotism, which is the ideology that wants to faggotize everything. So far, faggotism has made tremendous, epic inroads to Western Culture (with the exception of basically Japan).

There are faggots who aren't faggotists. Most faggotists, by a wide margin, are not themselves faggots. Faggotry and faggotism are not the same thing and aren't even necessarily surjective onto one another. There are those engaging in faggotry, who are not faggotists, and don't promote or tolerate the faggotist agenda or ideological goals. Although this latter is a hopeful speculation, as I haven't seen any example of this species of person. For the most part, it seems the only faggots who aren't faggotists, aren't practicing faggotry, they are celibate and chaste. This would rule out someone like Dave Rubin, who "is married", and so is in a very public state of not being celibate. David Rubin also acquired children to parent them with "his husband." Gay marriage and gay children acquisition are faggotized. 100% faggotism. Right there, that's their agenda and ideology. In real
Click to expand...
Well your post made me look up Dave Rubin. After that my response to your entire post is “who cares?”.
 
A

Avajs

BANNED
Banned
Idolater said:
And I didn't explain already but as the thread shows, I was responding to a post that I made, where I said the president won the popular vote, which I meant as winning a majority, and so I answered my own post and clarified that he didn't win a majority.

I meant 'the popular vote' to mean the majority. I was clarifying what I meant, when I responded to my own post. Just like you did with this, your post.
Click to expand...
Donald from Queens won the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. In the US the latter matters the most
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Idolater said:
And I didn't explain already but as the thread shows, I was responding to a post that I made, where I said the president won the popular vote, which I meant as winning a majority, and so I answered my own post and clarified that he didn't win a majority.

I meant 'the popular vote' to mean the majority. I was clarifying what I meant, when I responded to my own post. Just like you did with this, your post.
Click to expand...
You need to use normal terminology.

I said no, but I meant yes.
I said big, but I meant small.
I said wrong, but I meant right.

To "win the popular vote" MEANS to "win the most popular votes". It's just that simple.

If you "mean" to "win the majority of the popular vote" you need to SAY THAT.
 
Idolater

Idolater

Popetard
Avajs said:
Well your post made me look up Dave Rubin. After that my response to your entire post is “who cares?”.
Click to expand...

I don't care.

Meanwhile, here is a clip from John Stossel, a conservative, who followed up on an academic journal hoax.

WARNING CONTENT IS R-RATED AND NOT FOR WOMEN OR CHILDREN

John Stossel doesn't use cuss words, but they talk about adult topics openly.

It's proof of the faggotization of our society. Only a faggotized organization or sector could fall for such a hoax.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1999609457324790213
 
Idolater

Idolater

Popetard
Because it’s obvious sodomy is unnatural, destructive (to the soul and anatomically), and disgusting. And the more its nature is openly discussed, the more it becomes (rightly) reviled.​
​
Of course, we love those who struggle with same-sex attraction and sins such as these. I am prone to my own set of sinful behavior, about which I must be ever-vigilant and repent if I fall. Those who would flatter me otherwise don’t “love” me—in truth, they hate me.​
​
So I will never hate my brothers and sisters who struggle with such sins by supporting them in them.​
​
Those who engage in sodomy and related sins are in the exact same boat as me: sinners in need of repentance. To embrace “pride” in such behaviors is, in truth, to hate sinners, not love them. It is to consign their souls to Satan.​
​
True love says to that: “No.”​

It's important to keep in mind what "same-sex attraction" means. The bottom line is it's a male who masturbates, and who especially in this sexualized society we live in since oh, about 1963, doesn't know what that struggle is like? but it's a male who masturbates and wants another male there with him while he masturbates; so they can masturbate together. Like, that's what we're talking about.

And that's why conservatives, when they hear that two males who like to masturbate together, want to adopt children, are horrified, because it's like, hold on; I'm not even OK with what you two are doing alone by yourself; that is disgusting, and to put it objectively and not to humiliate anybody, it is disordered—but I absolutely don't want you two faggots to have kids—no way. I'm already being gracious and merciful to let you two play with yourselves together; that's already outdated and backward enough; permitting kids to live with you two too—no.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2062255121824903469
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top