Similar posts

Marty Lineberry #fundie voy.com

Is Legosexuality a Sin? I saw a dog once that had a "Leg Orientation" since he would hump a person's leg. Sexual desires are a result of reproducing! The Dog had no "Leg Orientation"! He was a normal Dog who acted by nature to do that which he was designed to do which is to Reproduce! He couldn't ever reproduce by doing such but in his mind he just satisfied his desires. The same as humans masturbate today. So if then the dog could be taught by the media and the propaganda of today then the dog could then start believing that he was born this way. So he then would say to himself. I was born different. I am a Legosexual!

wwwarea #fundie deviantart.com

something and it was really stupid. Some people seem to argue that the act of having sex with a dog is "wrong" or should be illegal or is a good law if already a law becauseletting your dog be "the boss" is a risk to health between humans and stuff... and stuff like that.

Look, I am AGAINST abuse. However, consent is the only valid argument here, and if it's true dogs don't consent to having sex with humans, then it's bad, however if a dog goes right behind a human and does that toward the human, then I can't really say the dog was being raped, especially if the human didn't want that.
And that's a consent argument, and the debate about consent in this example is probably the only thing that matters.

But whenever I hear people use any argument OUTSIDE of that, I just cringe.
And let me kinda once again state this: I am against hurting any living being, and for example when you had sex with a dog without the consent of such dog for example, then I have a problem. Not sure about insects though, I might be fine with killing some with a napkin. Haha

But it's this dumb "fear" argument or "bad for your health" argument that pisses me off, and this argument alone is bad for anything involving law.

"It's good to have laws against sex with animals because letting a dog be boss could lead to problems to your health. And could make the dog and/or any similar behavior style non-human animal act crazy in the future!"
No, it's good to have laws if there is any abuse for example. And we should have laws against sex with any living being that lacks consent.
If a human WANTS to let their dog be boss, knows the risk of health toward the human person knowing, and allows it anyway, and the dog and human consents, then the person should have that right in privacy. It's not a legal excuse, but I'm trying to argue morally here. As for risk, there is MANY other ways that could lead a dog to being the boss, yet I have a feeling those are considered fine by many. That health and danger argument is just another bias argument that probably lacks any care about the non-human animal just so they can cause humans to suffer. I could be wrong, but this is ridiculous.
Yet, if a dog feels boss, does that mean it can't be handled? No! A situation like that could probably be control beyond such event, and one bad relationship is not evidence that it's bad for everyone.

That health and risk argument is one of the most dumbest and non-sense arguments I've seen, and even if I agreed that no non-human animal on this planet can consent with humans even though evidence may exist suggesting the opposite of such idea, that argument will always be a stupid argument in the same realm where "It's gross" or "it violates my religion" is used as if it's an "excuse".

Using ANY argument that has nothing to do with actual morality, means you're against freedom. And remember what I said about freedom, I think it's a right to enjoy life as long if no other creature is directly violated and isn't threatening to.
THAT'S WHY for this case, consent in awareness of sex should I think always be the the argument here and as long if such consensual act doesn't 90 to 100% lead to abuse in the future.

_______________

That being said, I remember seeing amazing arguments involving this taboo, and quite honestly, I think it was time to address these two arguments.
Again, this is about me having such a problem with people making up dumb excuses like this to decide something should be "wrong" and/or illegal. It should depend on consent for a case like this, and the same must be said for other sex stuff for example.
For example: Having sex with children is wrong because children can't consent. Using "Oh that is wrong because it's against a bible." is not a good argument to say it's wrong, however using "Children can't consent." and since it that statement is true is a valid argument. Get what I'm saying? Of course even if no one said the argument, it's still wrong because children can't consent.

I really hate it when someone who agrees a non-human animal has consented, but then decides to use a invalid argument after. That just shows they don't care about natural rights.
Again, as a person who questions popular beliefs a lot, this really needed to be said.


But what's the point? Even if I put out my damn disclaimers, some people are gonna go out and rant about this as a "WWWAREA DEFENDS BESTIALITY!" and will probably miss the point and promote false claims. Don't do that, it's really not cool. It's true, I do believe there is evidence of consent maybe, but still.

Michael Flowers #conspiracy forum.myspace.com

I think a lot of the research into that is still pretty sketchy. I'm also sure that there is a lot of politics involved in the journal articles and documentaries done on the subject. My understanding is that bottlenose dolphins live segregated lives. The sexes come together during mating seasons. That's when they have the opportunity to have heterosexual sex. And they do have heterosexual sex at those times. The other parts of the year the males aren't with the females. Their segregation may have biological advantages. Perhaps it makes them all the more horny when mating season rolls around. Or maybe it keeps them from overpopulating. Their situation would be sort of like people in prison. A lot of homosexuality goes on in prison, but that's just because there are no women around. It's the same thing I mentioned about the dogs humping people's legs. My cat used to hump blankets. That's because he was an indoor cat. He was obviously deprived and needed any gratification he could get.

paraphilias-are-human #fundie paraphilias-are-human.tumblr.com

so...i have a question. To put it simply, i'm a zoophile. The thing is.. I'm not anti contact. Well, in some cases i suppose but, generally, I think that with animals, they CAN consent. Not verbally of course, but they can eagerly obviously want sex. If a dog is violently humping at somebodies leg, why is it so wrong to give the dog a quick hand (literally). Especially if it makes the human and dog feel good. I dont know? i can’t even really say im non offending, honestly, as i’ve tried something with my dog before when in heat. I also frequently watch zoophilia porn (Watching and participating in bestiality is completely legal where i live, if that helps at all). I just wanna know your thoughts. Am i inherently a bad person? am i the exception, to all this positivity? I don’t want to be a bad person but I genuinely think in some cases, its fine to pleasure animals if they obviously want it.


I understand your concern. First of all, I want to make clear that no one is inherently a bad person. The world is not black and white, things are more complex than that. I don’t think you are a bad person (and less when you are even worried of being doing something wrong, that shows that you care, which is really important).
The short answer is that I agree with you. I just don’t like to post things that are clearly controversial in a very vocal and explicit way because this is not a blog where I discuss my opinions (not like my main) but just a blog for positivity. When I talk about zoophiles I talk about the ones who ‘don’t harm animals’. I’m totally against animal abuse and zoosadism (zoosadism in the sense of actions, fantasies are ok). If the animal suffers some kind of harm, pain or distress, I find that as abuse and I’m against it. But I also thing animals can consent, in the sense of being obvious when they want some kind of sexual interaction or when they are feeling uncomfortable and want you to stop. Also, some animals are specially anthropophilic, so… If you don’t harm and animal, you respect their limits and are really careful, I don’t see it as abuse.
That is why I’m not expecific with my zoo positivity posts. I don’t think all kind of sexual contact with animals is abusive, so if you don’t harm them, you are ok and not an exception for my positivity. Some people will disagree, I guess, but that is on them. For me, if you don’t hurt animals, you are ok.
However, I’d be careful about the porn. Mostly because you can’t know if that animal really wanted it, if they are being treated well or if they suffer any kind of abuse. Sometimes it can seem obvious, but how could you know? I have heard that in child porn the kids seem to be ok with it… I think when it is about porn you should be really careful because you can’t know what is happening behind the cameras (no need to say that all actual child porn is bad and abusive, I guess, I just mentioned it as an example).
[..]
So tl;dr: you are ok if you aren’t hurting animals and you deserve positivity. Be careful with porn, not because the law, but because the abuse it could be happening, and understand what I mean in my posts with “zoophiles who don’t harm animals”.
Hope you have a nice day :)
anon asks answer zoophilia discussion not positivity controversial opinions i love how this is the 'short answer' dont want to imagine the long one lol xD about me personal opinions about the blog

cfbleachers #conspiracy pjmedia.com

The Co-Conspirator Clandestine Press (CCCP) has been a one way street for more than four decades. It wasn’t until the convergence of talk radio (the only outlet that gave an information-strangled nation an semi-mass outlet for truth), the internet and “pajama clad bloggers”, and then Fox News…was there any resistance army capable of at least slowing down the propaganda, distortion and lies.

People don’t realize how recent this all is. Fox News began in late 1996 to only 17 million cable viewers available universe. Rush Limbaugh did not broadcast nationally until 1988.

Most conservative political blogs that attracted any kind of audience did not do so until the 2000's. Our own Glenn Reynolds started Instapundit in August, 2001. Our own Roger Simon did not open this site until 2004 and did not get the first round of funding until 2005.

To say that the “resistance” is still in its infancy compared to the entrenchment of the CCCPress would be a massive understatement.

To say that the manner in which the CCCPress reports is a one way street is to deny them the tactical brilliance it has taken for the traitors against truth to demolish and poison our information stream.

Not only are they whipped dogs, rolling over, fetching and humping the legs of their Fabian masters…they are trained attack dogs against any and all who resist the overthrow.

The fact that the NYTimes/DailyDuranty/MorningCockburn is willing to admit it beneath the thin veneer of mild and disingenuous protest is merely because the DurantyCockburn is part of the hyper-radical Soros wing that wants the overthrow to move faster, please.

This pro-Communist, anti-America rag has shown its true colors for decades for anyone that doesn’t have a red-green color blindness built into their DNA.

Whether its Friedman slobbering over Maoism or Duranty/Cogburn fawning over Stalinism or its giving away state secrets and national security leaks like they were passing out Halloween candy…this despicable, traitorous group is not merely a one way street, doing NO “reporting” that uncovers misdeeds on the left…it is a one way back alley, doing dirty deals and committing thuggery against American interests, the free market, capitalism and any conservative they can get their hands on.

If you aren’t with the resistance at this point, you are with the overthrow. And, that includes all the alphabet networks, the magazines, Soros sophistry blogs, hollywood and academia. It’s a formidable force for treason. It has a forty year head start. And exposing them and their plot ought to be the sole purpose of our being.

Dee Price #sexist kiwifarms.net

You do need to know even though i think men are cute i think they are also crude perverted and disgusting But i do understand why. It comes with studying neuroscience. Same reason i know i am a female, gives women a good hint why men seem to be so obsessed with sex.

Think this two sexes two genders.... they are attached and for good reason. men have to think one way and women another. It is what makes them compatible in a way. it is women are good at doing many task... Men well they concentrate on one thing at a time and really there is a key to how to tell a real transsexual from the fake.

it is the wiring. and everything is set to assist in life and the continuance of the species. evolutionary mental development. all of the emotions locked in the limbic system along with a lot of autonomic basic body functions and a slew of very emotional clusters all jumbled up in a complicated mess of control of body and senses all tied in to the emotional section of our brain. this complicated mess all projects this to the pre frontal cortex that then talks to the frontal cortex that tries to rationalize a response and decide what to do and the amygdala should do. the hippocampus is looking up what we did last time. and all the clusters are firing and well the women are screaming the men are making aggressive postures. and the place is all an uproar. the women gather the kids and the men are fighting the threat. and on and on it goes. attraction and sex and on it goes each one doing their job to keep us alive. as time goes on the mind is built to compliment the struggle to live and prosper.

sex gender connected and made by brain evolution gender of the brain is brain sex.. designed to make man and woman compatible in more than sex but in every social event....

You males have a BSTc twice the size of a females regardless if you are gay or straight.

Now this spot is where sexual thought is generated of identity... it makes your thought pattern this is where men really show why.

Women's is a small grey spot with tiny little black dots. those black dots are neural fibers that go to important places in the brain regarding sexual thought.

Men's is a spot twice that size and looks like a giant bottle of ink was spilled out.

Now that is why you chase women around and get really jealous and then get stupid and the both of you start to fight and that is cute and all but kind of brutish. but that is why you males are perverted leg humping horn dogs. that beat each other senseless over a girl.

on the other hand some of you get to be really possessive and jealous and you start to beat on her and you talk all sick shit about how she is causing it. which brings me to Frank. and i thought there is no way. Lucy asked me to see what was taking so long. and i told her he was standing over near the driveway looking in the dirt. she said he was going to come in and say it. He did. every word. I saw the tire tracks outside who have you been fucking today.
Now why do men do that. it is not like a woman is looking to do everyone and well better not go out on her if you catch something she knows it is you that caught it. Because a woman she is not going to go out catch something she better not get something from you.

that is just how it works. So do know there is a very big difference and well men and women do not think the same and that is why you men act up when a group of women start talking and you are doing something like watching TV.
Or in Franks case yelling at me about listening to a song while i was talking to Lucy and watching the kids and the TV was on too so i was keeping track of what was going on the show. And when i stopped him from yelling well that was sick but typical male bullshit TMBS. But i had to tell him he was getting on my nerves yelling at me.
I don't think like you frank and then i told him what the song was saying and what was on the TV what Lucy and i were talking about and where his kids ran off too.
Why you men do not get we task a lot of things at once is beyond me. but yea he thought no one could do that. I had to tell him no half the world does that. We do that females. that is why i said i think like a female well i pointed to Lucy and said because i think like her.

Which Lucy knew she knew before i started to transition and she told me in 1994 i acted and seemed to be more of a female than male. So i told her and all about frank and his ilk. She said why didn't you warn me and i i said 3 weeks of meeting...... Yea and i come up and tell you that Frank is a psychotic pervert with a deviant sexual obsessions and it gets worse. No then she tells frank and i have to deal with him and well men are stronger you have to really be careful. And he rolled 55 gallon drums around no thanks i do not feel like being brutalized.

and i knew a whole lot about his perversions 1991 i found out he was a chaser. yea pro op porn ilk and a lot of it. and you are sitting there thinking why me....why do i have to be the bassist for a psychotic pervert that has a sexual obsession with pre op trans girls.
that is why after i kind of got upset and told him he was on top of me hissing about i was a turn on to him.
all i wanted to do is throw up. ilky sick nasty.

So there you go.... and to make it clear Transsexuals do not do it to be with men.....It is so we can look in a mirror after we get out of the bath or shower and not feel like throwing up at the sight of that ugliness.
that is why i call it "Ugly in the Mirror" looking at someone that you know is not you.

it is a nightmare no one want to have to endure for a lifetime. all the childhood please let me wake up a girl or not wake up at all....all to wake up and there is that face in the mirror and your life is a ruined mess.... stuck in a body that is not you and you have no clue how you are going to fix it. all you know then is that you are not a boy and they keep beating you and screaming you are a boy......

Who in the hell would want to live that life. NO ONE.

[Another user tells Dee to focus on her three year old instead of arguing on the internet]
she is right behind me right now asshole watching TV and if she needs she comes ask and i get what she needs. So asshole i am watching my 3 year old as i tell your stupid ass off.

see poor mr one task can not get women can DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME AND A LOT MORE.
Oh god you men are so stupid. if you listen to us and not act like everything we say goes out the other side of your head.

WOMEN CAN DO MORE THAN ONE THING AT A TIME PLEASE ARE YOU SERIOUSLY THAT SLOW?

Legendary Dr Mike #fundie newsforums.bbc.co.uk

Most reasonable people would agree Homosexuals have a right not to be prejudiced against. But, not being allowed to adopt children is not a form of prejudice. Lots of people aren't permitted to adopt children and for much less obviously harmful reasons than living in an unnatural partnership practising deviant sexual acts.

Before anyone protests about these comments any sexual act not directed towards procreation (or strengthening the natural bond between couples capable of procreation) is by biological definition 'deviant' and 'unnatural'.

It seems to me the [Catholic] church is right, children have a right to be protected from such things until they are capable of making their own decisions.

Sue Bohlin #fundie probe.org

Sue Bohlin looks a common myths concerning homosexual behavior that are prevalent in our society. These myths prevent us from looking at homosexuality with a biblical worldview and from dealing with this sin in a loving and consistent manner.

In this essay we’ll be looking at some of the homosexual myths that have pervaded our culture, and hopefully answering their arguments. Much of this material is taken from Joe Dallas’ excellent book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement.{1} While the information in this essay may prove helpful, it is our prayer that you will be able to share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn’t just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.

10% of the Population Is Homosexual.

In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.{2} He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average “Joe College” student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.{3} The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual “civil rights” movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.{4}

Kinsey’s figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.{5} But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it’s valid. It’s not.

People Are Born Gay.

Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data’s not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene “linkage” studies.{6} Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn’t have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.{7} Dr. Simon LeVay’s famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn’t sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn’t know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.{8} Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.{9} Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn’t make it a normal condition.

Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.

And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we’re born with something doesn’t mean it’s normal. It’s not true that “God makes some people gay.” All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.

What’s Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?

There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual. Marriage is more than a social convention, like being “best friends” with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God’s plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.

Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really “best friend” status, and that does not require legal protection.

Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine “family” any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children’s lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.

The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won’t make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.{10} Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very “other” beings–the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn’t work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.

Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.

Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn’t specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?

This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John’s gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!{11} The gospels don’t record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.

We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God’s created intent for human sexuality: “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). God’s plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.

The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.

Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Gay theologians argue that the term “abomination” is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.

Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh’s people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians today doesn’t mean none of it does.

The argument that the word “abomination” is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn’t hold water.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.{12}

Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.

Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1). The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don’t believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the “Judge not” verse.

When Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged,” the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another’s sin. There’s no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin. Agreeing with God about something isn’t necessarily judging.

Imagine I’m speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, “You broke the speed limit back there, ma’am.” Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: “Hey, you’re judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'” The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He’s not judging my character, he’s comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It’s not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That’s judging.

The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.

Romans 1:26-27 says, “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it’s not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.

But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between “true” homosexuals and “false” ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn’t the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men “inflamed with lust” for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.{13} You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.

Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.

I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of “internalized homophobia” and violence directed at them.{14} This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.

San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.{15} The report’s numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that’s over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, “I struggled for a long time over Gibson’s mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math.”{16}

The report’s conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.{17}

Gibson didn’t use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson’s report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: “The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc.”{18}

That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it’s not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it’s wrong and harmful behavior.

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com


Gay activists contend there are only seven scriptures that address homosexuality in the Bible and therefore homosexual behavior is insignificant in scripture. Gay activists also contend that theologians have misinterpreted the seven scriptures. The seven main scriptures are the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the letter by Jude verse 7, and the Apostle Paul’s letters in Romans 1:26-7, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
Gay activists like to point out that none of these scripture references are in the first four books of the New Testament that record the direct teachings of Jesus. The gay argument is that since Jesus never mentioned homosexual behavior, it should not be considered immoral. That argument lacks any merit when one realizes that Jesus never mentioned bestiality either (humans having sexual relations with animals – another aberrant sexual orientation). Using the same gay logic would imply that a human having sex with an animal is not immoral behavior. Bestiality is listed as a sin in the Mosaic Law right after male homosexuality in Leviticus 18:23. Male homosexual behavior and bestiality are the only immoral sexual behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 that include the adjectives of “detestable” and “perversion.” The gay insignificant argument also fails the test on the bestiality comparison because there are even less scriptures that address humans having sex with animals.
Leviticus 18:22 explicitly states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” (NIV) Gay theology argues that the type of homosexual behavior condemned in Leviticus does not include homosexuals in loving and consensual relationships. This gay argument is also without merit when one studies the content of Leviticus 18. Most of Leviticus 18 condemns various close relative and incestuous heterosexual relationships. The author of Leviticus condemns fourteen heterosexual relationships between close relatives and no homosexual incestuous relationships. The obvious reason Leviticus 18 does not list homosexual close relative relationships is because verse 22 condemns all homosexual behavior.
Other arguments put forth by gay theology are that the word for homosexual has been misinterpreted in the passages of the Apostle Paul’s letters; God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah not because homosexual behavior was prevalent in those communities, but because its citizens were inhospitable and sought to rape the male visitors; and the close friendships between Jonathon and David in the Old Testament as well as Jesus and the Apostle John in the New Testament were actually homosexual relationships. The key to all these arguments is still found in Leviticus 18. If Leviticus 18 condemns all homosexual behavior, which I believe it clearly does, these other gay arguments have no foundation for their devious assertions.
Once homosexual behavior is established biblically as sexual immorality along with adultery, close family heterosexual relationships, and bestiality, a host of other biblical scriptures apply to homosexual behavior. The Apostles gave four firm requirements to the non-Jewish Christians in the early church, “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:20 NIV) The Apostle Paul wrote, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV) In his letter to the Ephesians Paul wrote, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” (Ephesians 5:3 NIV) There are many other New Testament verses with similar instructions to avoid sexual immorality.

.....


I was discussing these issues on homosexuality with an independent filmmaker in Houston, when she said, “I don’t care if people engage in homosexual behavior in their private quarters.” I was taken back a bit, because I knew I did care and didn’t care at the same time. I was also unclear what she implied by her statement. I had to think that statement through, and out of that thought process came a good example of how Christians need to be prepared to intelligently address issues of homosexuality.
My confusion and a lot of the confusion on issues of homosexuality stem from the fact that in America’s structured society there are different spheres of authority where behavior is subject to scrutiny. I find three distinct spheres where society views homosexual behavior from different perspectives – a medical sphere, a civil law sphere, and a theological or moral sphere. As one who has studied all three of these spheres, I tend to view homosexual issues differently depending on which sphere of authority they pertain to.
To illustrate this concept I am going to give my viewpoints on the filmmakers comment from these three structural spheres. From a medical viewpoint I do not care if two or three or four people engage in consensual homosexual behavior in private quarters, although I have apprehension that they may harm themselves or others. Some of the people engaging in that behavior may have unhealed emotional wounds from their same-sex parent and the behavior might be an attempt to repair that wound. Some may be carrying a sexually transmitted disease. I am not their medical doctor, their psychologist, their psychiatrist, or their close relative, so medically it is none of my business, but as a Christian I should have enough compassion to not want to see these individuals get AIDS or continue in behavior that will deepen their emotional wounds.
From a civil law viewpoint consensual homosexual sex in private quarters is not an infraction of civil law, so from that viewpoint I have no reason to care if people engage in that type of behavior. Sodomy used to be illegal. When it was illegal one could have been concerned that this consensual behavior was breaking the law, and even now some believe that sodomy, like prostitution, should be against the law. On another level as a Christian I care greatly if the civil law tells school children that consensual homosexual relationships are as desirable as heterosexual relationships and equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman, because those types of laws intentionally oppose my Christian moral beliefs.
From a theological viewpoint Christians should be concerned for people who engage in consensual homosexual behavior, because according to biblical scripture it will keep them out of heaven. The Apostle Paul reiterates that warning in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In direct contrast to the warning is the desire of God to not want “anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) Followers of God should not want anyone to perish either. For those who are not familiar with this Christian terminology and message, one inherits eternal life (heaven) with Jesus upon repentance of their sins, turning away from sinful behavior, and choosing to follow Jesus. When one refuses to repent of sinful behavior and disregard God’s promise through Jesus, they are destined to perish (hell). Jesus talked about heaven and hell many times referring to hell as a place “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” To the Christian either heaven or hell represent each individuals eternal destiny.
The simple statement by the filmmaker had many interpretations and implications. For example, a moral liberal would state that they do not care if people engage in consensual homosexual sex in private quarters because they believe consensual homosexual sex is moral behavior. A libertarian could make the same statement and not care if the behavior was moral or immoral, because their main principle is personal freedom. A conservative could make the same statement also and in a mean spirited way imply that they don’t care if that person gets AIDS from their sexual behavior, because they are responsible for their own actions. A Christian could also make the same statement in a callous way and imply that they don’t care if people who engage in consensual homosexual behavior go to hell or get AIDS, because they deserve “the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)
As a Christian I do not identify with any of the four interpretations presented of the filmmakers statement. From my Christian viewpoint, although I agree American society gives people the civil right to engage in consensual homosexual sex in private places, I do care that people engage in this behavior, because ultimately I do not want them to go to hell or to harm themselves or to harm others.

wicker white #fundie #homophobia christiannews.net

Bee Man:
Pedophilia and bestiality are disorders. They will never be “recognized” because they are considered acts of abuse against animals and children who cannot consent. There is no reason to criminalize homosexuality if the parties are of legal consenting age. Consent is everything in these matters.

wicker white:
You believe everything you read at Wikipedia and see on Nat Geo and elsewhere? Do you not understand what would appear to be a "homosexual" act even in dogs, say for instance that of riding or humping, is not one of homosexuality but is about dominance. Here's a little bit of scientific evidence below for your consideration. Besides, homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight and is condemned by our Creator. Does it make sense to you that God would create in the animal world that which he condemns for mankind? God is not schizophrenic.
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.
Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an “animal homosexuality”. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Bee Man:
Google the gay penguin book, then get back to me.

wicker white:
I don't have to. I read THE BOOK. You read God's Word and then get back to me, but hurry up, the rapture is going to soon be happening, and I won't be around because I'll be taken up.

Bee Man:
Oh God, so much garbage. There is no rapture, and your book doesn't even say that.
Like so many Christian bigots you focus on the sex act and ignore the fact that even in the animal kingdom same sex relationships happen. Two same sex penguins not just engaging in the sex act but behaving as committed partners. THAT is the reality.

wicker white:
Funny thing, what I read coming from you is nothing but garbage. You seem to have a herd mentality, following after any "science" to justify your own sinful life. Your secular, humanistic worldview and your opinion will hold no water when you stand face to face with God Almighty on judgment day. I would pray for your soul, but Satan already owns it.

Bee Man:
Following provable, repeatable, trustworthy settled SCIENCE does not mean having a "herd mentality". But following a religion does.

wicker white:
I do not follow a religion. I follow a man, THE MAN, Jesus Christ. Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship. All other "religions" are just that, religions, and they all lead to hell.

nxdismycope #sexist incels.co

[Serious] only low iq phags deny the fact that most foids fuck their dogs

im so FUCKNG TIRED of watching on fb all those WHORES uploading pics of them frenching their dogs.

EVERYDOG spend half of the day licking his junk. thats a F A C T.

image

do you think those foids wash their dogs mouth before they kiss them ? J F L. no they dont
everytime they kiss their dogs they have genitals and shit and piss germs all over their lips.

the thing is - those are the stuff they allow themselves to upload. what do you think happen when there arent cameras around? thats right. they fuck them.

just L O L @ all the beta males falling for the girls that are obsessed about their dogs and kissing them all day.


this is your oneitis when theres no cameras around. FACT.

(“NSFW” spoiler containing what looks like a freaking bestiality gif.)

men love dogs for their loyalty, females love dogs for the SEX.

Ralph Ovadal #fundie pccmonroe.org

Hey, if he can do the job and pay the rent . . .
Almost no one would condone a law which would force landlords to rent to those who engage in bestiality or a statute which would require employers to hire drug addicts. In fact, it is considered to be good judgment to discriminate by refusing to employ or rent to such individuals, even though the acts in question are committed by consenting partners in private. Currently, society as a whole still realizes that such activity is immoral and unacceptable regardless of any other redeeming qualities the person in question may have. Persons engaged in all manner of immoral behavior in their spare time are often still able to perform satisfactorily on the job and may not directly hurt the persons living immediately around them. For instance, the infamous mass murderer and homosexual Jeffrey Dahmer held down a day job; and New York City's Son of Sam murderer was thought to be a "nice guy" by his neighbors until they found out what he did away from his neighborhood. Character does count, and persons who engage in sodomy and other perverted homosexual practices are obviously of very low moral character regardless of maintaining in public a veneer of niceness. Decent citizens should not be prohibited from exercising good judgment by refusing to hire, rent to, or associate with homosexuals.

But that's discrimination!
Of course it is! Almost everyone believes in and exercises some sort of discrimination. The legitimate question is, What behavior is proper to discriminate against? Homosexuals are sexual outlaws. When society's laws do not uphold that truth, the weak and the innocent suffer and even the most basic of liberties are put at risk.

Until 1982, Wisconsin's state statutes allowed citizens to practice good judgment when it came to dealing with individuals engaged in homosexual acts. Wisconsin is currently one of a handful of states which forbids discrimination against the perversion of homosexuality. Ask Ann Hacklander what happens to those who attempt to discriminate against homosexuality in the Badger State. As a college student living in Madison in the 1980s, Miss Hacklander refused to share her apartment with an open lesbian who answered her advertisement for a roommate. That exercise of good judgment cost Ann a fine, thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs, as well as the humiliating experience of being ordered to undergo sensitivity training conducted by a homosexual rights group. Such are the results of state protection of the sexually perverted acts which every state in the Union held to be criminal until 1961.

For the past several decades, the homosexual movement has engaged in a massive public relations campaign aimed at demonizing anyone who dares to suggest that American citizens should have a right to discriminate--to use good judgment--when dealing with persons involved in homosexual activity. That campaign has borne bitter fruit. Open homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers, and transgenders now serve as legislators, judges, policemen, medical technicians, food service workers, teachers, and adopters of children. This is a tragic situation given the fact that the homosexual community is the source of a greatly disproportionate amount of violence, sexual assault, and disease; and it brings the judgment of God upon our land.

A Shameless Exploitation of Real Victims
In their determination to mainstream their sexual deviancy, homosexual activists have no qualms about equating discrimination against homosexual activity to hate and violence directed against bona fide ethnic groups. This is a campaign in which truth, decency, and history are deemed irrelevant. For instance, in recent years, homosexual strategists have launched a well-constructed campaign to exploit the suffering of Hitler's holocaust victims by claiming that tens of thousands of homosexuals were exterminated in Nazi death camps. Well-heeled "gay" groups have lobbied vigorously and committed a vast amount of resources to securing a spot, literally buying a place, in holocaust museums around the nation in order to perpetuate the hoax of a "gay holocaust." The Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U.S. and Canada has publicly protested these shameful, dishonest tactics, as has the Rabbinical Alliance of America.

While it is true that several thousand "fem" homosexuals may have died in labor camps (not death camps), just as did other criminals and political prisoners, "butch" homosexuals were at the very center of the Nazi power structure; in some cases they even served as concentration camp guards. One of the most notorious, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene, sodomized hundreds of boys and young men even as he strangled and gnawed them to death.

To this day, homosexual influence in the German neo-Nazi movement remains strong. Michael Kuhnen, a major German neo-Nazi leader who recently died of AIDS, was openly homosexual. The militant homosexual movement in America also has its roots in the Nazi Party. The National Socialist League is a homosexual branch of the American Nazi Party. The infamous American Nazi leader Frank Collin was a homosexual. The homosexual aspect of Hitler's Nazi Party has been documented by a number of historians, including the well-respected William Shirer in his famous volume The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams in their book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party.

For homosexuals to exploit the suffering and death of millions of people in an attempt to shame the American people into accepting non-discrimination policies inclusive of gross sexual perversion is despicable.

The Choice: Good Judgment or Utter Destruction
No nation can long survive whose people do not have the moral fiber and good sense to support discrimination against and even criminal penalties for those who commit certain acts of violence and perversion. Civil law and societal pressure should both send a clear message to the homosexual movement: "Your perverted actions are unacceptable; thousands of former homosexuals are living proof that you can change your ways. If you insist on practicing sexual perversion, those acts will be seen as just cause for others to discriminate against you in employment, housing, and association! If you continue your destructive, immoral behavior, decent people will use good judgment when dealing with you." It is time Wisconsin rejoined the overwhelming majority of other states in the Union by removing "sexual orientation" from our non-discrimination statutes. History is clear - those nations who refuse to maintain a righteous moral standard are eventually destroyed. When it comes to the perversion of same-sex relations, the choice for Wisconsin and America is clear - once more use good judgment or suffer destruction!

Oracle Z #fundie returnofkings.com

Why Women Are Like Cats And Men Are Like Dogs

CATS:

Cats are beautiful creatures. So are women. Especially when it comes to their faces, and more so their eyes. Staring in a cat’s eyes for long, can mesmerize you. So can a woman’s.

Cats are manipulative, prodigal creatures that only want you when they want you. Try picking up a cat at any time, and see how it will scratch you. A cat’s affection for you is essentially an act of investment on it’s end. There is nothing more fake than the dishonest affection of a cat, irrespective of its type. Cats only need affection on their own terms.

Cats know how to insinuate themselves into your affection, even if they are useless creatures. “Aw, look at the poor cute little thing!” A cat is a master at turning its weakness into its advantage. It would meekly rub its soft fur against you to garner attention. It would purr softly and sensually as you stroke it. It snuggles softly into your body, making you believe that it needs and ‘loves‘ you, but what it actually needs is the warmth of your body.

Cats are opportunistic. Cats live on opportunity. They stalk their prey. Women are the same, for they are hypergamous.

Cats are practically useless creatures. On an average, Cats spent 16 hours sleeping and the rest eating and lazing around. Cats can’t defend your home. A cat will only fight to defend itself, but never you. A cat’s life is engrossed with itself, and trying to exploit the resources of its master, without being of use in return. Cats are basically domesticated parasites.

Cats enslave you. A cat’s often ‘purpose’ in your home is to act cute. As mentioned above, they’re practically useless animals. Any home having a cat will be forced to acquiesce itself to its feline member. Essentially humans are the pets of cats, and not the other way around.

Cats are cruel and merciless creatures. Observe a cat with its prey (e.g. with a rat or an insect). A cat will play around with its prey’s half dead body before devouring it, much like a psychopath. Women more or less exhibit the same tendencies.

Cats can fuck up your home. Cats are worst when it comes to your furniture. A cat will happily allow itself to sharpen its claws on your furniture and ruin it.

Cats are insensitive and selfish creatures. Cats don’t think of anything, except themselves. Cats are essentially selfish creatures, except when it comes to their offspring. But a female cat is again never so protective of its young as a bitch is.

Cats are thieving parasites. A cat’s habit of stealing is legendary. The stealth predator that they are, cats will not hesitate to help itself to your stuff without permission. It’s a cat’s entitled nature to your stuff, as you’ve honored yourself by adopting it.

Cats are narcissistic creatures. A cat spends most of its time eating, exploring (to hunt or steal), sleeping, lazing around and preening itself.

Cats have seductive and feminine allure. Look at the graceful movements of a cat. Observe the lazy seductive stretches of its body. Cats are the natural exhibitors of female sex appeal. Any woman wanting to learn seductive female body language could learn well from observing a cat, and carry herself in a similar fashion. Humans have always been seduced by this appeal of these creatures from history.

Cats make valuable pets — to feminists.

Cats are disloyal creatures. As explained above, cats are only loyal to themselves, not to their masters. Cats are essentially mercenaries.

DOGS:

Dogs are honorable and loyal creatures, exhibiting essentially masculine virtues. A dog’s greatest quality is in its loyalty and honor when it comes to their masters. Dogs will always stick with you watch your back.

Dogs are intelligent, versatile and useful creatures. From guarding your home, giving you company and giving hope to humans in a modern world where the word loyalty has just become a tattoo, dogs are versatile pets. You can train a dog like no other animal.

Dogs are brave creatures. A dog’s bravery is legendary. So much that they were employed in war and domesticated to guard homes and livestock .

Dogs are self sacrificing creatures. A dog may run away when it comes to personal safety, but rarely backs down from danger especially when it comes to the safety of its master. A dog will fight for you and can even die for you. A dog’s spirit is essentially that of self sacrifice.

Dogs love doggy style. And so do men. No brainer there.

Dogs are often ignored, in lieu of cats. This happens usually in households where both the creatures are adopted. The dog’s loyalty and value is often ignored for the parasitical, undeserving and useless cat’s seductive appeal. Dispensable beauty often beats indispensable efficiency. This is just like how men—the indispensable gender necessary for the building of civilization—have become dispensable in modern societies.

A master can fool a dog, but not a cat. Dogs are trusting animals when it comes to their masters. Men are the same when it comes to their women. On the other hand, cats don’t trust you, even if you’ve raised them for long. One act of admonishment is enough for a cat to act as if it’s not your pet. Dogs can be fooled, because they’re essentially forgiving animals. Cats rarely forgive, but expect to be forgiven.

Dogs are sensitive creatures. Especially to a lack of love from their masters.

Dogs are direct and honest animals. A dog’s efforts to gain your attention are direct, not a subtle gauged seduction of you like a cat. But the problem with dogs is that they can’t act feminine and cute like cats to gain your attention. Dogs will lick you, bark at you and act funny so that you notice them. That’s how men are. A man’s sex drive and affections are the same – honest and direct. There is nothing deceptive about his interest in a woman than an erection when he sees her.

Dogs bear responsibility and adversity with fortitude. Dogs were domesticated to guard homes. The role of a guardian is a life of responsibility and peril. Dogs are masters at handling both eventualities with fortitude.

Dogs need freedom. One of the worst things people do to their pet dogs is to tie them up. A dog needs to explore and see the world, or it howls and becomes very aggressive. Dogs live for freedom.

Dogs are patient creatures. Until pushed too far. Cats are essentially impatient, and don’t tolerate unwanted attention at all.

Dogs can be easily assuaged. Your dog’s howling for some fresh air and freedom? Give it some food. Rub it. Dogs can be easily assuaged, and usually settle for little from their masters. A cat will move over to your neighbor’s home to find what it’s not getting from you. Dogs are essentially slave-like, while cats are mercenaries.

Dogs need love, and are receptive to affection. Dogs are happy with little, and need your company all the time. A dog without a master is indeed a sad dog.

Dogs bear responsibility and adversity with fortitude. Dogs were domesticated to guard homes. The role of a guardian is a life of responsibility and peril. Dogs are masters at handling both eventualities with fortitude.

Dogs need freedom. One of the worst things people do to their pet dogs is to tie them up. A dog needs to explore and see the world, or it howls and becomes very aggressive. Dogs live for freedom.

Dogs are patient creatures. Until pushed too far. Cats are essentially impatient, and don’t tolerate unwanted attention at all.

Dogs can be easily assuaged. Your dog’s howling for some fresh air and freedom? Give it some food. Rub it. Dogs can be easily assuaged, and usually settle for little from their masters. A cat will move over to your neighbor’s home to find what it’s not getting from you. Dogs are essentially slave-like, while cats are mercenaries.

Dogs need love, and are receptive to affection. Dogs are happy with little, and need your company all the time. A dog without a master is indeed a sad dog.

The biggest analogy? Just like how dogs do all their life, men chase cats, i.e. women. Even with the reversal of gender roles and tastes in the modern world.

Being called a dog and being called a son of a bitch are two different things. While the latter is essentially offensive and derogatory, being called a dog is essentially honorable if you consider the above points. The Mongols honored dogs in their culture. Genghis Khan famously called his commander Subudei “one of his dogs of war” – not in a derogatory sense, but to compliment Subudei on his loyalty, bravery and honor. Calling someone a cat is derogatory when taking a cat’s parasitical personality into consideration. A dog is an honorable and loyal creature, very much displaying the essence of true masculinity. But like men, it ironically gets the flak despite all its usefulness, so much that it’s name itself becomes a curse word.

Beta programming of modern men has often made them to behave in feminine ways like cats, and feminist modern women are behaving like masculinized bitches. Considering that, this analogy could rather be modified as “Why women were like cats, and men were like dogs.”

JAC #fundie barenakedislam.com

Too right animals hate & recognize evil. I had one particular lucid dreaming experience at my home the Turk caliphate operating in Adelaide since 1987(?) that I’ve been aware of. Anyway the mozlems involved must have been getting some kind of flack – I can’t imagine my neighbours there haven’t picked up on the fact that they are truly evil. They’re all the most violent criminal products of incest imaginable. The mother looks exactly like the wicked witch of the west from the wizard of Oz. They’ve even had an unviable kid, like the Zika kids.

Anyway I met these two dogs only I didn’t realize it was two pups as I only saw one – a terrier type, like Eddie from the Frasier sitcom. There was continuous really loud barking & I assumed it was coming just from the barking terrier.I greeted the little dog being (held hostage) as a guard dog for these moz. This dog absolutely hates them & if it was a big doggie would go straight for the moz jugular. I went to a couple of houses away from my (doggie follows) The dogs had deliberately crapped heavily all over their driveways.

The moz thieves originally lived across the st my home being 17 theirs 6. Its a crescent so naturally the moz think my home number being 17 is meant to be because that’s the amount of prayer cursing they do each session. My home is at the top of the crescent so that’s another meant to be b/s seated at the base of the horns of alla blah blah. I’d preprogrammed my brain in a code so if my head or anything else wants to rely a message it can. In that code any type of excretement means weath based on the past & success.

I had the father from 6 come out & try to behead me w/ a big knife 5-6 times. The he went & got this quite old I don’t know what they’re called by the circular one they use specifically for beheading. He tried to behead me at least another 4 times.I know many of them have murdered before. I bet he actually owns this knife as a family heirloom & they’ve all really used it to actually murder people w/.

Anyway my brother suddenly died of pancreatic cancer (note some dogs & cats can smell cancers) On the eve of his death my brother came to me & took me back to my home & showed that they’d murdered him w/ Islamic black magic but this contradicts what we know that he & my mother – who died suddenly when they were about to steal my home, & I was slapped down on the ground w/ some mystery illness that was like I was dying. The gene will be held responsible, in our minds as we are 21st c 1st world people. But my brother & mother both showed me they were killed by the moz despite their conditions. I also dreamt about their deaths 6mths prior.

Anyway I went to Adelaide for his funeral, so my friend who met the Islamic Hellhounds w/ me knows this is unbelievable but very very real. I’ve discovered Moslems really do have an actual type of rabies. We went to my home. Loud & clear there was the terrier Id described to my friend from my residence in Sydney. Well one dog might just be a coincidence but what shocked me is the house a couple of doors away had a very big dog to. It was this dogs crap too I’d seen in the driveway. I didn’t realize in the lucid dream that I was experiencing actually two dogs, but I had wondered how such a little dog had squeezed out a full driveway of poo.

It takes yrs to adjust & exp to work the dreaming. All of Islamic black magic is heavily dependent on murdering us in the dreaming first. I first witnessed the Taliban do this to two US Marines in Afghanistan. I don’t think the murder succeeded though as I was obviously meant to witness this & block it. They couldn’t see me but one of them I was so close next to him we were in contact & the other marine was next to him. They both recieved the invisible sword chop to the back of their necks. They were in battle behind a mound or some sandbags. As soon as they were struck on the back they were both shot from the front.

So the next day they would’ve both been shot by the Taliban easily. Alway say a good ol prayer before you go to sleep, as we don’t remember up to 90% of our dreams – any time spent unconscious means Moslems can murder you or set up your murder in your sleep. This is the #1 reason mozlems think they know it all. That big dog must’ve not been able to roam or get out from its backyard in its dreams. I’ve met zoo animals that escape the zoos in their dreams.

People may say this is just a bull attack. I say that is highly unlikely. I’d love to have a damn good chin wag w/ these dogs cats & all creatures. Personally the number one reason I reckon dogs in particular but all animals hate them is because they’re supposed to reject species carrying rabies!

BabyFuck McGirlsex #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger incels.co

[JFL] "Female Orgasm" is the reason why you're an incel

By Professor B. McGirlsex, PhD in INCELDOM (Cambridge, UK), M.B.B.S (Kings College, London, UK), BSc (Hons) (APNP)

The female orgasm is the most useless thing on the face of this earth - there is no reason for it to even exist.

* No reproductive function
* No anatomical function

Female orgasm is an evolutionary quirk and is just as useless as

* male nipples
* The appendix
* The tooth fairy
* Females in scientific fields

Foids want to LARP as men, the gender who can have an orgasm every single time they fuck.

Men can fuck a foid, fuck a fleshlight, fuck a mouth, fuck a palm(handjob) e.t.c and they cum every single time!

Meanwhile a foid can have sex for 10 years but not experience even a single orgasm. If nature wanted foids to cum it'll have made it easy for foids to orgasm - but no, its extremely difficult or even impossible for foids to reach "orgasm".

* Scientifically speaking - the only sure way for foids to orgasm is by getting brutally and savagely raped

Fuck these foid cunts - when they cant orgasm they blame men yet its their flawed biology to blame + they shouldnt be cuming in the first place!

Why the mythical non-existant foid orgasm is the reason why you are rotting in Inceldom

* The reason why foids forsake their biological imperative of mating with their looksmatch is because they chase useless things like "foid orgasm". In their warped minds goodlooking = chad = good sex = foid orgasm & ugly = incel = bad sex = no orgasm
* Countless studies and experiments and also a huge wealth of anecdotal evidence have shown that foids are ruthlessly selfish and self serving animals and only care about their pleasures - which is why they dont care that they are perpetuating inceldom at an ungodly rate and would rather chase after "orgasms" than settle for their looksmatch
* The Dogpill exists purely becase of the foids unnecessary need for orgasm. Thats why they choose a canine animal with a grotesque dick to fuck because it takes a lot to get a foid to orgasm. Dogpill almost accurately mimics and simulates rape which is why foids love the dog pill so much. The wild uncoordinated primal thrusts of a dog penis closely resembles those of a rapist thats why the dogpill is soooo appealing. In this futile search for orgasm foids bypass and over look a large number of males who inturn become incels.
* The cock carousel is very appealing to foids because they are forever chasing the elusive foid orgasm. They waste their youth and virginity whilst chasing muh orgasms and they disenfranchise their looksmatchs whilst in this trivial pursuit. These disenfranchised men become incels.

ZETA #fundie thelocal.de

(This happened in 2013.)

As Germany tightened its laws against having sex with animals, zoophile advocates gathered in central Berlin on Friday to fight for their right to choose who, or what, they love. The Local's Jessica Ware reports. Michael Kiok and his partner Cissy have been in a caring relationship for the past seven years, which would be unremarkable if not for the fact that Cissy is a dog.

Angry that Germany wants to criminalize his unusual love affair, Kiok joined other zoophiles at Berlin's Potsdamer Platz on Friday to protest against new legislation banning bestiality.

“I found her advertised in a newspaper after my old dog passed away,” Kiok told The Local, saying the new law was unfair. “We feel like criminals. This is all because of fanatical animal rights demonstrators who think we hurt the animals.” Late last year, Germany's lower house of parliament made having sex with animals a criminal offence carrying a fine of up to €25,000. The upper house, the Bundesrat, signed off on the measures on Friday, as part of a package of measures aimed at bolstering animal protection.

“We are going to appeal to the highest court,” said Kiok, whose hat was covered in Cissy's hair.

He said the all-male group gathered at the protest were all in mutually beneficial relationships with their significant, furry, others and were not – as commonly thought – deviant animal abusers.

Behind Kiok, a female dalmatian nuzzled the lap of a young man as he smiled for photos and answered questions about his lifestyle. His red anorak marked him as a member of ZETA, or Zoophiles Engaging for Tolerance and Enlightenment, a German group lobbying for more acceptance of human-animal relations. The leaflet the organization put together for the protest says that “animals, which have been domesticated by humans for years, see people as pack members – the step from that to sexual partner is not large.”

Kiok said he could not see how he was committing a crime, if an animal is big enough to protect itself from human sexual advances yet still submits willingly. For him it's love, but in a different package. Despite a few early problems with Kiok's many cats, Cissy soon became part of the family and they have been inseparable ever since. Fellow protestor Oliver Bordinski was convinced that the German government had made up damning statistics to pursue its anti-bestiality agenda.

“This has all come from propaganda,” he said. “500,000 animals apparently die from sexual abuse each year, which is complete nonsense.”

He said moralists had a distorted image of all zoophiles violently abusing animals with sex toys. “These are the worst lies,” he said.

Kiok nodded beside him, clutching a bundle of leaflets on bestiality. On the front is an attractive woman nose to nose with a dog. Neither of them were at the protest. “We love animals,” it reads. “We reject any kind of force, violence and abuse and it hurts our souls to see animals suffer.” And this is what ZETA seems so desperate to convey: “We are pro-animal rights but we are being discriminated nevertheless.”

“We cannot do anything about being zoophiles, and so are trying handling our inclinations responsibly,” it concludes.

Bordinski cited societal prejudice as the reason behind the government’s decision. “We are a minority which is being discriminated and we are going to take this to the courts,” he said, adding he will not be made into a criminal for loving his dog.

Another protestor's dog barked for half an hour at a group of actors brought in by ZETA to garner the group some attention. One, dressed in black robes and wig ran around bemused onlookers, waving chunks of raw meat on the bone. With bits of fat in his hair and a fake red nose, what he and a woman dressed as a granny eating a fake rabbit were trying to illustrate was not immediately clear but they did draw a crowd.

On Thursday night, there was a screening of a bestiality documentary “Coming Soon” in Berlin. It was followed by a discussion on leading a zoophilic lifestyle. “I was there but interestingly none of the animal rights activists showed up,” said a smirking Kiok.

“There's one now,” he said, pointing to a woman in an orange neon vest with “animal rights” printed across it. She didn't approach the men, preferring to hand out her own pamphlets to snickering passers-by. Although not zoophiles themselves, the production company behind the movie believes the issue isn't as black-and-white as many people think. “Banning it means that millions of people in Germany are criminalized,” a spokesman from the company told The Local earlier this week. That alone, he said, should make people think about what is or is not a crime.

“It isn't loving animals which is making people freak out,” he said. “It's sexual hysteria.”

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

The movie “For the Bible tells me so” (forthebibletellsmeso.org) was shown in my home community of Flint, Michigan in the fall of 2008 as part of a series of gay events called “Out’N About.” Although the movie was billed as a documentary, it was first and foremost a gay propaganda film.

The movie has two distinct elements to it. The documentary element examines the lives of five homosexuals and how their immediate families responded to their homosexuality. That part of the movie is actually a documentary, interesting, emotionally moving, and somewhat objective. The other part of the movie is pure gay political propaganda arranged to disparage conservative Christians and present the gay political movement as the enlightened possessors of the real truth about homosexuality.
From my observations as a scholar on the gay political movement this movie has the imprint of the gay political organization known as Soulforce (www.soulforce.org).

Soulforce has been a branch of the gay political movement specifically targeting the Bible believing Christian church. Mel White is a cofounder of Soulforce and a prominent leader in the gay political movement. A favorite target of Mel White and Soulforce has been Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family (www.focusonthefamily.com).
The fact that the movie specifically targets Dr. James Dobson and that Dr. Mel White is a predominant spokesperson throughout the movie gives the Soulforce manipulation away. The movie at the time of this writing was featured on the Soulforce website and on the website of America’s largest gay lobbying organization – The Human Rights Campaign. A fifty page study guide comes with the movie to assist in molding the interested convert into an advocate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender equality with heterosexuality.
Besides the deception and lies presented as truths, the gay theology espoused in the film claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior is considered by many a self-serving concoction. It would take a whole book to accurately address all the deception and lies in the propaganda part of the movie, so I will select instances that best support my accusations.
Scientific lies and deception
Like most gay propaganda the movie begins its justification of homosexuality by contending that homosexuality is not something that is not chosen.

Conservative Christians knowledgeable on homosexuality, including ex-gays, and psychotherapists who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, agree that clinical science has shown that homosexual attractions are not usually something that an individual chooses. That there is agreement on this point is never brought up in gay propaganda and it is not acknowledged in the movie. Instead Christians, ex-gays, and therapists who disagree with the gay worldview are shown as ninnies who ignore this and other clinical facts. Knowledgeable Christians, ex-gays, and therapists do distinguish between attractions and behavior, and most certainly maintain that individuals have a choice of whether or not they engage in any form of sexual behavior. This distinction is never mentioned in gay propaganda or the movie.

Gay propaganda and clinical science diverge after the fact that homosexuals do not choose their attractions to the same sex. Using that fact as a premise gay propaganda and the movie conclude that homosexuality is an innate condition that is unchangeable and therefore equivalent to heterosexuality. The movie specifically states that “sexual orientation cannot be changed or prevented.”

There are no facts to support the innate theory, so the movie shows a cartoon series that mocks the clinical evidence on the causal factors of homosexuality and sexual orientation change. What researchers have found is that male homosexuals usually have had past experiences of prolonged rejection by the same sex parent and same sex peers throughout childhood. As a child the homosexual never felt he was a part of his gender group, and the longing to be part of the group and the mystery of the same sex turned into same-sex attractions at puberty. This is not always the causal route to male homosexuality, but it has been documented enough to be referred to as the standard causal route.

Clinical science has also documented hundreds of cases where homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation. The evidence is overwhelming. The movie claims ex-gay organizations and psychotherapists use shame and guilt to coax homosexuals to repress their true feelings, thereby presenting ex-gay organizations as a sham and destructive to the mental well being of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that ex-gay organizations like Exodus International (www.exodus.to) offer real hope to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Many individuals have overcome homosexual behavior and desires. A significant percentage have changed their sexual orientation, married a person of the opposite sex, and raised families.
A sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual is partly a reparative process and partly a cognitive process. Motivation is the main part of the cognitive process. The motivation usually comes from religious beliefs, aspirations of a heterosexual marriage, and from a fact that gay propaganda avoids like the plague, which is that many who enter the gay world find its lifestyle very destructive. The main part of the reparative process is to understand and deal with the memories and hurt of same-sex rejection in childhood. Often there was sexual abuse that contributed to the unwanted same-sex attractions. This short introduction on the causal factors of homosexuality is more accurate than the sum of all the causal information in the movie. The movie mocks this knowledge, and in doing so mocks the truth.

Theological lies and deception

A Rev. Keene makes the statement in the movie that “All loving relationships are honored in the Bible.” This is an easily refutable lie. In the same chapter of Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned there are a number of family related sexual relationships that are prohibited. Surely sexual relationships between close relatives can be loving relationships, yet contrary to Mr. Keene they are condemned. Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” There is no insinuation that if a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman in a loving relationship, then it is equal to a heterosexual loving relationship.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul was informed of a man in the Corinth church who was in a loving relationship with his stepmother. Paul told the church in Corinth to “Expel the wicked man from among you” (I Corinthians 5:13). In another incidence John the Baptist was martyred for saying that it was immoral for King Herod to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). Mr. Keene’s statement is a fabrication of what he wants the Bible to say.

Mr. Keene’s statement is also a misrepresentation of gay and liberal morality. Liberal sexual morality is based on consensual sex and is not dependent on a loving relationship or marriage. In general consensual sex without love in this moral code is as just as moral as sex in a loving relationship.
The movie presents many arguments of the new gay theology. The most amusing is “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” The answer is “nothing,” if one ignores his comparison of the destruction of Sodom and the fate of those who did not repent after seeing miracles and hearing the gospel message (Luke 10:12). The sin of bestiality (humans having sex with animals), which happens to be listed in Leviticus 18:23 right after homosexuality, was not mentioned by Jesus in the written record of the gospels. If we use the gay logic that because Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not immoral, then the same logic applies to bestiality, and it too is no longer immoral behavior.

When one examines Satan’s appearance in the Bible as a serpent in the Garden of Eden or tempting Jesus in the wilderness, it becomes evident that Satan’s method of persuasion is to present half truths. Likewise gay propaganda often persuades with half truths. One such instance in the movie was the gay theological argument that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the city was steeped in homosexual behavior, but because it was inhospitable.
The half truth that gay theology presents is that Sodom was indeed inhospitable to the two angels sent to their city in the form of handsome young men. Instead of welcoming the strangers, the men of Sodom sought to anally rape the young men. What the movie does not reveal is that in the ancient world accepted homosexual behavior was not two men of the same sex in a loving reciprocal relationship. It was a dominate man sodomizing a subordinate man or youth, usually a slave or captive from a battle. It was considered a humiliation for a man to be sodomized in any type of relationship.
In a related half truth the movie states that pederasty (an adult man sodomizing an adolescent male) is not homosexuality. It is true that pederasty is considered a specific sexual orientation in itself, but it is definitely a form of homosexuality. Intellectual elites in Ancient Greece during the time of Plato and Socrates considered arranged pederasty relationships the most preferred of all loving relationships. In the late 1980s gay authors Kirk and Madsen referred to the pederasty relationships of ancient Greece as the “traditional gay family.” The values of the Grecian society allowed the free man to not only have sexual relations with his wife, but also prostitutes, both female and male slaves, and a young free man to whom he would also be a mentor. When the young free man became an adult the pederasty relationship ended, because it was dishonorable for a man to be sodomized or have effeminate characteristics.

Deception in the storytelling

The five families featured in the movie were rated as to how supportive they were to their gay child. One family, the Reitans, was given the distinction of being “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Advocates.” In the movie the family is shown taking part in a Soulforce sponsored demonstration at the Focus on the Family facility in Colorado Springs. With his parents at his side the gay child, Jake, makes the accusation that Focus on the Family teaches parents to reject their children.

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide.

The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships.
Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation.

Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach.

Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide.

Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so.
Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

Laurie Higgins #fundie barbwire.com

Homosexuals assert that marriage is constituted solely by love and has no inherent connection to sexual differentiation or the children who may result from conjugal coupling. Furthermore, homosexuals believe that it is the presence of love that not only makes a union a marriage but that justifies government involvement in it.

[...]

If marriage were constituted solely by love and the government were in the odd business of recognizing and affirming love, then why not recognize and affirm all forms of love by granting marriage licenses even to those in loving non-erotic relationships? What possible relevance to the government is inherently sterile erotic activity? What is the relevance of private, subjective, romantic feelings and inherently sterile erotic activity to any public purposes of marriage and therefore to the government's involvement with marriage?

When "progressives" argue that marriage is constituted solely by love and commitment and that it has no inherent connection to procreation, then they have to explain why two brothers should not be permitted to marry. Why shouldn't five people of assorted genders (or no gender) who love each other be permitted to marry? Why shouldn't the non-erotic relationship between BFF's be considered a "marriage"?

[...]

But if reproductive-type sexual activity (i.e., coitus) is irrelevant to government interest in marriage then surely all non-reproductive types of erotic activity are equally irrelevant. And if all sexual/erotic activity is irrelevant to the government's interest in marriage, then logically those in relationships constituted by any and all forms of love must be permitted to "marry."

As homosexuals continually and rightly assert, men and women are objectively and substantively different, and those differences are anatomical, biological, emotional, and psychological. A homoerotic union is as different from a heterosexual union as men are from women. A heterosexual union is different from a homoerotic union in objective ways pertaining to the procreation, needs, and rights of any children that may result from the type of sex act in which only men and women can engage. This type of union matters to government.

[...]

A man and a woman who engage in reproductive-type sexual activty (i.e., coitus) and conceive a child are in reality married because the central defining features of marriage are sexual differentiation and coitus. Marriage has a nature that predates the existence of formal legal institutions. Opposite-sex couples aren't married because the government issues them a license. The government issues them a license to formalize marriage, which becomes actualized through conjugal unions - not through inherently sterile mutual masturbatory activity. Couples who engage in conjugal activity prior to acquiring a marriage license are in reality married. It isn't the government that creates marriage. Government merely recognizes and regulates a type of union that in reality exists. We call that type of union marriage.

Since government does not create marriage, it cannot un-create or recreate it. Thus, legally allowing two people of the same-sex to "marry" does not mean they're married in anything other than a legal (de jure) sense. They are not married in reality because in reality marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation, and without which a union is not marital.

If some silly government officials decided to issue dog licenses to cats because both dogs and cats have fur and four legs, some citizens - it is hoped - would recognize that dogs are in reality not cats because cats have natures that don't change because the government issues a license.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

You've got so-called “poor” people all across America who have color TV, video games and always have a pack of cigarettes on them. They are not truly poor. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you're poor.

Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001) was poor when he grew up in west Texas during The Great Depression. His mother used to send him to the butcher to ask for a soup-bone for the dog. The butcher knew that they were poor and would regularly give them a soup-bone with a little extra meat on it, and then his mother would prepare dinner for them with that soup-bone. Dr. Hyles didn't have a bicycle until his sister got a job and bought him one when he was age 13. He didn't eat an egg, use a flushable toilet or eat a hamburger until he turned 15. That's poverty! Brother Hyles' childhood poverty was the driving force behind his passion to send hundreds of church buses every Sunday for decades throughout the Chicagoland area to reach poor boys and girls for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Today's spoiled Americans think they're poor if they can't afford a second car or a pair of expensive Jordan sneakers. Do you want to hear some really tragic statistics? It makes me cry. It was reported this week by TIME magazine that Americans spend $56,000,000,000 each year on their pets. $56 BILLION A YEAR!!! The cost to support a missionary and his family is $50,000 a year. For $56,000,000,000 a year Americans could send out and support 1,200,000 Christian missionaries with that money we spend on some stupid animals (sorry, I mean beloved pets).

theIdi0t #fundie christianforums.com

Because the fruit that Adam and Eve ate, corrupted humanity's DNA, as sin was passed along to further generations by natural procreation. Since Jesus shared his DNA with the Divine father, through his unnatural procreation, his DNA did not have the sin gene, and this granted his spiritual descendants the ability to rid themselves of their sin gene, by being born again.

This is why "True" Christians don't sin as much as the not so true Christians, and those Hitler loving atheist.

Glenn Miller #racist whty.org

White women do what white men permit. This is now, and always has been, a fact of nature and history. Today, this fact is painfully obvious to everyone with good eyesight. Our women have become whores for the world, thanks to Jewish created "popular culture" and Jewish corrupted judges, and politicians, who over the decades, have thrown out all laws designed by our forefathers to insure racial survival and the White man's authority over his women, children, country, and destiny.

The phrase Women and minorities this, and Women and minorities that, are repeated by the media, causing many of our women to believe they have more in common with colored men than with their own.

The so-called Women's Rights Movement would never have come about without the Jews. The original movers of this anti-White conspiracy were Gloria Steinem, Belia Abzug, and Betty Freidan, all Jews. Gullible White women believe these Jews have their interests at heart, but in reality, these fanatical, Aryan-hating pied-piper bitches are working to further the Jewish agenda. Weaken the White man. Divide and conquer. Divide the White man from the White woman so there will be fewer of both in the future.

As a direct consequence of Jewish mind programming, and White male cowards, our women and girls by the tens of millions have wallowed naked with sub-humans. And millions have given birth to mixed-breed offspring in scenes too nauseating to imagine without puking. These unnatural offspring grow up identifying with their colored side and hating their White parents. Mother nature gets her sweet revenge.

The White man has become so confused, guilt-ridden, and cowardly, he either applauds this traitorous behavior of his women, or pretends he doesn't notice it.

The Jews-media keeps our youth in a constant state of heat. They satanically exploit nature's strong demand upon youth to procreate. And, those who deny the intense power of this demand have simply forgotten what it's like to be young. Catering to the lowest urges of man, the Jews bring out the very worse in human nature. And any family not insulted every ten minutes by Jew television has lost their sense of decency.

Nature screams procreate! And the Jews-media screams procreate with any two legged featherless creature, regardless of race, color, brain size, or nose width.

White men, not to be outdone by their women, bed down with colored women, accelerating even more rapidly their own racial demise. The reason one doesn't see more White men and Black women together in public is because Whitey fears the Black man. Asian women are safer. Asian men don't make a fuss when seeing their women on the arms of White men. A big Jewish-promoted fad now is mail-order brides. Thick catalogues filled with photos of young third-world women offering themselves in marriage are widely publicized throughout the western world. Plane loads of lonely, horny old white men arrive daily in India, the Philippines, and South East Asia to meet their mongrel brides-to-be. And the Jews wring their hands in giddiness and delight at the success of yet another scheme to exterminate the hated White Aryan Race and make fortunes in the process from their victims. The White man finances his own destruction.

Meanwhile Whitey Joe and Jill Six-pack smoke their dope and watch MTV or the Negroes playing ball on television, their minds void of thought not put there by the Jews.

LonelyDalek #fundie reddit.com

I think humans are flawed beings, and are still animals. We are only 1.5% away from being a chimp. So while we try to rationalize our opinions and decisions, a lot of it is driven by our instincts and biology. The basic goal of biology is self-preservation and procreation. Males’ role in the ancient nomadic life-style was that of hunters and gatherers – so men’s biology leans towards self-preservation a little more. As humans started organizing into small groups and then into societies, the definition of ‘self’ in self-preservation expanded to include everyone else that belong to the same group as them. Being self-preservation-oriented thus came to mean to guard those of their own and to destroy any threats. So men became more comfortable being in violent situations, and engaging in life-risking behaviors. The negative side of male nature, if there is one, is this: being open to violence, that we’d let a confrontation escalate to fists being thrown, because we really don’t find much of a problem with punching our differences out. The primary victims of male nature, thus, are not the other gender. It is those who’ll stand in our way to securing a safe future.

However, it is a different case when it comes to women. The primary victims of female nature ARE men. Women’s nature is procreation oriented, because it is their bodies that carry the wombs to gestate and deliver the next generation. It seeks to secure a stable inflow of resources while being incapacitated in the process of child-rearing. This makes men,the resource-procurers, the primary targets of female nature. In this paradigm of things, there is no incentive for the women to actually give a damn about the well-being of the man/men providing for her; in fact, it is in her best interest to not be attached to a single man in particular, but keep monkey-branching to a stronger, better provider.

Lionesses don’t particularly care when the male of the pride is killed by a new, younger male and then kills the cubs. They go on about like nothing’s changed. most women are not evil, they are un-empathetic to men’s plight, and heartlessly oblivious to our suffering.

So, naturally we have the odds against us, but the gynocentric westerns society turns it up several notches. Every harmful aspect of male nature are restrained and kept well-checked by the law. That’s why most men are not murderers, though many men are perfectly capable of murder. Any and every aspect of male nature that’s unsuitable for the modern civilized life have been outlawed, with severe repercussions if engaged-in.
But no such social or legal protection exists against harmful aspects of female nature- women’s tendency to take advantage of men, their actions that drive men to harm themselves and others, and the systems built over men’s corpses for the exclusive benefit of women. Combine this with the fact that women are unsympathetic towards men, and we have the perfect recipe for disaster. Women are oblivious to the harms they cause, and any voice trying to educate them are muffled and marginalized, and women are encouraged to engage in their careless ways by the society, of course, at the expense of men. So, no, I don’t hate women…. they are just completely, and irredeemably unlovable.

The only logical thing for men to do is to educate themselves and each other, and stay away from women as much as possible. Find ways to discipline one’s sexual neediness- through practices like martial arts, meditation or things like working out that’ll leave you too tired to be horny. But what ever you do- do not touch a female with a (your) ten-foot pole.

TonyN #fundie iidb.org

Well, if humans came from apes then we should be backward compatible. You can made a dog with a wolf and a wolf with a dog. You can't mate a human with an ape or any of their genus i.e., monkies, chimps, orangutans, etc.

Mankind did not evolve from monkeys or apes.

[unknown] #sexist shameshack.tumblr.com

image
[Transcript: "So mens obsession with their damn sperm... life juice the seed of life bla bla. It's gotta go EVERYWHERE, gotta mark the territory and belongings (gf, wife, partner etc).
I wish I squirted period blood everytime I had an orgasm, then let's see what guys think getting lumpy body juice (#lifejuice) all over their crotch, legs, stomach, back, feet, knees, face INSIDETHEEYEOMGTHEPAIN and nose without warning or effort to clean up of course. The only difference is that period blood tastes nice.
#blooood #period #metoo #mens"]

Carico #fundie christianforums.com

Bestiality

Since evolutionists believe that humans are animals, then they must believe that sex between humans is bestiality. Is that correct?

Sorry evo's but everyone knows what a human has to mate with in order to engage in bestiality. So you're not fooling anyone except those who are also fooling themselves, by claiming that humans are animals. Even children can tell the difference bewteen animals and humans and deep down inside, I think evolutionists really can also. So your game is exposed.

Christian Answers #fundie christiananswers.net

The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are “coming out” and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.

Many homosexuals’ claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else’s business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)

Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said…

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by “gay rights” activists in support of their argument2Hamer’s X-chromosome research,3 LeVay’s study of the hypothalamus,4 and Bailey and Pillard’s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.5

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, “the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results.”6 There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior and the law rightly holds them accountable.

The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality states “that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity… This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity.”7 The report affirms that “the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin.”7

The foundational teaching on marriage and sexual issues is found in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. When Jesus was questioned about marriage, He referred to these 2 chapters (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). Genesis teaches us that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). We were created to a plan, male and female complementing each other. That is, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve.

Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25). There are a number of reasons why He did so.

The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality.

The combination of male and female enables man (and the animals) to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17).

But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms “that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation.”7

Thirdly, God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman’s role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising, God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that “homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi’s Sarcoma and AIDS.”1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8

Effect on others

Secular psychologists assure us that “children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity.”6 The humanists have, however, forgotten one important ingredient.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

You cannot faithfully teach God’s Word to your children while living a lifestyle specifically condemned by God’s Word. All Christians are sinners forgiven by God’s grace, but living in a homosexual relationship constitutes habitual, unrepented sin.

Nobody else’s business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody’s business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God’s authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Equally valid?

Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g., 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g,. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another…” (Romans 1:26-27).

The Greek word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

Some people claim that the sin involved in Sodom was rejecting hospitality customs or selfishness rather than homosexual behavior. Certainly, the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their reported sin was grievous to God (Genesis 18:20). God sent angels to Sodom and…

“Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4-5).

“While it is true that the Hebrew word yadha does not necessarily mean ‘to have sex with,’ nonetheless in the context of Sodom and Gommorah, it clearly had this meaning. …It means ‘to know sexually’ in this very chapter when Lot refers to his two daughters not having “known” a man (19:8).”9 You would not offer virgins to appease a mob if their sin was lack of hospitality, but only if their desire was sexual.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 condemns Sodom for its selfishness with regard to poverty, etc., this does not contradict its condemnation for homosexual practices. “The very next verse of Ezekiel (verse 50) calls their sin an ‘abomination.’ This is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual sins in Leviticus 18:22.”10

It is also used in Scripture to describe such things like the practice of offering children to Moloch, but never such things as mere selfishness or lack of hospitality. Even in legal parlance, the word used to refer to one aspect of homosexual practice is ‘sodomy.’

Another argument is that Jonathon and David were homosexuals as “Jonathan loved David” (1 Sam. 18:3), that Jonathan stripped in David’s presence (18:4), [and] that they kissed each other (20:41).11

However, “David’s love for Jonathan was not sexual (erotic) but a friendship (philic) love. And Jonathan did not strip himself of all his clothes, but only of his armor and royal robe (1 Sam. 18:4).”12 Also, a kiss was a normal greeting in that day, such as when Judas kissed Jesus. In several cultures today, men normally greet each other with a kiss, too. Further, David’s love for his wives, especially Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), clearly reveals his heterosexual orientation.

Isaiah 56:3 states that eunuchs will not be excluded from God’s presence (“my temple”), but practicing homosexuals are not eunuchs. Eunuchs have no sexual relations at all.

Other Scriptural arguments for homosexuality can similarly be easily refuted. It is clear that heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage sanctioned in the Bible and that homosexual practice is always condemned.

[See: What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer]

Punishment

The Bible not only describes homosexual behavior as detestable, but it also calls for the punishment of those involved (Leviticus 20:13). Their unrepentant attitude caused God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-25).

Just as homosexual conduct has been punished in the past, so it will also be punished by God in the future.

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Hope

However, there is hope for the homosexual. God forgives and cleanses a person who repents and turns from their sin, including the sin of homosexual behavior (1 Corinthians 6:11). As well as forgiveness, God’s grace brings with it the power to live a life that is pleasing to God (Romans 6:6-7). If repentance and reform are genuine, prior homosexual actions should not be a bar to church membership or ministry, as all Christians are reformed sinners.

“Liberal” churches espouse tolerance of homosexual behavior in the name of “love.” They plug for the acceptance of homosexual conduct as normal, “because they can’t help it.” They are not only wrong about the latter, but they are actually not being at all loving towards homosexuals, because, contrary to the Bible, they reduce the homosexual person to the level of an animal, driven by instinct. In removing moral responsibility from the person, they dehumanize them, whereas the Bible says we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), with the power of moral choice.

Furthermore, the gospel proclaims liberation from the bondage of sin, including homosexual sin, whereas the “liberals” tell the homosexual that they cannot help it, and they can’t help them either, so they will accept them as they are! However, many a person has been gloriously rescued from the bondage of homosexual sin (and other sin) by the power of the Holy Spirit, but only Bible-believing Christians can offer such hope.

Conclusion

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

Red #racist stormfront.org

From what I am hearing, they are telling these kids what to say so America is sympathetic to them. It's all B.S. These illegals are using their OWN children to commit a crime, which is coming here!! I love my own before I give two sh.ts about somebody else's drama, we all have our own, I say to hell with them all. It's a doggie dog world and if I have to bite, I sure in the hell will! THIS IS MY COUNTRY, NOT YOURS. These pathetic piece of ****.ts.

Frances Kelly #fundie joemygod.blogspot.com

Gender segregationists will be extremely disappointed when they finally realize how many wedges they created by advocating for separate marriage for genders. There's the wedge between evangelicals and the gay agenda. The wedge between Catholics and gender-segregated 'marriage.' The wedge between parents and homosexual propaganda in school. The wedge between businesses and their money when they are sued by monogender couples. The wedge between freedom of religion, and coercing people of faith to obey new gender-segregating marriage laws. The wedge between procreative biology, and the infertility of two 'married' men. Which came first, the pro-gender position or the wedge? For millennia, people have honored gender integration in marriage. Don't blame NOM. Gay rights activists are the ones pushing segregation. The biggest wedge of all is separating men and women in marriage.

holocaust21 #fundie holocaust21.wordpress.com

9 Reasons Why Child Porn Laws Are Evil

When I started writing this article I couldn’t believe how many reasons I could come up with as to why child pornography laws are totally wrong. So without further ado, it’s time to abolish this offence from our legal statutes; and here’s no less than 9 reasons why:-

1. Child abuse images are completely legal, while child porn images are not

Imagine, hypothetically, you came across a video on the internet that featured a seedy man in a dark room with a big, sharp hammer. The man had a look of pure evil in his eyes and in a corner of the room hudled a young girl. The man slowly took a step towards her, ‘I’m going to hit you’ he said softly. The girl had a look of terror on her face. He shook his hammer in the air and she reflexively put her hands around her head. ‘I’m going to kill you’ he said louder taking another step. He lifted his hammer high up in the air. Suddenly the child made a desperate bid to run away but he grabbed her and struck a blow to her skull. Her skull could be seen to be smashed and blood poured out. The camera showed him hitting her again and again and again until there was nothing left other than a lifeless decapitated mess on the floor. Then the video ended.

Would you have not thought that such a horrific video would be illegal and probably classed as level 5 child porn (the most severe)?

Think again.

In reality extreme child abuse images like those depicted above are completely legal. Why? Because it is not sexual. It is horrific violence. In our society violence and abuse are celebrated while sex, love and affection are criminalised.

A man possessing bath photos of 5 year old girls would receive years, even decades, in prison. A man possessing the hypothetical video above would not receive even a single day behind bars.

And this is the legal situation that our hateful and vindictive politicians support.

As Orwell might have said: Our politicians have redefined Child Abuse to be Child Love and Child Love to be Child Abuse.

2. Child porn is not child abuse

Not only are the most horrific child abuse images completely legal and not considered to be child porn, but most of what counts as child pornography does not even depict child abuse.

Let us examine the definitions of child pornography under the COPINE scale (or SAP scale as it is more accurately referred to), this is the scale typically used by the police when measuring the ‘severity’ of a child porn image. It goes from level 1 (least severe) to level 5 (most severe).

By examining the definitions of child porn on the COPINE scale we find that child pornography images levels 1 – 4 are categorically NOT abuse images. This is because level 1 covers bath photos and levels 2 – 4 cover sexual activity only, no mention of violence is made. As we know from the RIND meta study, which analysed some 59 other studies it found that sexual activity with children does not usually cause harm, contrary to contemporary feminist dogma.

Any image in which pain is implied is automatically elevated to level 5 on the COPINE scale. This does not, however, imply that level 5 images always involve pain. This is because any image with an animal involved in any way at all would also count as level 5. Nor does it imply that any image involving pain is level 5 – as discussed above an image of a child being brutally murdered would not be considered child pornography at all despite that being the most horrific thing that can happen to a person.

3. Child porn is a thought crime

Child porn is a thought crime. It involves no actions. Merely being a curious individual and seeking possession of a single image can result in decades behind bars. This is the same way that possession of a blank book would have resulted in 20 years behind bars in the novel 1984. The creation of thought crime legislation is the primary indicator of a full blown totalitarian state.

No harm is ever committed in having thoughts, even bad or dangerous ones. If people cannot express and discuss their thoughts then they will in many cases suffer in silence and in other cases explode in outbursts of extreme violence such as, for example, virgin killers like Elliot Rodger.

4. Criminalising any image is an affront to democracy

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are essential components of a democracy.

Child pornography laws undermine freedom of expression. Possessing and distributing child porn is free expression.

The consequences of undermining freedom of expression cannot be understated. A country without freedom of expression cannot be a democracy. Without an informed and educated electorate the voters are merely sheep voting based only on what they are allowed to know. However, if they were provided with the full facts then they would have come to wildly different voting decisions.

In essence the society we live in today is a pseudo-democracy. A society where an uninformed and ignorant electorate vote. This leads to tyranny. Already we can see this with the massive escalation of child porn and child sex sentences worldwide and its associated age of consent dogma. The belief that sexual activity with anyone below the age of consent is always horrific abuse is caused in part by the criminalisation of child pornography i.e. the removal of evidence that breaking age of consent laws does not cause harm in and of itself.

It is modern day book burning.

As older folk who lived in more tolerant times die out the society becomes increasingly ignorant to the point that reality becomes entirely warped, as is happening with the Savile affair in Britain, including absurd claims that he engaged in necrophilia.

The road to tyranny is then well and truly laid.

5. Banning one thing leads to the ‘slippery slope’ effect of banning everything

As soon as one thing is banned it then becomes acceptable to start banning more things until even you are classed as a serious organised criminal, sex offender or terrorist (if you aren’t already).

This is already happening with the expanding definition of child pornography. For example, in the UK it was initially limited to children under 16. Then it got expanded to ‘children’ under 18, despite the age of consent still being 16. Laws were then introduced to criminalise not only ‘real’ images but also cartoon drawings. So-called ‘extreme pornography’ which included adults engaging in bestiality or BDSM also became criminalised. And now, images of women pretending to be raped is in the process of being criminalised.

This of course ignores the onslaught of anti-terrorist legislation, which makes glorifying terrorism illegal and has some extreme double standards. The terrorist murder of Osama Bin Laden for instance, glorified by the mainstream media, was not seen as criminal whilst calling for genocidal politicians from the American or British regimes to be hung, drawn and quartered would be. And let us not even get into the minefield of ‘hate speech’ legislation – such as ‘anti-racist’ speech…

The bottom line is that banning has become endemic to our political class. They will only ever be satisfied once everything is criminalised and the entire population live in cages.

6. Child porn laws undermine the rule of law

The rule of law is essential to a peaceful society where random violence is minimised. The state must not be able to arbitrarily arrest people just because they can. There must be the appropriate checks and balances.

Child pornography laws allow the arbitrary arrest of just about anyone. Anyone who has ever used the internet can easily be raided by the police on suspicion of possessing or distributing child pornography. All that is needed for a conviction is for the police to find one single thumbnail image. Such an image can often be placed in a defendant’s possession without their knowledge as a consequence of computer viruses, accidental website hits as well as vengeful colleagues, friends and wives who deliberately frame an individual. Even if the defendent accidentally came across the image and deleted it immediately the police can still find it, charge and convict the man for a thought crime offence.

This process can also lead to ‘selective enforcement’ in other words those who stand up against the prevailing ideology or police state would be automatically raided by the police and likely found to be in possession of child porn. On the otherhand, high ranking paedofinder general politicians would never be raided even though they probably possess more child porn than anyone else (they need to behave like paedofinder generals to reduce their risk of arrest, afterall).

7. Child porn laws are so excessively broad that they effectively rape children of their childhood

Child pornography laws are now so broad that even non-nude images can count as child porn. The paedohysterical atmosphere has resulted in a climate so extreme that schools frequently ban parents from photographing their own children. This means that youth growing up today will not have any photos of their childhood. Their childhood is essentially stolen from them by the police state. And worst of all, children are prevented from learning about life (like playing on the streets, as kids used to do) and from forming normal relationships with adults (especially men).

In essence, child pornography laws and our paedohysterical atmosphere effectively rape children of their childhood by stealing from them what past generations took for granted.

8. Banning child porn allows child rapists and child abusers to walk free

It is a well known fact that police officers are lazy. They like to go for the easiest to lynch people. There is no one easier to lynch than sexting teenagers. Often unaware that what they are doing is even illegal they become an easy catch for the paedophile unit. The propagation of child pornography and age of consent laws means that making arrests is like shooting fish in a barrel. And amongst the fish, big bad fish can hide and not be shot because they are not the targets.

Criminalising low-level, harmless consensual sexual behaviour results in kind and harmless individuals being piled up in prison whilst real violent thugs and rapists are free to abuse and rape again.

9. Those who seek to ban child pornography are all paedophiles themselves anyway

Much like many in the Nazi party were homosexuals many of our legislators, especially anti child pornography legislators, are infact paedophiles themselves. Take the arrest of Cameron’s close aide Patrick Rock on suspected child pornography charges as an example of this.

One arrest you say? Just a bad apple? How about the revelations that some senior cabinet ministers in Tony Blair’s former government were believed to be fapping off to child porn? Not only that, but the government issued D-Notices to the mainstream media to stop them reporting on the story. And they all obeyed.

What does this, in essence, mean? It means that what is commonly called ‘paedophilia’ is really normal male sexuality. It means that our politicians are all a bunch of hypocrites who criminalise normal male sexuality in order to endlessly increase their power. And then they break their own laws. They are opportunistic bastards.

Already more and more people are starting to talk about ‘paedophiles in high places’. I can only but guess that some of this is because the population are getting sick of paedophile hysteria yet they are too scared or too stupid to point out that the laws themselves are the problem.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"

Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.

The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.

got question #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Why did God condone such terrible violence in the Old Testament?"

Answer: The fact that God commanded the killing of entire nations in the Old Testament has been the subject of harsh criticism from opponents of Christianity for some time. That there was violence in the Old Testament is indisputable. The question is whether Old Testament violence is justifiable and condoned by God. In his bestselling book The God Delusion, atheist Richard Dawkins refers to the God of the Old Testament as “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.” Journalist Christopher Hitchens complains that the Old Testament contains a warrant for “indiscriminate massacre.” Other critics of Christianity have leveled similar charges, accusing Yahweh of “crimes against humanity.”

But are these criticisms valid? Is the God of the Old Testament a “moral monster” who arbitrarily commands genocide against innocent men, women, and children? Was His reaction to the sins of the Canaanites and the Amalekites a vicious form of “ethnic cleansing” no different from atrocities committed by the Nazis? Or is it possible that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for ordering the destruction of these nations?

A basic knowledge of Canaanite culture reveals its inherent moral wickedness. The Canaanites were a brutal, aggressive people who engaged in bestiality, incest, and even child sacrifice. Deviant sexual acts were the norm. The Canaanites’ sin was so repellent that God said, “The land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). Even so, the destruction was directed more at the Canaanite religion (Deuteronomy 7:3–5,12:2-3) than at the Canaanite people per se. The judgment was not ethnically motivated. Individual Canaanites, like Rahab in Jericho, could still find that mercy follows repentance (Joshua 2). God's desire is that the wicked turn from their sin rather than die (Ezekiel 18:31-32, 33:11).

Besides dealing with national sins, God used the conquest of Canaan to create a religious/historical context in which He could eventually introduce the Messiah to the world. This Messiah would bring salvation not only to Israel, but also to Israel’s enemies, including Canaan (Psalm 87:4-6; Mark 7:25–30).

It must be remembered that God gave the Canaanite people more than sufficient time to repent of their evil ways—over 400 years (Genesis 15:13–16)! The book of Hebrews tells us that the Canaanites were “disobedient,” which implies moral culpability on their part (Hebrews 11:31). The Canaanites were aware of God's power (Joshua 2:10–11; 9:9) and could have sought repentance. Except in rare instances, they continued their rebellion against God until the bitter end.

But didn’t God also command the Israelites to kill non-combatants? The biblical record is clear that He did. Here again, we must remember that, while it is true the Canaanite women did not fight, this in no way means they were innocent, as their seductive behavior in Numbers 25 indicates (Numbers 25:1–3). However, the question still remains: what about the children? This is not an easy question to answer, but we must keep several things in mind. First, no human person (including infants) is truly innocent. The Scripture teaches that we are all born in sin (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). This implies that all people are morally culpable for Adam’s sin in some way. Infants are just as condemned from sin as adults are.

Second, God is sovereign over all of life and can take it whenever He sees fit. God and God alone can give life, and God alone has the right to take it whenever He so chooses. In fact, He ultimately takes every person's life at death. It is not our life to begin with but God’s. While it is wrong for us to take a life, except in instances of capital punishment, war, and self-defense, this does not mean that it is wrong for God to do so. We intuitively recognize this when we accuse some person or authority who takes human life as "playing God." God is under no obligation to extend anyone's life for even another day. How and when we die is completely up to Him.

Third, an argument could be made that it would have been cruel for God to take the lives of all the Canaanites except the infants and children. Without the protection and support of their parents, the infants and small children were likely to face death anyway due to starvation. The chances of survival for an orphan in the ancient Near East were not good.

Finally, and most importantly, God may have provided for the salvation for those infants who would not have otherwise attained salvation if they had lived into adulthood. We must remember that the Canaanites were a barbarous and evil culture. If those infants and children had lived into adulthood, it is very likely they would have turned into something similar to their parents and been condemned to hell after they died. If all infants and young children who die before an age of moral accountability go straight to heaven (as we believe), then those children are in a far better place than if God had allowed them to live and grow to maturity in a depraved culture.

Surely, the issue of God commanding violence in the Old Testament is difficult. However, we must remember that God sees things from an eternal perspective, and His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8–9). The apostle Paul tells us that God is both kind and severe (Romans 11:22). While it is true that God's holy character demands that sin be punished, His grace and mercy remain extended to those who are willing to repent and be saved. The Canaanite destruction provides us with a sober reminder that, while our God is gracious and merciful, He is also a God of holiness and wrath.

PearlGirl #racist instapunk.com

Jen - I know that you are a Nigger/Kike, due to your inability to refrain from posting the most obscen imagery - but your Bubba goes down on her knees to swallow nigger jizz. Don't impose the depravities of your filthy, leprous garbage relatives, on mine. My people never degraded themselves with such heinous, Satanic deeds. My ancestors are English - which means pure genetics for 10 thousand years.

Please attempt to refrain from your genetic imperative of absolutely pornographic filth. God - you are a dieases ridden skank, probably dripping with AIDS. I suppose I should feel sorry for you - but your illnesses will take their course, and you will be dead soon. End Stage HIV is such a grotesque spectacle.............but do try to infect as many of your own as you can........ thanks.

Our of Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313005.stm

Look, you febrile whore - more evidence is emrging every day that the shitskin Muds, and Humans, have no relationship with each other.

How does it feel to know that your ancestors engaged in bestiality? Must make you feel sad....unless you like it that way.

StevenR #fundie simplychristian.referata.com

Darwinism is a false religion founded by atheist Charles Darwin, because Darwin decided that he wanted to violate God's natural laws and engage in bestiality with a monkey. Darwinism assumes that the world is billions of years old, as is the universe, and that everything came out of a little atom and this expanded into the universe. Life on Earth and all of its intricacies would be absolutely impossible without the Creator, yet atheists assume that Darwin's theory of evolution allowed for people to come from pond slime and that death is "just because" instead of death being the consequence of sin. Romans 6:23 says that " For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Therefore, death simply cannot exist "just because" and it instead is the wages of sin.

Darwinism comes from humanity's desire to feel superior to the God that allows them to keep breathing, and these fools will be so arrogant and haughty even as God has them breathe their last, until they come up and meet the Lord Jesus Christ for Judgement Day. Oddly enough, despite wanting to feel superior to God, Darwinism degrades humans from being made in the image of God to being lowly primates much like chimpanzees and bonobos, and since the latter two engage in homosexual acts, that makes it okay for humans since humans are "just animals" who happen to have rationality and reason unlike chimpanzees and bonobos, but since Darwin preferred to engage in sexual activity with apes, men must also be just like apes, at least according to secular humanists, Marxists, and other forms of Darwinists, including fat atheist loser Penn Jillette.

People are naturally inclined to seek out God, and some of the most haughty and arrogant who claim they are above religion have adopted the false religion of Darwinism. On the Origin of Species is their Bible and it says that "“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Some so-called "Christians, such as those in the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church believe that the gospel of Darwin is accurate, and have made futile attempts to reconcile the Gospel of the Lord with the gospel of Darwin. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:19 makes it abundantly clear that death was caused by sin and that sin only occurred after man was brought into the world, and for Darwinism to work there would have had to have been death before Adam to cause humans to come out of pond slime. The world constantly is breaking down, not building up, and for genetics to allow for more well adapted animals is preposterous because there is simply NO such thing as this as there is only decay due to the second law of thermodynamics beginning after the fall of man.

MizzouLife #conspiracy illuminati.wikia.com

The New Day is a WWE "stable" or group that is intended to push the Homosexual Agenda. The highly effeminate colors the characters wear function to display sexual role reversal. The promiscuous sexual comments that are thrown in help suggest that people have sexual urges all the time. The reversed sexual role the characters play psychologically confuses the viewer, mainly children, into accepting homosexuality as well as being conditioned to accept the rest of the Luciferian Sexual Agenda.

One of the characters plays a trombone during the match that adds humor to certain parts, mainly when moves are being executed. In line with the Feminine characteristics of the group, the trombone is named 'Francesca'.

Their celebrations further promote incest and homosexuality by getting close to and touching one another while laying on their backs and thrusting their crotches in the air.

Joe #racist #conspiracy #fundie boards.christogenea.org

If a test does not measure what it purports to measure, it is invalid. This is psychology 101. So if an IQ test does not measure something called 'intelligence' than it is invalid, and all studies built on that faulty measure, and related premises, are also invalid. Psychologist already acknowledge the limitations of the test, but are unwilling to change it for political reasons.

I have seen White Nationalist claim that asians perform better on IQ tests, jews too. This test has been given such an authority that people put it above reality, above what is actually observable in the real World.

In the real World I see chink families pushing their chink children to study 24/7, for what, 6 IQ points average. They learn by rote, they learn Western mathematics, science & philosophy ...and then apply it in a very limited way, within the realm of a test. They have failed to carry such 'successes' into the real World (the test is more about application than general knowledge, but our children are not even taught how to approach such problems, they are in mixed-race classes devoid of any enrichment, devoid of proper instruction and content, so we cannot expect them to perform at their peak these days). And let us not forget that if you look at china, india, japan ...their infrastructure and scientific advancements are based on Western principals. The IQ test fails to measure intelligence if jews and asians somehow out-perform Whites (don't jump on me yet, read the next paragraph where I suggest some reasons why our people are failing our promise and potential).

We are suppose to forget the achievement of the White race ...and trust in a test that is obviously not valid. We are suppose to forget that our education system has been severely dumbed-down since the 1900's ...most people could not pass a year 10 exam from the period. That our children have been denied every opportunity to grow, and have been given what they want, towards their own destruction. They have no discipline or initiative. We are suppose to forget about the countless Aryan geniuses of the past, who gave us so much and how many of our advancements are hidden and suppressed (LENR, Tesla technology, novel engines and energy).

They bring foreign doctors and scientist into White nations (mostly arabs and indians) while the asians fill our universities, White people are having the opportunities and promise built by their foreFathers stolen from beneath their feat. Many of these doctors, scientist and others under-perform and happily maintain the jewish status quo, while our society stagnates and many White Men rot on the dole; never having an opportunity to reach their full potential (niggaz getz skolaships and shitz). White Women can get jobs and scholarships. especially in Maths and Science ...suddenly free from the oppressive patriarchy and finding good niggers with jobs everywhere, with the media portraying White Men as weak ...they start to engage in bestiality. We built this Nation for Our Women, and they betray us, if they want to live with the beasts, in their lands...it would be mud-huts, rape and sewerage, but try reasoning with a feminist! beast hominids only seem capable while supported by White Men, it is an illusion.
As Bill says, they are pets!

The fraud and pervert, einstein, was not a genius (check trutube), freud (fraud) was not a 'scientist' and sulk's vaccine came after polio had already began to decline (while the vaccine was accused of causing polio). These are some of the best the jews have to offer, they are better at scheming than attaining any knowledge or insight of value. The asians are good at doing what they are told, Western engineers are always leading projects in arab and asian countries ...and even if they don't lead the project, the innovations are always Aryan. Buddha, as a philosopher and not a religious leader, was an Aryan Man, a Scythian ...and there are many passages where the racism of early Buddhism is apparent. They regarded black babies as demons and bred with their own sisters to avoid breeding with the slave girls. The dark-skinned brahmins were considered unworthy to commune with them.

I won't forget my ancestors, I will never believe that the jew can build a civilisation apart from the White race, 'israel' gets more Western/Aryan aid than the damn niggers. I will not forget that my people have the best philosophers, mathematicians and scientists ...even if most of my people are currently in bondage, Truly, we can't compete with the evil beast hominids in babylon, but my people will return to their God and they will remember their nature, and they will be blessed and will conquer.

Freesu-san #fundie deviantart.com

For starters, is marriage very important? Of course it is. It is certainly not a toy in which people use and dump. Some say it is "a union between two people" or "it's all about love and romance". But is that really it? Is there really more to marriage than the two mentioned above?

When you hear the word marriage, its earliest use of that very English word dates back to the 13th century. However, this beautiful union is more valuable than we can ever think. Having said so, there is indeed more to marriage than just "love and romance" as the world so claims; but unfortunately, many seem to deny that.

Who created marriage in the first place? God did. In the book of Genesis, highlights God's plan for marriage as it says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ~ Genesis 1:27-28
Now some in today's world may ask "If God is the author of marriage, did He create/encourage same-sex 'marriage'?" Of course not. Why would He encourage such sodomy practice in the first place?

As we are all aware, this is a major issue that has been debated across the globe. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible does clearly forbids it. In countries such as Spain and Argentina that have allowed this practice, it has created a great deal of damage, to the point it even destroyed many families, and it is a very grave injustice to equality. Even in Netherlands, there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since the day marriage was redefined. In France, there have been continuous large scale protests against this practice, even after the law was passed. In this century we live in, homosexuality is considered normal by many people. Whenever it is mentioned, it is not uncommon to hear someone ask "What's wrong with two people of the same gender falling in love? Isn't it normal?" The answers to these questions can be found in none other than the Bible.

In the modernized world we live in, people (especially Christians) are labelled as "homophobes" for not agreeing with homosexuality or anything related to it such as same-sex 'marriage', which is just foolish mentality.

The world considers what God clearly tells is unnatural to be natural (Romans 1:26-27). Some may argue that God's law forbidding homosexuality was only for the Old Covenant which God made between Himself and the Israelites. However, a quick search of the Scriptures will show that the New Testament has more verses condemning homosexuality than the Old Testament does.

Jesus himself gave God's definition of marriage in Mark 10:6-9, when he was speaking about marriage and grounds of divorce. He said that in the beginning 'God made them male and female.' He also said that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

If anybody has ever attended a wedding, notice that the minister says:

We have gathered here in the presence of God, to witness the union between this man and this woman in holy matrimony.

Now that is acknowledging that God is the author of marriage! Not the people, not the government, but God alone. He joined the very first couple as husband and wife, and that couple was Adam and Eve. And so marriage, being a union between a man and a woman is perfect, unique, and beautiful.

As for same-sex 'marriage', this practice now itself has consequences in three perspectives:

Equality-wise, the bill itself has no respect for equality whatsoever, as it will only not only destroy the true meaning of marriage. It will has no respect for freedom of conscience, and harsh restrictions of freedom of speech. An example of this, is the case of an evangelist named Tony Miano, who was arrested in London for using "homophobic" language whilst preaching from 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12, where it speaks on sexual immorality.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2vu9C… (In the video the police arrive at 25 minutes and 37 seconds and Mr. Miano was arrested at 38 minutes and 11 seconds)
Social-wise, it will promote more adultery, more child abuse, encourage more divorces among heterosexual married couples. Having mentioned of child abuse, is the case of a small boy who was abused by two homosexual men: christiannews.net/2013/07/06/h…

Children are one of the greatest gifts from God, and are also the heart of marriage. It is important for them to be trained in the right direction, the way of the Lord. The Bible says in Proverbs 22:6 "Direct your children onto the right path, and when they are older, they will not leave it." But in today's world, they are forced to watch this horror happening in their lifetime, just like what happened to that little boy who got sexually abused by the two homosexual 'dads'. At worse, they are being taught that this sodomy practice is okay, when clearly it's not. Its abnormal, and this false teaching will lead children to Hell. And each child deserves a mother and a father, and gay parenting denies such a gold standard, as the new law does nothing but fulfill the selfish desires of the adults, instead of the well-being of the children.

If two men parent a child, they are discriminating against the mother. And if two women parent a child, they are discriminating against the father, cos the child is entitled to his/her biological mother and father.

SEE: www.thepublicdiscourse.com/201…

AND: gnli.christianpost.com/video/1…

AND: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

In case you haven't noticed, families will be badly affected in every single way possible, since homosexuality is also a marriage destroyer. With that being said, a recent case of a woman whose heart is now broken and devastated when her husband, not only divorced her for his homosexual "lover", but also took THEIR two children with him by force, to the point that they are even suffered identity issues: www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/m…

And linked to social-wise, spiritual-wise, having mentioned of the increase of more child abuse, adultery and divorce, they are classified as sins. The practice itself will even promote more sin, such as lust, incest, polygamy, bestiality and immorality, turning the 21st century into Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, and eventually lead this very nation to Hell fire (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). It will even surprise you that recent studies show that children living in gay-affirming countries are extremely likely to be sexually molested by homosexuals: www.lifesitenews.com/news/posi…

But then again, same-sex marriage is a sin in God's eyes, regardless of man's laws.

As this sinful nature demands acceptance and inclusion, it does nothing but destroy the nation as a whole.

The Bible even says that the devil is there to kill, steal, and destroy. By introducing same sex 'marriage', it is one of his many devious attempts to crumble down a nation, and to shut up the Truth. But one thing most people forgot is that the Word of God still stands, whether they like it or not. And its funny how the LGBT activists like to take the Bible out of context and twist it to suit their sins, to the point they even claim that the verses that clearly speak against homosexuality are "being misused" or "taken out of context", which is clearly a flawed and hypocritical argument, that is only based on man's desire for them to be comfortable with their sinful lifestyles. Some of todays Christians will even deny that Jesus clearly said that marriage is indeed between one man and one woman.


Marriage is, and always will be, a marital devotion between two parties; a man and a woman to be exact, and that's what marriage should be. That is the true definition of marriage. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

What is really disappointing and sickening, is that most of today's churches are watering down the Truth, to the extend that some are even accepting what is a sin before God as 'normal' all in the name of 'equality and acceptance'. Some are even too afraid to even speak out the Truth, coming up with the "We don't to offend anybody" excuse, only to be 'appealing' to the world and not to God (Luke 9:26).

But then, as these signs of the end are happening around us, we believers must not remain stagnant and idle about it. Its time to put it to action!

It's time we take a stand and speak out the Truth of what marriage truly is, which is defined by God, as a union between a man and a woman!

Walid Shoebat #fundie shoebat.com

I have been hanging out long enough with Americans, and besides Muslims, I can easily profile them too. It is easy to expose American hypocrisy. No matter how often Americans count calories or endure Obama’s camel-faced wife saying that we ought to “solve the epidemic of childhood obesity,” Americans know they are being hypocritical. The Hot Dog and Hamburger is the American idol while Michelle Ben Lying will always secretly be viewed by Americans as “butt-ugly” and “wholly stupid”.

I know enough about America, that no matter how much they try to push agendas; we have a homosexual agenda, socialist agenda, love-the-Muslim agenda, environmental agenda … these attempts will never work.

Americans will never unanimously like socialism just as they will never unanimously love the sissy.

Michelle’s sissy husband today said: “ISIL leaders cannot hide and our message to them is ‘you are next.'”

Not true, to Obama, Bashar Al-Assad of Syria is next and Putin is kicking Obama’s butt on the war on ISIS. No matter how many times sissy Obama tries to sound American with ‘you’r next’ its not working. Only Clint Eastwood fits the profile to make testosterone-type threats like “go ahead, make my day”.

In this war on ISIS, perhaps if we take Donald Trump acting as Longshanks in the movie Braveheart. Braveheart and his rebels could be viewed as Al-Baghdadi and ISIS, Longshanks’ son as Obama, the scenario where Obama claims he is “doing something” would fit perfectly. Braveheart (ISIS) after sacking York, sends a head to Longshanks, and his son tells the king that he is addressing ISIS “I’ve sent conscriptions” to only see the obvious, Obama was more of a sissy-homosexual than a real man. America will never have love for a sissy.

To top it all off for sissy Obama’s war on ISIS, Germany has denied US requests to provide additional support for the US-led mission against ISIS (Germans would not obey a sissy), with the federal chancellor stressing that “at the moment” Berlin is already doing enough for its part in the combined anti-terror effort.

Strange, even a woman snubs Obama: “I believe Germany is fulfilling its part and we don’t need to talk about new issues related to this question at the moment,” Angela Merkel told the ZDF.

With Obama, even the stale sauerkraut snubbed him.

James Wilson #fundie conservatism.referata.com

Darwinism is a false religion founded by atheist Charles Darwin, because Darwin decided that he wanted to violate God's natural laws and engage in bestiality with a monkey. Darwinism assumes that the world is billions of years old, as is the universe, and that everything came out of a little atom and this expanded into the universe. Life on Earth and all of its intricacies would be absolutely impossible without the Creator, yet atheists assume that Darwin's theory of evolution allowed for people to come from pond slime and that death is "just because" instead of death being the consequence of sin. Romans 6:23 says that " For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Therefore, death simply cannot exist "just because" and it instead is the wages of sin.
Darwinism comes from humanity's desire to feel superior to the God that allows them to keep breathing, and these fools will be so arrogant and haughty even as God has them breathe their last, until they come up and meet the Lord Jesus Christ for Judgement Day. Oddly enough, despite wanting to feel superior to God, Darwinism degrades humans from being made in the image of God to being lowly primates much like chimpanzees and bonobos, and since the latter two engage in homosexual acts, that makes it okay for humans since humans are "just animals" who happen to have rationality and reason unlike chimpanzees and bonobos, but since Darwin preferred to engage in sexual activity with apes, men must also be just like apes, at least according to secular humanists, Marxists, and other forms of Darwinists, including fat atheist loser Penn Jillette.
People are naturally inclined to seek out God, and some of the most haughty and arrogant who claim they are above religion have adopted the false religion of Darwinism. On the Origin of Species is their Bible and it says that "“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
Some so-called "Christians, such as those in the Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church believe that the gospel of Darwin is accurate, and have made futile attempts to reconcile the Gospel of the Lord with the gospel of Darwin. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:19 makes it abundantly clear that death was caused by sin and that sin only occurred after man was brought into the world, and for Darwinism to work there would have had to have been death before Adam to cause humans to come out of pond slime. The world constantly is breaking down, not building up, and for genetics to allow for more well adapted animals is preposterous because there is simply NO such thing as this as there is only decay due to the second law of thermodynamics beginning after the fall of man.

ROOKFORK #conspiracy youtube.com

who the fuck said I was a flat earther. I don't care if the earth is round, flat, concaved, convex, square, a pyramid or what....what I have found is that I am a non-spacer. we have NEVER, EVER been to space. NEWS FLASH...SCIENCE IS FOR SALE! and everyone including myself bought into it...we live in an enclosed system. VAN ALLEN BELTS...you know there is a vid on youtube where this regular guy builds a vacuum chamber. inside he places a fan and a feather. with no vacuum the fan blows the feather everywhere. once he applied the vacuum...what do you think happened to the feather, any guesses, no not yet...the feather DID NOT MOVE... thus to this layman, that indicates that thrust is a little more difficult to achieve in the vacuum of space, if there is such a thing...so I welcome any flat earth, round earth, my personal fave the "pear shape" so cute. So thanks for your input into the topic.?

Fritz Chery #fundie biblereasons.com

America is extremely wicked and filled with perversion. People actually boast in the fact that they are zoosexuals. People even boast that they love zoophilia pornography. Cannibalism and bestiality is on the rise and not only is it sick it is animal cruelty. It is disgusting that this egregious sin is being shown in movies such as Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and Planet of the Apes. Human flesh is different from animal flesh. Women were made for men not animals for men and vice versa. Bestiality is unnatural and Scripture clearly condemns it. Many fake Christians who continually commit this sin say Jesus died for my sins and it’s not in the New Testament. A Christian will not practice sin because they have repented (turned from their sin). God doesn’t change God hated it then and he hates it now. If you’re not saved you are in grave danger and after you are done reading please click on the link above.

Brother Nathanael Kapner #fundie realjewnews.com

HILLARY NOW PROMISES that homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgender perversion will be the central pillar of her administration.

Speaking before hundreds of Jews and sexual perverts at the Jewish-funded Human Rights Campaign on Saturday, Hillary told the cheering perverts what her campaign was all about:

"I'm running for president to stand up for the fundamental rights of LGBT Americans."

That's the best reason for running for president this country has ever heard!

To stand up for men to have anal sex with one another's feces... for women to insert plastic penises into one another's vaginas...and for me to impersonate women, (Bruce Jenner), is truly a patriotic pursuit that our Founding Fathers would be proud of.

That's why this country is going to hell. And Hillary will put the finishing touches to bring down God's judgment on this Jew-ruined nation.

For it was the Jews who struck down the definition of marriage at the Supreme Court.

And it was the Jews who legislated sodomite marriages as the law of the land in opposition to God's creational order.

To stand up for the RIGHTS OF JEWS to wreck the morality of America is what Hillary's campaign is really all about.

For with Jewish donors like George Soros lining up to throw their billions behind Hillary, campaigning for homosexuality guarantees big Jewish bucks.

For nothing pleases Jews (like George Soros) than to see Christian teaching toppled and all kinds of sexual deviancy holding sway.

AND WHAT MORE 'rights' do the Jews want for homosexuals?

The 'right' to have sex with minors? The 'right' to engage in bestiality? The 'right' to demand that Christian ministers join them in 'holy matrimony?'

What was once hidden is now out in the open. What was considered a shame is now a political platform.

A philosophizing man once said, "The Jews are our misfortune."

And Hillary is about to bring that "misfortune" down on us all.

Allan Wall #racist vdare.com

War On Christmas—War On American Food—War On America?

It’s not enough that Christmas is being replaced in the name of diversity–so is American food, at least according to the Main Stream Media, which wants to lecture us on how this means the historic American nation is inevitably being replaced too.

For years, we’ve been told that salsa now outsells ketchup in the US...But a recent Associated Press Article took it a step further, reporting that several well-known American foods are now being outsold by Mexican foods.

[...]

The AP article reports that

•“Tortillas and taco kits outsell hamburgers and hot dog buns”
•“Sales of tortilla chips trump potato chips”
•Tomato-based salsa not only outsells ketchup, but outsells ketchup 2 to 1

Gloatingly, the article explains that this is part of a demographic transformation (which, it implies, is inevitable and all good people support):

As immigrant and minority populations rewrite American demographics, the nation's collective menu is reflecting this flux, as it always has…This is a rewrite of the American menu at the macro level, an evolution of whole patterns of how people eat.

And we are reminded this is all due to a particular group of people who cannot be denied:

The biggest culinary voting bloc is Hispanic.

Ah, hah! Just as in electoral politics, the MSM is trying to persuade us that Hispanics trump all.

[...]

In fact, Hispanics make up only 17 percent according to the Census. But you get the idea.

This seeming contradiction is resolved via a coded racial slur by the Tortilla Industry Association’s CEO Jim Kabbani. Kabbani [Email him] is quoted as quipping:

"Having been raised on Wonder bread, I didn't think that this could displace the sliced bread that was such an item of the American kitchen."

This evokes the pejorative “white bread” epithet often hurled at traditional mid-20th century American culture.

The article ends with a contradictory quote from Terry Soto, an Ecuadorian woman who is “president and CEO of About Marketing Solutions, a consulting firm specializing in the Hispanic market”:

"There is a larger segment of the population that wants the real thing. It's not so much the products becoming mainstream. It's about ethnic food becoming that much more of what we eat on a day-to-day basis."

The contradiction is resolved—American Hispanics are, apparently, an authentic cultural bloc who will eat their own “real” food, while “white bread” Americans haplessly follow along until they are finally replaced.

[...]

The MSM multiculturalists are engaged in a bait-and-switch. They lull Americans to sleep with romanticized images of immigration, huddled masses, Ellis Island, etc. Then Americans wake up and are told their country has been irretrievably transformed into something else. That’s why we are told we can’t have Christmas anymore. In this case, it’s culinary fashion that is being used to promote the Demographic-Change-Is-Inevitable theme.

There’s that other subtext in the Hispanic Cuisine Hype.

Old White Anglo-European America—Bland and Boring—“White Bread”

Vs.

New Hispanic Multicultural America—Spicy, Vibrant and Exciting—“Salsa”

As a descendant of Old America, I naturally dispute its being characterized as “boring.” But that’s what the diversity-mongers want us to believe.

Whatever—the historic American nation has an origin, history, and identity. Is it to be radically transformed, beyond recognition, without our permission?

Apparently so, unless we can stop it.

It’s about who’s coming to dinner—not what is served on the table.

Jacob Harrison #fundie forums.fstdt.net

A new castration plan

The plan to get Art to come to America to castrate me and then for me to claim that a wild animal did it, had problems. It would be very unlikely that an animal specifically attacked and bit off my balls. To make it believable, I would have to also have other wounds to my body, but I am not an expert at giving myself wounds without risking breaking arteries or vains that could cause severe blood loss.

So perhaps Art should fashion coyote jaws out of clay, with the sharp teeth of coyotes. I live in a part of America that has lots of coyotes so it would be believable that a coyote attacked me.. He can use the jaws to press into parts of my body to create a whole ton of bite marks.

(later posts from same thread)
I really do want to be castrated because I am heterosexual and attracted to women in trousers especially jeans but not sexual enough that I think I am capable of normal sex because I get more turned on by women in trousers then naked women. To reproduce, I would have to masterbate to my wife in trousers before sticking my penis into her vagina. If I can’t be normally sexual, I might as well be asexual.

...

Don't think you can bait me, your story is way to wild and inconsistent.

It is not wild. I am cursed with such an extreme clothing fetish, that I am not sure if I am capable of normal sex. I did a google image search for naked women, seeing a bunch of pictures, and I am not getting an errection by them. So unless my fetish can actually be treated, I don’t see how I can have normal sex with a wife.

...


It is not wild. I am cursed with such an extreme clothing fetish, that I am not sure if I am capable of normal sex. I did a google image search for naked women, seeing a bunch of pictures, and I am not getting an errection by them. So unless my fetish can actually be treated, I don’t see how I can have normal sex with a wife.

So have some abnormal sex with a wife! Find one who's either into the same kind of thing or at least is willing to indulge you in it, and have some fun.

But I want to use sex for it’s biological purpose of procreation meaning that the sex would have to involve eventually ejaculating semen into her vagina. And the chances of finding a conservative Anglican woman willing to indulge in it is very unlikely.

...

I am for real. I am trying to figure out ways I can actually get myself castrated because my jean fetish is making me miserable because I doubt that I could find a conservative Anglican wife that would tolerate having sex involving getting turned on by her in jeans.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

In the world of blogging and writing, sometimes you write an article that someone else uses as a springboard to push their opinion. Even going as far as to misquote you to allow for them to use something you’ve said to prop up their position on a particular issue.

This happened recently with an article that I wrote for Theology Review when a local North East political satire blog (read of that what you will) took upon itself to quote mine less than half a quote from our recent article on the situation revolving around Eugene Peterson in July. The situation being around a reported affirmation of gay marriage, and a retraction of Peterson’s statement on the subject.

For more on that please read our article “Getting to Grips With Eugene Peterson’s Statement on Gay Marriage”.

Due to the busyness of the summer, I haven’t been able to spend as much time working on content for Theology Review as I would like. However, last night I logged in to the website to check on a couple of things (not intending to write an article) and came across that the website had been tagged by another website in a blog post. So I went and checked it out, lo and behold, it was an article about homosexuality, where our website was subtly targeted for not being “inclusive” of people of a homosexual persuasion.

So I’ve read the article, and have responded to the article. In this article, I’m going to include my response to the blog and then post some observations about the blog.

Please note that I have removed the name of the author of the blog post at The Northern Jester.

Our Response to The Northern Jester
Hello,

First off, thanks for tagging my post in your article on this subject. It’s always nice to be tagged in a post, as it helps get a little more attention to the site.

However, let me take exception to the comment you made where you said the following:

“Or this article by the Theology Review that’s states how homosexual marriage was “not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now” in which I don’t want to sound crass but the imagery just writes itself there.”

The first thing to point out here is that you take the quote out of context immediately, as the comment was addressing my observation/assumption to what Eugene Peterson meant by saying the question of whether he affirmed homosexuality or not wouldn’t have even been discussed 20 years ago. Stating that you think that “the imagery just writes itself”, is an indication of your view that this either shouldn’t be discussed or blindly accepted.

The other thing to note in the paragraph I quote you from is that you target an article found on Babylon Bee’s website. I feel as if I should let you know that Babylon Bee is a Christian satire site. So including an article that was written as a joke is not really something that would support your argument here.

It is also worth pointing out that Jesus definitely addressed the homosexual issue, he did this by expressly stating that marriage is to be between one man and one woman only as was established at creation in the garden of Eden (Matthew 19:3-5), also it is quite possible that Jesus references a tradition that was later recorded in the Genesis Rabbah, and is also noted in the Babylonian Talmud, that is that gay marriage was happening at the time of the flood (Genesis Rabbah) and had been outlawed from the time of Noah (Babylonian Talmud). This is found in Matthew 24:36-51 and Luke 17:20-37. Below are the quotes from the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabbah.

“The generation of the Flood was not blotted out of the world until they had begun writing nuptial hymns for marriages between males or between man and beast.”
Genesis Rabbah 26:5:4

“These are the thirty commandments which the sons of Noah took upon themselves but they observe three of them, namely, (i) they do not draw up a kethubah [marriage contract] document for males, (ii) they do not weigh flesh of the [human] dead in the market, and (iii) they respect the Torah.
Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 92a-b”

So as we can see there is very good reason to believe that Jesus did, in fact, address gay marriage, it just takes a lot of studying of Jewish history, tradition, and Midrash to see that. Personally, it took me a long time of studying the Bible before I came across this, so I encourage you to dig deep into this issue if you really want to have a voice on it.

However, I am not the authority here, God is, so let’s see what God says on the subject. Now because we are under the New Covenant, I’m going to focus on what the New Testament says, as the standard rule of thumb with law is that if it is noted in the New Testament in a context of whatever unlawful deed you’re referring to, still being unlawful, then we can say that in God’s eyes it is still wrong and shouldn’t be done. So here goes:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”- 1 Timothy 1:8-11

“For this reason, God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” – Romans 1:26-27

Read these passages (this just a sampling from the New Testament by the way), and tell me if any of these suggest that homosexuality and gay marriage is acceptable in God’s eyes. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can’t do that, not without manipulating and twisting scripture. At least with the Jesus argument, all you’re doing is ignoring what Paul said (John also speaks on the issue in Revelation).

As Christian’s our responsibility is to side with God and follow His will and His ways, not the ways that culture wants us to follow in. Now I understand that this will at times be difficult, I mean let’s be honest wouldn’t it just be easier if everyone gets saved if everyone went to heaven. Absolutely it would. But what real glorification of God would there be in that? Very little if we’re honest. God has set the world in His order, and that is the order we are to follow. We are not to try and worm our way around God because we don’t like His rules. That’s frankly an immature way to live. What we need to do is to adjust our position and stand in line with God, easy or not.

In terms of the love aspect, I actually agree with the basic sentiment. As Christian’s we should love everyone, and welcome them in. But truly loving someone does not mean that we affirm their sin, and God clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. It’s no different to adultery, murder, lust, gluttony, or any other sin in God’s eyes. The only difference is how much pop culture is pushing this agenda, when was the last time you saw a rally for polygamy, or Ofsted checking schools performances based on their acceptance of those who desire to commit bestiality. You don’t see either of those things (yet), but the LGBTQA+ agenda is massive, so much so that organisations such as the National Trust have tried to make the endorsement of this compulsory. I’m sure that’s tolerance though, right ??

Anyways, I’ve been on a while now and this comment is getting long. But let me say that I think it’s great that you have a heart and passion for everyone being welcome in God’s house. But with the gay marriage issue, that isn’t really the point. In fact, if you think that is the point, you’re actually missing the point. The real point is that if we’re really going to be godly people, then we can’t just blindly accept what the world tells us to. God is the authority here, not you or I, or pop culture. I know who’s side I’d rather be on.

All the best,
Mark

GermanShepherd #fundie rivenwolf.net

As reported on the Slashdot article Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday, 450 "Christian" churches are actually celebrating the birthday of good ol' Charlie Darwin, the father of the THEORY and RELIGION of Evolution, stating that "Darwin's theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science".

Uhm... what? What people would say this and call themselves Christians? I continued to read the article and discovered a list, true or not, of churches reported to be celebrating:

"A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, are participating in the event, which grew out of Zimmerman's The Clergy Letter Project, another effort to dispel the perception among many Christians that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive."

It doesn't at all surprise me that the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Unitarian, and Congragationalist churches are doing it. They have a warped perspective on the Bible already. But the inclusion of the United Church of Christ and the Baptist church kind of took me by surprise. They have a central office that approves what these churches do. There's a good chance the entire denomination has been compromised.

There's a word we Christians use when something like this happens. We not-Catholic Christians don't use it often, but when the appropriate time arises, we'll use it. Dictionary.com seems to label it as a Catholic-specific term. Whether that is true or not, I've heard very devout Protestant Christians use it at times.

That word is HERETIC. Suggesting that God used Evolution to aid in the creation of the universe is heresy. It clearly conflicts with the 7 24-hour day Creation timeline as layed out in the first chapters of Genesis. This goes way beyond simple misinterpretation, people.

Moshe Kelstein #crackpot #fundie #sexist returnofkings.com

(Submitter’s Note: A lot more quackery is omitted for the sake of brevity.)

A Scientific Review of RoK’s Community Beliefs.

Moshe Kelstein
Moshe is a man on a mission. A mission to defeat degeneracy once and for all!


I discovered Return of Kings on Facebook when an acquaintance shared the community beliefs (http://www.returnofkings.com/about) on her profile. She was mocking them, as if these beliefs had no value. I commented that these beliefs were empirically supported or derived from empirically supported principles.

An army of offended females and betas was unleashed upon me. I wasn’t hoping for much from the girls, but I could only feel sad to see that many guys were naively supporting them.

Going to the research

I realized that most people have no first-hand contact with scientific knowledge. Literature on our community beliefs is not only existent, but extensive. I decided to use my academic knowledge to give support to the ROK community.

Many of the authors you will read about here are some of the most famous academics in behavioral sciences (Google scholar citations: Baron-Cohen[https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=4GAQ-RUAAAAJ&hl=en]: 96 020, Buss[https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=wrmnCfsAAAAJ&hl=en]: 39 524, Baumeister[https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=ShSEUuoAAAAJ&hl=en]: 87 528). I do not claim that these summaries and articles will help you in arguments. We live in some sort of ochlocracy where we risk intimidation by hordes of angry women or betas if we hold beliefs congruent with scientific evidence. I remember a feminist saying something along the lines of: ”Nothing like good old scientific facts to justify your sexism.”

This research is usually not spread too much, especially in undergraduate programs, but really informative. Let us now examine what science has to say about each point in our community beliefs list.

2. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them

The psychological literature refers to this concept as Sexual Economics[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15582858], when referring to the investment that a male is ready to make in order to ”buy” a woman’s sexuality. Women sell sex, and men buy it. This investment varies between cultures and periods.

There was a time when years of courtship and long term financial investment were necessary to obtain sex from a woman. Not anymore. The invention of contraception multiplied the offer of sex tenfold. Women together manage the worth of sexual acts, and it might explain why women despise prostitution and pornography, and slut-shame each other. An average girl who asks a price that is too high for the sexual economy will not find a buyer.

If a woman’s sexuality has been offered a lot, the value of the offer will decrease. This means that a woman’s sexuality is non-renewable. Women will try to protect their sexual reputation and to make others believe that their sexuality is exclusive.

3. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a clear benefit to the family unit

Until the latest decades, culture was a tool for the genes to be passed on. The maturation of humans is extremely long compared to many other species, which shows the importance of upbringing and learning the norms of a social group. Most traditional sex roles can be seen as a way to assess the best mates among men and women.

Men would benefit the gene pool by passing genes with agentic traits to lead the group to higher goals, whereas women displayed feminine qualities to display nurturing qualities to attractive males. The opposite was inconceivable because men outperform females in literally any sort of competition, and women are better at nurturing children and showing empathy[http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/bc.pdf]. Naturally, the most successful male picked the most attractive female and both offered the finances and care a child needed. It was beneficial to the family unit, which was in turn beneficial to the continuity of the society.

Now, people are mysteriously invested in the mission of destroying gender roles, cheer on parents who crossdress their children and encourage companies to advertise toy trucks with girls. Everyone wants to eliminate gender roles but no one really knows why. Meanwhile, masculine men are still more desirable[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1087598/] and successful and feminine women more attractive [http://www.robertburriss.com/pdfs/burriss_11_paid.pdf] (although this relationship is a little more complicated). Women’s self-rated attractiveness[http://alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/Vukovic_08_selfrate_att_voices_PID.pdf] is strongly linked to attraction to masculine faces[http://alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/DeBruine_10_faceconfounds_JEPHPP.pdf], and prefer vocal masculinity. Denying these preferences will only prevent you from getting laid. Even though we are waging war against gender roles, women still apply them when choosing mates. (Interestingly, there is a negative relationship between physical self-evaluation and the number of sexual partners[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959390015A] in women.)

4. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men causes them to be weaker and more feminine.

Testosterone masculinizes both behavior and physical appearance, as stated above, and lack thereof feminizes them. However these environmental forces obviously refer to something of which I have no awareness of. Didn’t they fix the problems with plastic feeding bottles already? Or do you call ”environmental change” the emasculation of teenage boys in cathedral choirs until about a hundred years?


6. Elimination of traditional sex roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.

The chances of fertilization are higher in one-night stands, and men’s sperm count is higher when they are away from their long-term partner for a while. The human penis might have been shaped to remove competitor’s sperm [http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf] out of the vagina. Women experience more orgasms with masculine [http://www.putslab.psu.edu/pdfs/Puts%20et%20al%202012%20Evol%20Hum%20Behav.pdf] and attractive men, who have qualities sought for short term mating. Many benefits exist to short-term matings for women, such as resources, mate switching or manipulation.

All of these examples suggest that women did not evolve a preference for monogamous, long-term relationships. Click here [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201501/women-want-short-term-mates-too] for evidence that women are designed for short-term mating.


7. Socialism, feminism, cultural Marxism, and social justice warriorism aim to destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and impoverish the state through large welfare entitlements.

Complying with feminist demands is as close as a society can get to cultural and ethnic suicide. Historically, intrasexual (male) competition always benefited the group. The feminist sentiment rose to power when outcomes were not shared with the the whole group, and rich people would get rich at the expense of others without paying taxes.

Women, depending on a single provider, began experiencing the variable outcomes that men have gone through for thousands of generations. That is why they support financial entitlement measures. The benefits they could get out of their sexuality became as variable as men’s outcomes. Now, they can have the best genes by engaging in short-term mating, and their basic needs paid for by millions of anonymous working men.

Later they will fight for their right not to be judged on their sexual past, and when they will realize the hardships of a working life or just get bored and have children, they will get support from the state. Men are backing them up in every step of the way.

Cultural marxism is the greatest ideological battle of the Western world at the moment. We are paying people to fight against manspreading, or funding university research that operationalizes sexism with agreement to items like ”Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.”[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Glick/publication/232586301_Ambivalent_sexism/links/02e7e52e69acf151c8000000.pdf]

Few academic researchers would support prescriptive conclusions based on their research, even though we can use their results to justify our beliefs. Even David Buss, who studies sex differences and evolutionary psychology, calls himself a feminist and does not see sex differences and feminism as incompatible.[http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/196924.pdf]

I don’t think anyone who believes in any form of biological determinism is compatible with the blank-slate perspective of SJWism. We don’t have popular support, but we have plenty of scientific evidence backing us up.

Various Incels #sexist incels.co

(Ap0calypse)

The most retarded thing I've seen all year

Can you imagine what being a man would be like?

Everyone takes you seriously. Men view you as human, women view you as stronger. You're on the same level of men, women are either scared of you or attracted to you.

Short men don't get discriminated against. Even short men can be leaders of billionaire drug cartels and have a million followers behind him. Look at El Chapo (translated to literally "short guy").

Bald men are viewed as sexy and strong.

Fat men get paid more than fat women, regardless of education or skill. Everyone looks at fat guys as funny and cool, they're friends.

Fat or ugly women are laughed at. Unless it's a pretty face or hot body, what are women good for, right? It's believed that women have no strength unless it's manipulating men, by looks of course. Without that, they belong in the garbage.

That explains the hate non-hot women get.

Women will always know where they stand in terms of looks because men are LOUD. It starts since when you were a child. Boys in elementary school wouldn't play on the playground with you and refuse to touch you in gym class during obligatory square dancing, boys in middle school would call you a monster and hit you, boys in high school would say "that girl is so ugly" when walking past you in the hallways. In your adult life, men will try to use you as a masturbatory pocket pussy while they battle with the fact that they can't get hot girls. What a win.

Not even attractive women are shielded from a man's hatred. Girls get catcalled from creepy 50 year old men at 12 years old and it makes them feel violated. Even if a woman can use her attractiveness to her advantage, when a woman is no longer attractive as she ages, she is thrown away.

Non-hot men don't get that amount of hate. Life would be a lot easier when your worth isn't 100% determined by how you look or how young you are. If it was impossible to get raped if you had biological strength. Is that why FtM exist? I think so.

(Mexicanmanletcel)

Tell me this idiot is trolling...

(radishman)

It's pretty obvious going by the sub.

And LOL @ short men not getting discriminated against. It's one of the few instances that not only is it allowed, but society encourages it.

(Ap0calypse)

short and bald males are discriminated against on the biological level, i swear everytime I go on reddit it gets worse

(Rheinkwell)

- be a foid
- complain about women losing their worth as they age
- don't realize that ugly men never have any worth to begin with

(manicel)

I loled at the comments:

"One day we were standing in the lunch line with friends and my crush was in front of us. He invited my friends to get in line before him, but as I walked up he put his arm to block me and said "only the pretty girls" and laughed with his friend. I'm sure he did this because somebody told him about my feelings. Thanks to my friends who scorned him for it I did not burst out in tears right there and then."

They legit think this kind of thing doesn't happen to ugly guys lmao

(MayorOfKekville)

This is absolutely inter-dimensional quantum stupidity.

Literally every sentence is the exact diametric polar opposite of the truth.

(Wristlet 2)

fuck that whore, she has no idea what unattractive men go through

let's say she's telling the truth and women are scared, rather than disgusted, of ugly males, which I don't believe but ok. what does that change? how is being feared, hated and unloved a good thing?

Reply to manicel’s post:

life fuel tbh, i love it when chads hurt women's feelings

(I.N.C.E.L.S. Boss)

When she talks about men, she refers to the top 0.5% males.
We are not men in their eyes.

(Catharsis)

How the fuck can you be this disillusioned, what is a normal day like in this OP's life that makes them this inept to their own advantages as a female in modern society

(ColdLightOfDay)

Reply to manicel’s post:

The most confusing thing about that is the fact his horrible personality wasn’t enough to stop him being her crush up till that point.

(Insanity)

this is infuriatingly bad, honestly, I am one of the most chill people you'll meet, I couldn't care less about normies, chads and stacies alike thinking looks don't matter and it's all personality, but these femcels that reject incels on a daily basis and then claim that being a man is much easier to perpetuate their victimhood notion and philosophy triggers me on such an insurmountable level, my blood literally starts boiling

How the fuck can you be this disillusioned, what is a normal day like in this OP's life that makes them this inept to their own advantages as a female in modern society

victim mentality I guess, I honestly have no clue how one can be so mentally handicapped, I've seen it all, I've passed through all the stages, atheism, blackpill-ism, nihilism, I don't care whatsoever about normies and their views on looks and how personality matters and what not, I'm used to people being oblivious to the truth, but man, these chad chasing "femcels" really get under my skin

fapvshair #sexist reddit.com

Controversial Topic: Men Forced to Go Their Own Way

Hey guys. First post here.

Most of the posters on this forum seem to be someone who used to spend lots of time with women but then came to realize that spending time on their own is superior. Perhaps they decided this because they don't like being bossed around or maybe they were treated unfairly during a divorce.

This seems to be the common MGTOW man. I want to talk about a different kind of MGTOW; the type that I am.

I've been shunned and turned down by women my entire life. I was never particularly good looking (plain but likely not offensively ugly). I'm also heavily introverted and definitely not aggressive. Everytime I've tried to engage with women, I have had horrible experiences. I've been tricked, fooled and made fun of everytime I made a move.

I suppose I have come to the conclusion at the tender age of 20 that I am never going to have success with women. In accordance with my passive personality type, it simply makes no sense for me pursue women at this point. It's definitely a depressing outlook but I truly feel like I've been backed into a corner.

It can suck at times not being able to relate to many of you who have at least experienced that side of life, though I am sure some of you would argue I'm lucky I never had to deal with it in the first place.

Regarding the controversiality of this topic, I find that many people lambast MGTOW because they assume most MGTOW are men who like me who were unable to get girls anyway and sort of forced to spend time on their own anyway. It's clear to me now that many users here DO have experience with women but choose to avoid them anyway. I find that fascinating, likely because I have no perspective on what that life is like.

So ya, that ends my venting.

Incel_Death1 #sexist reddit.com

All sex is validating the female

If you have sex with a female, you are validating her existance. Regardless of paying or the normie way. You are telling her she is valuable for having a vagina. You are engaging in ego masturbation everytime you look at porn, google hot women, flirt with females, create an okcupid account, tinder account or w/e else. This is why in order to not validate the female further you must be alpha. You cannot engage in niceness with the female. You have to be distant but make her reliant on you. She must need you in her life so she doesn't cuck you for chad. You have to stop complimenting her. She must compliment you. Make her validate you. Give her stockholm syndrome, it will make her enamored with you and reduce her validation. She will become weakened mentally as she becomes nothing more than a mental slave.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

(responding to story "CANADIAN COURT ORDERS CHRISTIAN TO PAY $55,000 TO TRANS POLITICIAN FOR CALLING HIM 'BIOLOGICAL MALE'" - link to story goes here:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-orders-christian-to-pay-55000-to-trans-politician-for-calling-him-biological-male)

Canada hates Christians and Christianity. Canada should be on global watch-lists for Christophobia. Canada is a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. Canada is known for supporting all manner of immorality, including pedophilia and bestiality. Trudummy has the spirit of the antiChrist and is willing to tolerate anything except Truth, Jesus Christ.

If you are a Christian Canadian, pray about moving to a Christian-friendly country. There aren't many, but almost anything is better than Canada-at least almost anything is better for Christians than Canada.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Repeatedly throughout Taylor Swift's “WILDEST DREAMS” video, while sinfully lifting her dress to expose her thighs, she thrusts forward as if engaged in intercourse, which is clearly intended to sexualize and arouse the viewer. The video is very erotic. Taylor Swift has sold her soul to the Devil, and every parent in America needs to get angry at the music industry and people like Taylor Swift who are targeting our youth with this SATANISM! The Illuminati fully know that: The best revolutionary is a youth totally devoid of morals. What is meant by revolutionary? It refers to someone who revolts against faith in God, individual liberty, obedience to parents, pride in one's heritage, a godly pastor and patriotism for one's country.

But “why” you ask? The reason is obvious—in order to construct a sinister New World Order, the Illuminati need to indoctrinate the youth to want and support it. This is why Christianity is regularly attacked by the liberal newsmedia and Hollywood, teaching youth that fundamental Christianity is hateful bigotry that oppresses queers, starts wars, and imposes it's outdated beliefs upon others. Nothing could be further from THE TRUTH. Likewise, youth have been foolishly taught to blame honest Capitalism and seek Communist Socialism. Hence, a revolutionary is an immoral youth who rejects the old system of faith in God, traditional family values, parental authority, individual liberty, respect for human life, national patriotism and cultural heritage. Don't you think it is more than a coincidence that the Devil also has a “new” Bible version for everyone, because the old King James Bible isn't good enough anymore? Open your eyes my friend. The Illuminati are deliberately confusing children about RIGHT and WRONG—through the use of Harry Potter witchcraft books, Communist public schools, television and music videos which sexualize youth, et cetera.

Dr. George Brock Chisholm (1896-1971), the first head of the World Health Organization (WHO), laid the blame for war and human conflict squarely at the feet of parents and Sunday School teachers who—from the beginning—fed their children the “poisonous certainties” of the Bible. This is Satanism at work, calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20).

The use of subliminal imagery has been used by advertisers, Hollywood and the music industry for decades. Check out this cigarette ad of Joe Camel, whose mouth is clearly depicting sexual intercourse. Shockingly, Walt Disney children's movies contain such awful subliminal imagery; such as, from the movies Aladdin and The Lion King, where a erect penis is cleverly shown in the castle. Satanist homosexuals control Walt Disney and Hollywood.

The frightening thing is that Walt Disney targets children and teenagers. Walt Disney is an absolute cesspool is sexual perversion and wickedness. The reason why becomes very clear when you consider that Disney's former CEO, Michael Eisner, said that he thinks 40% of the company's 63,000 employees are homosexuals. The new CEO, George Kalogridis (who has worked for Walt Disney since he was 17-years-old) is an open homosexual. This ought to alarm every Christian in America!

William M. Briggs #fundie wmbriggs.com

The future? The chipping away by the elites will continue and fewer things will be called perverse. It’s already a toss up on which side of the divide polygamy lies. Sexual activities with children, especially infants, is likely to remain a perversion for the foreseeable future, but the age which a person is considered “consenting” will shrink. Like bestiality, necrophilia will come to seem less perverse, mostly because of the “no harm” argument, but considerable social stigmas will remain. Men pretending to be women and vice versa will gain in prominence and privilege; others will be required to play along (as it were).

Sexual activities in public, particularly man-on-man acts, will continue to be “celebrated”; see for example particular festivals in San Francisco, Rose Bowl (same-sex “wedding”) parades, Thanksgiving (Kinky Boots) parades, etc.). In one Enlightened country it is already now not illegal (saying “it’s legal” doesn’t capture the proper tone) to masturbate in public. The judge allowing this employed a “no harm” variant. Look for more open flies in your neighborhood; more nudity of every kind.

As above, it will seem increasingly socially but not sexually perverse to dispute these trends. To remain chaste or virgin is already an excuse for comedy and pity; these states will soon be badges of dishonor, they are already said to be “unhealthy.” People in the spotlight will be expected to name their objects of lust. The nascent movement in Christianity which identifies same-sex lust as a “gift” from God will gain strength (lust for children, animals, the dead and so on is not yet seen as a “gift”). It’s unclear how long until you’re expected to send visitors to your home out into the street so that passersby might have a go at them.

David J. Stewart #fundie #homophobia #sexist #conspiracy jesusisprecious.org

We are living in crazy times, where all manner of evil is being legalized and called “good.” Isaiah 5:20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” The United States has reached the lowest point that a society can descend to—A REPROBATE MIND! Romans 1:28, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” People of reprobate minds want to force other people around them to also have a reprobate mind. This is why top political, military, economic, religious, legislative and judicial leaders in the U.S. are being replaced with like-minded people of REPROBATE MINDS!

Case in point is the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), J.D. Greear, who said that every Christian must, “stand up and be along the fiercest advocates for the preservation of the dignity and the rights of LGBTQ people.” What an ungodly reprobate!!! I said J.D. Greear is an ungodly reprobate!!! Homosexuality is a filthy sin! As born-again Christians we MUST NOT tolerate, sanction nor accept the homosexual community in their UNREPENTANT STATE! I am not saying that we should be gay-bashers, or hateful toward them, God forbid, but we must not embrace them with approval for their so-called “rights.” We can love homosexuals with the preaching of the cross, while at the same time taking a solid uncompromising Biblical stand against homosexuality as a sin! J.D. Greear is a dangerous man, whose ecumenical message downplays the severity of the sin of homosexuality!!!

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” —Thomas Jefferson (U.S. President 1801-1809)

No one has a right to commit sin! NO ONE!!! We have the God-given freedom to make our own choices, but not the “right” to sin. We should give up our WRONGS in America, not our RIGHTS! Compassion for sinners must never cause us to dip our sails of moral integrity. James 1:27, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” J.D. Greear is spotted by the world, tolerant of wicked sinners who have no intention of repenting and coming to Jesus Christ! We must love them, and reach out to them with THE TRUTH, but accepting their ungodly LGBTQ agenda is blasphemy against our holy God and Creator!!! Apostasy crept into the churches long ago, and is in charge of them today!

Satan is a spirit. The demons are spirits. Man is a spirit in a body. The human spirit is vulnerable to Satanic influence. That is why there is so much sexual perversion being promoted by music videos, magazines, Netflix, Hollywood movies, television and the media in general. Luciferians want to kill, steal and destroy the family, because that is the spirit of Satan “that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” If Satan cannot convince Mothers to have their child murdered by the Herodian abortion industry, then he will destroy your child through the media instead! Have you ever really taken a close look at Walt Disney? Disney is a repository of homosexual perverts! If you read the articles I just shared with you, or go search the internet, you'll learn that Walt Disney (1901-1966) himself, used to pack his genitals with ice, because he was sexually aroused watching children! Please don't feed your children to the Devil.

Consider the shocking words of Commander William Guy Carr (1895-1959)...

“Satanists have always used sex-bribery and the depravities and perversions of sex to obtain control of men and women they wished to use to further the secret plans of their diabolical conspiracy. Satanism makes a God of sex. They worship the human body because of its sexual abilities.”

SOURCE: Satan: Prince Of This World, by Commander William Guy Carr, p. 22.

According to a study done by Dr. Robert Kubey and Dr. Reed Larson, titled “The Use And Experience Of The New Video Media Among Children And Young Adolescents,” sensual music videos do in fact compel teenagers to behave promiscuously...

“A survey performed among 214 adolescents revealed that there was an association between music-video–watching and permissive sexual behaviors.”

SOURCE: AAP Gateway, Impact of Music, Music Lyrics, and Music Videos on Children and Youth; November 2009, Volume 124, Issue 5.

Repeatedly throughout Taylor Swift's “WILDEST DREAMS” video, while sinfully lifting her dress to expose her thighs, she thrusts forward as if engaged in intercourse, which is clearly intended to sexualize and arouse the viewer. The video is very erotic. Taylor Swift has sold her soul to the Devil, and every parent in America needs to get angry at the music industry and people like Taylor Swift who are targeting our youth with this SATANISM! The Illuminati fully know that: The best revolutionary is a youth totally devoid of morals. What is meant by revolutionary? It refers to someone who revolts against faith in God, individual liberty, obedience to parents, pride in one's heritage, a godly pastor and patriotism for one's country.

Senator Ted Cruz' Father Tells The Truth About Communist Queer Agenda

The spirit of Satan is at work in a reprobate mind! Rafael Cruz is right—“homosexual rights” is all about government control of your lives and the destruction of the traditional family! The homosexual agenda effectively promotes the idea that the government is God, who usurp their authority over God and His Word! Satan's intentions are to destroy Christianity, and what better way to do it, than with a tyrannical Communist government! When a government and its citizens flaunt themselves over the inspired Word of God, they are headed for certain destruction! Satan is the god of this world, whose spirit “now worketh in the children of disobedience”

kurta cobain #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[On the poorly phrased question "What would happen if someone could mathematically proof that evolution was made by God?"]

there is no evolution . Can you tell me why only monkeys made it? Why didn't my cat Rosy become a human being?I know that monkey stuff is the most that smells like humans. So why doesn't another spicy evaluated for example dogs and became the doggy being? Why it's only limited in monikers and during a limited period?if the god doesn't exist 1+1 will never be 2 it would be for example 3 but in this case you know that there is 1 that must be uncounted because this 1 has no producer and he can't just get into this equality like that by himself. it's known that the origin of this life is a big bomb cause by gases but from where do the first electron of the first atom ion this gas come from?

JL #fundie answers.yahoo.com

there is no evolution . Can you tell me why only monkeys made it? Why didn't my cat Rosy become a human being?I know that monkey stuff is the most that smells like humans. So why doesn't another spicy evaluated for example dogs and became the doggy being? Why it's only limited in monikers and during a limited period?if the god doesn't exist 1+1 will never be 2 it would be for example 3 but in this case you know that there is 1 that must be uncounted because this 1 has no producer and he can't just get into this equality like that by himself. it's known that the origin of this life is a big bomb cause by gases but from where do the first electron of the first atom ion this gas come from?

Scott Lively #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Last month, rabidly anti-gay activist Scott Lively warned that if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, it could lead to the rise of the Antichrist by the end of the year.

Naturally, Bryan Fischer decided to have Lively join him in-studio for his radio program today so that he could discuss his warning to America as well as promote the upcoming prayer vigil that he will be holding outside of the Supreme Court.

Lively told Fischer that America is about to cross "a line with God that hasn't occurred in the entire history of the world since Noah's flood," which he once again asserted was brought about by the celebration of "homosexual marriage."

"The final straw for God was when they started celebrating and engaging in homosexual and bestial marriages," he said.

Lively went on to declare that homosexuality is "the most egregious form of rebellion against God" and is a sin that is "worse than murder and worse then genocide."

"It's not just another sin," he continued. "It's really a harbinger of the judgment of God ... The celebration by the society [of homosexuality] is a harbinger of the wrath of God":

theworstworld #sexist reddit.com

What is depressing for me to think about women is....

There are women who are in to beastiality. There are women who genuinely enjoy fucking animals for Christs sake. And some of them are gorgeous. They would rather fuck smelly hairy dog, drinking disgusting dog semen, then fucking someone like me.

Once when I was on a dog walk with my friend, we met a woman (who was my friend's friend) who cried to my friend that she needs a small young female friend for her small young male dog. I stood there with my small young female dog waiting for her to acknowledge me and/or my dog, but she never did. Then she suddenly started talking about how her dog is too sexual and humps everything and how it's so embarrassing and problematic especially because she has small kids. I told her that she should get that dog fixed, and she looked at me like I was the grim reaper himself: "B-b-but! I-i-i-i could ne-never! That-that's just wrong!" She was like a 5 year-old anime character in a body of a 30 year-old woman.

Most women I've met are strongly against fixing male dogs no matter what, while fixing female dogs is completely okay. Hmm, I wonder why, lol.

revdaneeidson #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

The girly boy pansie he she sissy feminine softy man disease prevents pervert homos from seeing God has commanded his children to judge the wicked. The she he whorish lezbos and the girly men homosexuals teach the false doctrines I addressed in a previous post. This underscores my point. I posted the verses below in a previous post under this thread but yet still, the girly boy men and the he she manly lezbos still refuse to accept the whole counsel of God's word. Jesus called the lot of them "dogs" in Revelation 22:15. It is an accurate description because dogs eat their own fecal piles and the fecal piles of other dogs, have intercourse with young puppies, roll around in filth, driven by lust and mate in packs and hump even many other male dogs in large groups, and are driven to wallow in vile trash. It is no accident God chose the animal, the "dog", to describe the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Irredento #fundie forum.nationstates.net

Look, Christians do not hate gays, we in fact love them. When I say this, I truly mean it. Rather than trying to oppress them, what we are in fact doing is more akin to an intervention to help those whom we love stop living such an unhealthy and morally damaging lifestyle. They might not be hurting other people, but I do not think it is any coincidence that mental illness is many degrees worse among homosexuals, especially transgenders, than others, nor can I bring myself to ignore the fact that a disproportionate amount of them were molested as children, and it would be wilfully ignorant for me to pretend that homosexual promiscuity is not responsible for the spread and proliferation of AIDS and HIV around the world, along with many other lesser STDs due to the fact that homosexuals are so much more promiscuous and prone to unsafe sex than sexually healthy people. Finally, and most importantly of all, as Christians we must accept Bibical truth wherever possible, even if modern society disdains the truth, and so even if we end up living in a world in which gay "marriage" is legal in every part of every nation, all good Christians will continue to shout from the rooftops that this is wrong. The fact that all these social and health problems have arisen as a result of the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" serves to show that, once again, the Word of God is indeed the best rulebook by which to run society and live one's life.

Sometimes, it is right to help someone even if they are only harming themselves. Just as I would want to see a heroin addict kick his habit, I also want to see homosexuals kick their habit. You are almost certainly the same on other issues that have not yet been pushed upon you since youth by the media. Take incest for example. I assume you are not a proponent of brothers and sisters legally having sex and even marrying simply because they are "consenting adults" who "aren't hurtning anyone"? Or what about bestiality? Before you tell me that "animals can't consent", consider the case of a man on Loveline who described how he "presents" and lets his dog enter him from behind. The very act is initiated by the dog and therefore is consensual. Is this sort of thing okay to you? Can you support this just because the dog and the man are having consensual sex and "aren't hurting anyone"? Please consider all of these things as well as all the other possible sexual perversions out there that could someday be argued are "normal" for the same reasons you currently believe homosexuality to be healthy and non-damaging. Sometimes, even if it might hurt their feelings, we must do all that is within our power to save a person. I care a lot more about the eternal soul of people caught up in the gay lifestyle than I do about their hurt feelings between now and their redemption.

Lordareon #fundie forum.nationstates.net


10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

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

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

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

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

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

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

TFP Student Action #homophobia #fundie tfpstudentaction.org

1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.


2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand
In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

Rick Gutbrod #fundie quora.com

Genetics show that ALL humans are compatible as mates. This would indicate that we all have one set of parents.

Even evolutionary claims always lead back to an “Adam” and “Eve”. (That is what was presented on my DNA testing, that on my paternal side, it lead all the way back to an “Adam” which they located as being in Africa, the popular location for evolutionists’ point of origin for mankind.) And all women have the same “mother”, the mitochondria DNA.

Specific dominate traits came into existence, and because of isolation from other family groups, those favorable traits grew stronger. That is why what people call “race” is such a fallacy.

It is not unusual for this to happen in other species of life, for example Darwin’s finches, where differing eating habits modified the finches. (One of the current worries by evolutionary scientists is that the famous finches interbred with other finches who have developed differing eating habits. So there are now composite finches all over the islands.)

Since you (maybe a pale white guy) could chose as a mate, a beautiful Aboriginal woman, and your children would be a composite of the two of you, this supports the fact that Adam and Eve as spoken of in the Bible, is as valid an explanation as any so-called scientific explanation.

R.K. Jones #fundie amazon.com

[review on the book, "Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters"]

Just more Lies and homosexual propaganda from someone trying to justify an immoral sexual practice. I guess bestiality and sex with minors will be the next abhorrent behaviors to be championed the next group of fascists waiting in the wings for their chance. You say you want everyone treated equally but you hate God, Christians and everything they stand for. The so called LGBTQ community is the most prejudiced, selfish, and radical group I have ever seen.

Jon Davis #fundie youtube.com

(=Progressive vs Homophobic Christian=)

Jon Davis: Still missed it!! Jesus addressed this DIRECTLY. Right here!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.

blind poet38: Not necessarily true. Translated into English, the Bible condemns homosexuality. But looking at the original text, the Hebrew word that is used is very vague. And Jesus never said that gay people couldn't get married, but it was just God's design that they don't get married.

Jon Davis: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" is not a word, it is a description to eliminate the confusion.
Jesus didn't need to say that "gay people can't get married", he referenced the design and that settled it. One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.
Penis is designed for vagina. *blush* Vagina is for penis. *blush* Anus is for pooping. *pffrrt*
It's not homophobia. It's basic biology.

blind poet38: If it is basic biology, how is it that scientists have found over 1500 animal species that practice homosexual acts. You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin. But the Bible really does not say that. And I am a Christian by the way.

Jon Davis: It is basic biology because that is how we procreate, and to do things differently promotes bad health (bleeding butts anyone?) and is not conducive to humankind's continuity.
Animals do all kinds of disgusting things. Dogs eat poop. Cats pee on clothes. Are you just an animal? No. Mankind was made in God's image.
As for everything else you just said ("You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin" etc) you're obviously trolling. I just quoted the text that called it "detestable". And while neither Old nor New Testaments use the term "homosexual" (a term that modern English coined) they both describe the sexual act and describe it with disgust and contempt.

blind poet38: You can think I am trolling if you want to, but you have to understand that the original Hebrew uses terminology that is not as clear-cut as people think it is when it deals with condemning homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Read the OP. Matthew 19:4-5 has no dependency upon Leviticus 18:22; indeed it goes the other way around. You're barking at the wrong argument. I myself was trolled by actually responding to it.

blind poet38: Sorry dude, I don't get your point. All I am saying is that in the original Hebrew, the word that is used is not as clear-cut as people think it is to condemn homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Now you're spamming. Stop repeating yourself. Even if it was true, it's irrelevant, and I already explained why. Now go read Romans 1:18-32 (originated as Greek, not Hebrew), study it with an exhaustive study Bible which provides insight on the original language, and come back when you've studied more than the ridiculous false "truths" and FUD you've found on the Internet.

blind poet38: You can be dismissive all you want, and that is fine. But why is it irrelevant? We are talking about homosexuality and the Bible aren't we?

blind poet38: It is obvious you have no answers to anything. I have already done the research.

AskariStudios: But God Said that all sex outside of Marriage is wrong. Since Marriage is in between only a man and a women. this makes homosexuality wrong. in no way shap or form has marriage ben said to take place between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. ONLY a MAN and a Woman.this has been stated numerous times in the bible. Not only this but in Levitcus, it is clear stated that homosexuality is an abomination. clear cut. in Jude, it its written that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves up to sexual perversion (homosexuality) and where thus made an example of. So with Just Common Logic, and the fact that through multiple translations, the same wording has shown up., its clear that the bible is against homosexuality.

blind poet38: The Bible never says that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" is quite elaborately spoken against. That you would say such a thing speaks volumes about modern society being so casually hedonistic; sex outside of marriage was universally taboo and expected to be everyone's struggle, it didn't need to be spelled out in detail like it spelled out homosexuality, it was simply referred to as "fornication".
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Fornication/
http://www.openbible.info/topics/fornication
http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-arriage.html

AskariStudios: 1 Cor 7 states : "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: t“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Its clear that Paul(I do believe he wrote this) implies that Sex before marriage is sexual immorality and that do to this temptation, a man should marry.
want more proof? look up : (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7) and Hebrews 13:4.

blind poet38: The only sexual sins that are mentioned in the Bible are adultery, incest and sex with animals. Fornication means "sexual sin." Which sins? Adultery, incest and sex with animals. Premarital sex is not mentioned as a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" does not mean "sexual sins in general". It means "extramarital sex". If you want to discuss Greek or Hebrew, say so, but you didn't. Look up the word and stop speaking assertions about our English words when you don't even know your own English language.

blind poet38: Fornication does not mean "extramarital sex." That is what someone told you it means. Fornication means "sexual sin." Learn the facts.

Jon Davis: There's a fine line between idiocy and trolling. That line is knowledgable intent. I'm not sure what you're doing in your case. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

blind poet38: OK Jon, you are right. Translated into English, premarital sex is a sin, despite the fact that Solomon and David and Samson, etc etc etc all did it and were never punished for it in the Bible. But the question is in the NT,, what does porneia mean? That is not the Greek word for adultery or any specific sexual sin. It generally means any kind of sexual immorality. And what is sexual immorality in the Bible? Adultery and incest and sex with animals.

Jon Davis: what do you mean "they weren't punished for it"? OT figures who engaged in fornication took a pounding for it. Most of their stories are used as case lessons for the hell people go through when they do it.
To answer your question: Fundamentally, in the Bible there are only two types of sex: sex within marriage (one man and one woman) and sexual immorality, porneia. Read the OP in this thread if you don't understand.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "The Sexual Depravity of the Alt-Left"

We've all noticed the world's promotion of what God calls an abomination. It grieves the spirit of righteous men today, just as it grieved the spirit of righteous men like Lot years ago. I came across two very foolish men (celebrities nonetheless) who reminded me of the depraved men who attempted to attack the two angels that visited Lot and even tried to attack Lot when he refused to send the angels out to them. Watch and pray.

Versace quote:

"“In life, you must f--k everything. You must do the dog, and the cat, and the boy, and the girl," Sorbo quoted Versace as saying."

That is truly how the alt-left thinks...complete and total sexual immorality and depravity. The man promoted bestiality, child-rape and clearly lacked human decency.

Tom Ford Quote:

"He believes all men should be penetrated at least once: 'It would help them understand women'"

Foolishness. There is no benefit to a man "understanding women", by committing abominations. To understand a woman talk to her and listen to her when she talks to you. Pray and seek God. A man who truly wants a "wife", not someone who wants to whoremonger, but a man who wants a lasting, meaningful marriage really only needs to understand one woman intimately, his wife. No one needs to engage in anything God condemned to understand what God designed, a husband and wife marriage covenant. Again, The Wisdom of the World is Foolishness to God.

image

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Seeing a women poured into tight pants at the grocery store is just as tempting and dangerous as seeing pornography on the internet. Men are under attack. Many preachers recognize the dangers of pornography, but fail to see the danger of sensually unclothed women at the shopping mall or church. Sexual lust is caused by sight for men. Thus, it is extremely important for women to hide their breast cleavage, thighs and sexy shape. Many women laugh at what I say, who are the same women that fornicate, have abortions, divorce and then wonder why their life is so messed-up. It's not that hard to figure out! Even if women dress properly, men will always still struggle with lust. It's part of our human sin-nature. However, when women deliberately dress slutty, wear tight blouses, drawing attention to their body instead of their heart, it is wickedness in God's sight. The Lord will judge every woman in eternity according to how she dressed and behaved on earth. Do you really think God doesn't care about how you dress?

Indecency is in the shopping mall. Victoria's Secret is no longer a secret! Porn is on every magazine! Porn is in all the professional sporting events. The cheerleaders lift their legs, open their skirts, showing their crotches and thighs. God only knows all the women raped, little girls molested, the broken marriages and wives beaten, all because of sluts like Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, Madonna, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Marilyn Monroe and all the other whores and devils on two legs. Jesus said in Matthew 12:36 that men will be held accountable for even their idle words. How much more shall God hold women accountable for intentionally causing men to lust and commit sin!!!

Pornography is coming into our homes through television, advertisements, movies, music videos and magazines. It's also coming through the phones in the form of filthy communications, so people can fill their ears and hearts with unholy thoughts and filthy words. People dial 1-900 numbers to talk dirty with some 300 pound pervert on the other end of the line. Sexting has become popular amongst teens, sending filthy text messages to each other. And now “selfies,” teens taking cellphone photos of themselves naked and sending them to friends, has become very popular. What do you think God thinks about this? You know what God thinks! Porn is in the newspapers. It's in the commercials. It's in business windows. It's everywhere!!! You can't name one thing that pornography hasn't gotten a hold of these days. America is filled with every vile abomination!!! Judgment day is coming for America and the wicked world!!!

Faith Facts #fundie faithfacts.org

When the subject of Gay Marriage comes up, how are Christians doing at communicating the harm to society with the secular world? Do we have logical reasons to present without being perceived as being "Bible-thumping"?

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:

1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

Jimmy #fundie nowtheendbegins.com

[Burning in hell for all eternity for rejecting Christ for a few years on this sinful earth is a wicked teaching]

A loving god ALONE is NOT the God of the Holy Bible. The god that you’re interested in is the greek god Pan that’s ALL LOVE and consents to all sin without judgement; bestiality, pedophilia, and necromancy included.

The God of the Holy Bible is HOLY (imagine that). His love for you is PAST TENSE and can only be located at Calvary (John 3:16 KJV).

God’s wrath is on you CURRENTLY (John 3:36 KJV), and if you do not come to God as a sinner that has earned their place in Hell, Hell will be your eternal destination.

CL #fundie patheos.com

1. Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent
New York Times Ignores Children of Gay Parents Who Want a Mom and Dad
(especially before you go calling people uneducated, bigoted, or hateful.... I have no hate, I am well educated, and I won't even talk about the way the word bigoted is thrown around)

2. Greetings Kim, Just because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not make it natural does it? and we are not animals are we?
even if there is unnatural attraction in the animal kingdom, animals do not find a way to act on those unnatural attractions do they? other than dry humping the wrong sex
The aberration remains an aberration.

3. I'm not 'putting anyone down'.... I am trying to lift them up.... up to where they belong.... with their Creator. Ignoring His will and His design is not going to get them there.... that is Truth with Love. <3

sabelmouse #fundie sabelmouse.tumblr.com

In 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vaccinations are "unavoidably unsafe".

No medical intervention that is "unavoidably unsafe" should be mandatory.

No medical procedure that does not have the "informed consent" of the patient should ever, be thrust on anyone.

Vaccinations are "unavoidably unsafe" which as a parent my first duty is above all else, "first do no harm" and to thoroughly understand the toxic ingredients in vaccinations as part of the "informed consent" process before agreeing to this invasive medical procedure.

Doctors may have thrown "first do no harm" under the bus, parents cannot afford to.

Educate before you vaccinate.

#unavoidably unsafe #informed consent #vaccination #parenting #Hippocratic Oath

Erana Monica #fundie topix.com

If religion was not real then why would people insist on atheism? I do not want to stereotype but most athiests i have met were gays. Yet they fail to notice that when they engage in sexual activity that goes against procreation they take part in a ritual that worships baal peor. Their flag has a relative symbol of that on the belly of baphomet (where a woman bears her child) thus being against procreation. If symbolism did not have such a powerful influence, would it be ok for your children to attend a kindergarten with nazi symbols all over the walls?

There are many people in this world who go about their day everyday without acknowledging their spirituality. Alot of people in this world are comfortable with this, some have never acknowledged measurement of themselves physically, emotionally, and in this case spiritually.

I have tested god in many ways, many sinful ways, when 'coincidences' happen too often i believe it is a miracle or the work of a spiritual being (oohh weee ooohh) My head was 10cm away from being crushed by a SUV type porsche while crossing great south road i tripped over. I have never believed in luck and i believe just as there is a god there is the devil or people involved in the devils work.

Jennifer LeClaire #fundie charismanews.com

When I shared the prophetic word below with my intercessors, it troubled them. I understand why. It troubled me also. I decided to hold it back and pray it through but the Holy Spirit recently reminded me of these words again. These words should not breed fear but should open our eyes to what's coming, and what, in fact, is already beginning to manifest right before our eyes. Here is the word:

Calling Evil Good and Good Evil

"A tsunami of perversion and all manner of wicked sin is headed toward this nation. You've only yet seen the rumblings of what the enemy has planned. For many in your nation have called good evil and called evil good. Many in this nation have not believed you will reap what you sow.

"You have sown iniquity—for decades—and you have taken the hand of perversion. You have walked in step with abominations rather than resisting the temptations to deny my Word and my Son. The perversion in this land will increase and increase and increase.

"There will come a day when morality is no longer merely relative but is persecuted. There will come a day when evil is considered good and good is considered evil. When that day comes, those who are hidden in the shadow of My wings will be insulated from the abominations around them.

"I will raise up the likes of Abraham and Moses to deliver the righteous out of the hand of the wicked in that day. I will shield those who run into my Name. But no longer look and no longer think that you will turn the tide by your prayers alone. These things must be so. I warn you now to fear not, but to ready your hearts. Buy your oil. Be ready for My coming."

It's Not Just Sexual Perversion

Yes, we've seen the rumblings of this rising perversion but I believe it's going to grow darker still. When you think of perversion you probably immediately think of sexual perversion—and I believe that's part of it. The Bible has plenty to say about sexual perversion in Romans 1:21-28 alone and we're seeing that passage playing out right now.

But sexual immorality—polygamy, homosexuality, adultery, fornication and legal bestiality that I've so often addressed—is not the only kind of perversion. There's perversion of laws, perversion of justice, perversion of speech, perversion of freedom—and most importantly, perversion of God's Word. Apostasy is rising. The Great Falling Away is underway.

After praying over this and letting it sit for some months, it became clear to me that the root of this tsunami of perversion is actually the perversion of God's Word itself. You've seen a trickle of this, but it's about to break out like a flood. Again, we're seeing prominent pastors and entire denominations perverting God's Word, twisting it to defend and justify perversion itself and suggesting the rest of us are legalistic or unenlightened about the truth. It may have started with the gay marriage doctrine but it won't end there.

Rippedrichandincel #sexist fstdt.com

This is true. Giving birth to children is morally indistinguishable from rape. In either case you thrust upon an individual something they have not consented to. If you wish to say it's ok in the case or childbirth because unborn children cannot consent, then you must say it's ok to rape unconscious femoids because they too cannot consent.

Child birth is evil, though you know this already because you creeps posted my posts about it

nofanofobama #fundie chronicle.augusta.com

(response to the question of when he chose to be straight}

AT BIRTH..i will answer that GOD thru nature made me a male with all the bodily characteristics of a man...with that comes the compatability to the female gender to unite and procreate...its a wonderful gift...to goe AGAINST that natural process and wonderful gift is when YOU make that desicision... its going against the instruction book that innate to our species...

Stephen Green #fundie melonfarmers.co.uk

Christian Voice nutter, Stephen Green, has been noted arguing a particularly reprehensible line of reasoning. You don't get much lower than this.

From the Guardian:

On Sunday evening, a lone campaigner stood outside St Mary's church, Putney. Stephen Green, a haggard and unshaven figure, obsessed and weighed down by the wickedness of modern Britain, handed out leaflets warning of the consequences of same-sex love, while announcing to anyone who would listen: "Homosexuality and sexual immorality is all on a continuum with paedophilia, bestiality, adultery, child-sacrifice. You are saying it is all OK."

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Mormons have turned sex into a religion!!! Mormonism's gospel is saturated with sex, sex, sex! Joe Smith's perverted views are the foundation of Mormonism. In view of the fact that same-sex marriage is about to be made federal law, I am convinced that polygamy is also going to be legalized for Mormons. Mormons try to give the false impression that they're just like any other Americans, hard-working and decent people. Although many are hard-working and successful people, they are not honest about their religious faith. The fact that polygamous Mormons have to live in closed communities speaks volumes. The fact that Mormon temples are off limits to the public and rituals are secret speaks volumes! Truth and righteousness need no cloak. Only evil needs to be kept secret! The truth is that Mormonism is an organization within an organization, like Freemasonry, where a small inner group of elite and wealthy men live in sexual debauchery at the expense of the outer group. Mormon temples even contain beds (which aren't used for napping purposes).

Sexual perversion is rampant in America. Homosexuals are allowed to marry and that's ok with mainstream society. Gene Simmons (Jewish) brags of having had sex with 4,897 women and that is ok with mainstream society, making him a star on TV. Every form of sexual immorality is tolerated in America, even pedophilia and bestiality. Britney Spears shamelessly holds a world record for having only a 72-hour marriage! Yet American society shows no mercy when a Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggert sins even once. I'm not going easy on sin, I'm pointing out that Americans are wicked hypocrites who are bigoted, hateful and biased against Christians, the Bible and righteousness.

r/TheDogPill #sexist #crackpot reddit.com

The sole purpose of this subreddit is to understand and appreciate the spiritual meaning and biological reality of human relationship with animals. More specifically, within a female Homo S. sapiens and Canis l. familiaris (and other related Canids). It has been widely documented throughout the history (and since the antiquity) that a female Homo s. Sapiens and canids can develop a deep relationship with each other that shaped the human civilization.

(Translation: Incels have created a subreddit devoted to their sick fetish/alternative fact of women commonly having sex with dogs. Yes, really.
Warning: Contains graphic historical drawings of bestiality that are not flagged as NSFW and are thus displayed even if you are not logged in or have 18+ content disabled!)

Rasshamara #fundie angelfire.com

The pale man originated from the Caucus mountains, where there was very little plant life and not much means for salt. This condition forced him to rob the Nubian female of her chastity in order to keep his seed alive, it’s called integration.

The Caucasian woman who was left in the mountains, resorted to lying with and having sex with beasts: such as the jackal, which is an ancestor of today’s dog. The phrase “dog is man’s best friend” came from this situation. The dog would lick the festered sores of the leper and clean them for him. His seed was kept alive because the Caucasian woman and the jackal mated. This is where you get people who possess an animalistic nature.

Ques: Is it possible for one species to have offspring’s with another species?

Ans: The reason why Amorites could have offspring’s from a union with an animal was because they themselves had retreated to being animals, and were lab rats for extraterrestrials who did genetic splicing with all kinds of animals and humans. The lepers that remained in the mountains were pushed further, into the Caucus mountains and fell so low as to mate with the dog-like animals, which is called the act of bestiality, and anyone who was guilty of it was condemned (Leviticus 18:22-23). If it did not happen there would have been no reason for this law, and if you want to know who this is talking about just read Leviticus chapter 13 and 14, then to 15, to 16, and then right on up 17, then you're there. The result of this mixture were ape-like animals. The ones who had left the mountains did not return.

Henry Makow, PhD #sexist #homophobia #wingnut #kinkshaming henrymakow.com

According to our definition of homosexuality, (i.e. promiscuity outside of love and/or procreation), all pornography is gay. The porn consumer is engaged in a promiscuous masturbatory fantasy. He is not focused on his marriage and progeny.

From what I have said, it should be clear that homosexuality is incompatible with heterosexuality, just as promiscuity is incompatible with monogamy. Gay activists admit their goal is to destroy heterosexuality.

Pornography is poisoning heterosexuality. There is a place for tasteful nudity as a stopgap while seeking marriage.
(See my "Managing the Male Sex Drive" ) But as you know, pornography has reached epidemic proportions. "Adult Video News" predicts revenue of $12.6 billion this year. The Internet has literally thousands of porn sites. TV and pop music increasingly are pornographic.

Pornography warps the way a man sees all women and girls. Many sites include girls as young as 14. See "Erototoxins"

Young females think they are useful for one thing only. Thousands in the porn industry display what everyone has instead of cultivating what is rare and valuable: femininity and the qualities sought in a wife and mother.

I hate to burst the bubble on a billion-dollar industry: Young naked women are practically identical. They have identical equipment. Boobs and bush. Symmetrical faces. Do men need to see literally thousands of examples?

There is something addictive here. Why don't men get sick of it? Why don't they suffer from gynecologist's fatigue? The plethora of breasts and splayed legs takes the wonder out of sex and causes contempt for women and impotence. Maybe this is the point: new drugs keep people running on empty. (See "The Porn Pharma Complex")

David J. Stewart #fundie #homophobia #conspiracy #racist jesusisprecious.org

It is no longer safe to be unpopular today in the United States. The media today bullies fundamental Bible preachers, labeling them as hate-preachers. What the ungodly media does is to stir up the public—inciting hatred and instigating anger—and then when they have stirred public unrest, they film the blasphemy being spoken in hatred against God's men. 1st Kings 21:25, “But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.” Acts 14:2, “But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” The ungodly Zionist-controlled U.S. media (MP3, Unholy Alliance) stir up hatred against pastors and churches who oppose the LGBTQ homosexual agenda!!! I agree with Pastor Anderson on the meaning of LGBTQ (Let God Burn Them Quickly). Oh, you say, that is hate speech! No, that is the inspired Word of God! Psalms 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” The homosexual community are wicked! Homosexuality is a vile sin, just as adultery, fornication, rape, bestiality, polygamy, uncleanliness and all other forms of sexual immorality.

Pastor Anderson has been banned in at least 32 countries thus far. God bless him! Matthew 23:31, “Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” Luke 11:47, “Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.” Luke 11:48, “Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.” Bible preachers have always been rejected and hated by the wicked! If you value your liberty and freedom dear reader, then you ought to embrace, support and love Bible preachers, because apart from faith in the God of the King James Bible, this country is doomed to destruction!!! I dare say that America can be saved, because we have gone too far into apostasy and decadence, to the point that homosexuals are legally getting married and adopting children!

What the media and city of Knoxville are doing to punish Grayson Fritts, evidences how far gone America is today. We are truly now living in the 11th hour of Bible prophecy. For merely expressing his rightful opinion (spoken from his own church pulpit), it has compelled ungodly critics to bring down the roof upon Pastor Fritts. Pastor Grayson has been forced into early retirement, and the ungodly media are boasting that he was fired. What ever happened to the First Amendment? What ever happened to freedom of religion, freedom of press and freedom of speech? If a preacher upholds the Biblical truth that homosexuals are worthy of the death penalty by the government, they want a pound of flesh from that minister. Unfortunately, things are going to get worse. If you haven't watched it yet, please find out what happened to a godly youth pastor in Canada, who called for parents to take a stand against sodomite propaganda being targeted at their children. The pastor was charged and convicted of hate speech...

SPEECHLESS: SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS (increasing violence perpetrated against Christians)

Twisted critics start touting, “Love thy neighbour,” as if rapists, pedophiles, adulterers, kidnappers, homosexuals and other Biblical crimes ought to be ignored by the government. Only a Luciferian government would sanction such evils. Hence, the United States! There was a time long ago when all these moral offenses were punishable crimes. Who gives any human being the right to pick and choose which sins ought to be punished? Who are men to say that homosexuality is or isn't a sin? God says it is! This entire matter boils down to whether or not people have FAITH IN GOD'S WORD. Why do you think the Devil has entered into the Bible publishing racket? Satan wants to obscure the Words of God, to confuse and obliterate, and change the truth of God's Word into a lie (Romans 1:25).

Check this out, how the scum-bucket Rockefellers and Western powers have destroyed Asia, through forced abortion policies, and paying women to get sterilized. It seems that most of the evil things in this world are perpetrated by the Freemasons who control the United States and created modern manmade Israel in 1948. Hell will be hot enough!

Americans in the decades to come, if the Lord tarries, WILL LOSE their freedom of speech. It is already happening across the country. It Is Tragic That Truth-Teller Alex Jones Has Been Banned From YouTube, Facebook And Media. Alex told the truth about Sandy Hook being staged. Alex told the truth about the 9/11 attacks being an INSIDE JOB! Read this: Florida Schools Ban Exposing Zionists. So now in Florida colleges you cannot expose the Masonic Zionists running and ruining our country. By merely slapping a derogatory label of “conspiracy theorists” across any truth-teller, they are instantly deemed a nut. Please watch the documentary titled: SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS! The LGBTQ community wants tolerance, but they won't tolerate the Christian community who refuse to accept the homosexual deathstyle. Being politically correct has replaced being Biblically correct! Homosexuals use the attack strategy of: desensitize, jamming and conversion to promote their ungodly agenda. Little by little, Americans will not be able to say anything negative about homosexuals or the sin of homosexuality in public. Nor will we be able to speak out against the crimes of government, the evils of Zionism, or tell the truth about staged false flag terror attacks (e.g., Sandy Hook). A truly free society is only one in which it is safe to be unpopular.

bam bam #fundie jonathanturley.org

[Commenting under "Can You Guess What This Person Was Charged With?," about Julian Mark Ridgeway being tried for committing acts of bestiality on a mare]

The taboo of a human, engaging in sex with a non-human, will soon go the way of the seemingly intransigent taboo of two individuals, of the same gender, engaging in sexual relations. Just a matter of time, folks. Just a matter of time. The once unimaginable–homosexual activity–is now accepted, elevated, glorified and given legal protection. Children will soon be required to read, along with Bobby Has Two Dads or Suzie Has Two Moms, another book, entitled, Bradley Has Two Dads–Robert, the Sperm Donor and Wilbur, His Loving and Devoted Horse Partner. Sure, we may scoff at my so-called absurd notion and prediction now, but, remember, my parents and their peers, decades ago, would’ve dismissed as ludicrous the manner in which homosexuality–a longstanding and seemingly irreversible taboo, dating back thousands of years–has today been embraced and sanctioned as an alternate, but normal and healthy, lifestyle. Of course, the naysayers will grumble about how homosexuals are consenting adults, and I will be chastised for comparing the actions of two consenting adults with a human and a non-human, which, supposedly, has no ability to consent. Never mind that the definition of consent is malleable. Fluid. Capable of being altered in an instant. It will soon be argued, if it hasn’t, already, that the mare, in this story, had every opportunity, every chance, given its size and strength, to resist this old perv. Its acquiescence will be deemed consent. It will be alleged that the mare has rights and privileges and that said rights and privileges extend to such behavior, to which it was, apparently, amenable. Laugh now. This type of behavior will soon be granted legal protection, and history will look back on Ridgeway, not as some old, demented perv, who couldn’t keep his hands off of innocent and helpless creatures, but as the Rosa Parks of bestiality. Our society is descending down a slippery slope, with no end in sight.

SeenAndUnseen #fundie christianforums.com

This is not at all a question of people fearing anything; engaging in homosexuality is simply and objectively evil. It is not even "sex" that takes place. It is just two people engaging in a mutual erotic massage, it is closed to the possibility of creating new life, so it is closed to God. No controversy that I can see.

(3 posts later, same thread)

Even married couples are not to engage in "sex" activity that does not end in the procreative act that can bring new life.

Corky Wallace #fundie mormonapologetics.org

More seriously, is chemical castration an option for LDS gays? I mean, if you're faithful LDS & accept that for whatever reason the Lord has put you on Earth as a "eunuch" (best case, if you can stay strong), why should you have to struggle with incessant thoughts that are not just inappropriate now, but will be inappropriate in the next life, too, only serve to pervert any desires to have children in a celestial relationship in the next life. There is zero point to having homosexual thoughts, it's not as though they're a normal part of the procreation process - they're just an annoying, perverted form of biology, entirely worthless.

Jennifer LeClaire #fundie barbwire.com

Can we pray the polyamory away? If we sit by and complain or stick our heads in the sand, arguing that Christians should not be discussing these issues, then we’re admitting defeat and displeasing Christ. But if you believe that God can deliver some from the grip of immorality—whether that’s adultery, fornication, masturbation, pornography, homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, polyamory or some other sexual sin—then drop to your knees and join with me in intercessory prayer. It’s not only about setting the captives free—it’s about protecting the next generation of young minds the media is molding.

Silas Reynolds #fundie therightstuff.biz

[From "A Current Year™ Listicle: The “They Had It Coming” Catalogue"]

Steve Otter is now dead. In a delicious bit of irony, the White communist and anti-apartheid activist was murdered by vibrant home invaders on December 16th (Reconciliation Day in South Africa). Naturally, the powers that be in the failed state of South Africa are both deeply concerned, but also in a state of profound grief. South Africa’s minister of culture, Nathi Mthethwa, delivered a sorrowful statement on the late anti-White agitator’s fate, “We are devastated and outraged to learn about the fatal attack which claimed the life of author and former journalist Steven Otter.”

[...]

But, in my honest opinion, Steve Otter sounds like he had it coming – if you catch my meaning. That’s not a clarion call for any would-be warriors to begin physical removal, but rather a sense of smug satisfaction in shitlibs (or I call them socialist-slash-communists because that’s what they are) and anti-White agitators receiving their just deserts.

It’s our Current Year™ now. The Old Right is in shambles and the Left has lost over a 1,000 legislative seats under President High Yeller. Purple haired and gender fluid SJWs are bravely and literally shaking from fear. Hate trumps love in the Current Year™ and any minute Vice President Pence will institute widespread and enforced electro-shock conversion therapy – starting with San Francisco. That being said, it’s worthwhile to dive into the (non-retconned) history books and celebrate a commie’s comeuppance on occasion.

Below is a Current Year™ listicle on now lionized, but thoroughly perverted Marxists and, occasionally and coincidentally Jewish, subversives that said sayonara.

5. This Machine Kills Fascists…Not Really.
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Victor-Jara.jpg
Víctor Jara
– was supposed to be Chile’s next Woody (or Arlo) Guthrie (it doesn’t matter though, they were both equally shitbags anyway). He was a Chilean teacher, theatre director, lovesick poet, singer-songwriter and political hack. As we all know, Chile experienced something akin to a miracle in the early 1970s with the rise of Augusto Pinochet – a man with a penchant for sunglasses and physically removing communists via helicopter rides, along with his elite death squad called the “Caravan of Death.” Shortly after the anti-communist coup on September 11th, 1973, Jara was arrested, tortured under interrogation and eventually got a bullet in the head. Afterwards, his body was thrown in the street of a shanty town in Santiago. Good riddance.

Why Removal? Despite being labeled a peaceful singer/song writer, Jara was a dedicated communist and antagonist to the traditional and conservative Chilean people. He considered himself essentially a man of the people and the bard to the Popular Unity Government under Salvador Allende – who planned on making Chile a Soviet satellite state, after he converted the country to a leftwing socialist nightmare (inflation was at 150% prior to the coup with plans for land redistribution and social justice reforms). Early in his recording career he showed a knack (don’t they all) for provoking normal and religious Chileans, releasing a traditional comic song called La beata that depicted a religious woman tempting a priest at confession. The song was rightfully banned on radio stations and removed from record shops. Prior to being physically removed by Pinochet’s men, it was well known that Jara had made visits to both Cuba and the Soviet Union (including a concert in Moscow) in the early 1960s and he had officially joined the Communist Party. In addition, there were rumors that Jara was involved in unsavory sexual activities (think pedophilia).

The Happening: On the morning of September 12th, Jara was taken as a prisoner by the military and interned in the Chile Stadium. His body was later discarded outside the stadium along with other subversives who had been killed by the Chilean Army. Prior to being shot in the head, Victor Jara had his hands broken – either as a punishment for playing his guitar or something more sinister.

4. The Power of Poetry vs. El Caudillo
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Miguel-Hern-ndez-removed.jpg
Miguel Hernández
- was an early 20th century Spanish poet and playwright associated with the Generation of '27 movement and the Generation of '36 movement. His fate was sealed as a member of the Communist Party of Spain since Hernández “fought” for the Spanish Republicans, the merciless bastards that wanted to destroy Catholic Spain during the Spanish Civil War. During the war he wrote poetry and propaganda. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful in escaping Spain after the Republicans finally surrendered (they hardly ever won a battle, unless it was murdering priests and nuns). After the war, he was arrested multiple times for his anti-fascist sympathies (think pinko commie signaling).

Why Removal? Eventually, Hernández joined the First Calvary Company of the Peasants' Battalion as a cultural-affairs officer, reading his propaganda poetry daily on the radio. He traveled extensively throughout the country, organizing communist cultural events and doing poetry readings for soldiers on the front lines. Like Jara, Hernández also traveled to the USSR, where he acted as a representative for the Spanish Republic (and likely got his marching orders from the Soviets). He also attended the II International Congress of Antifascist Writers which took place in Madrid and Valencia.

The Happening: After the Republicans and their communist allies were defeated, he was condemned to death in 1939 - he was described as, "an extremely dangerous and despicable element to all good Spaniards." The Nationalists gave him a pretty reasonable out - he was presented with an opportunity to renounce communism and apologize for betraying Spain. He refused, but his death sentence, however, was commuted to a prison term of 30 years, leading to incarceration in several prisons where he eventually croaked from tuberculosis in 1942.

3. "Muh Resistance"
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Jean-Moulin1---Removed.jpg
Jean Moulin
– the French Resistance, for the most part, was extremely overrated by both the Western Allies (the Soviets had a different sort of involvement) and Charles de Gaulle – de Gaulle probably deserves his own Alt-Right dressing down, the man was a disgrace to both the French military and the Pied-Noirs. Thanks to de Gaulle’s involvement, Jean Moulin was propped up and became the face of the Resistance and idolized after the war. He is remembered today as the main emblem of the Resistance, owing mainly to his role in unifying elements of the French Resistance (think communists, trade unionists and, finally, patriotic Frenchmen) and his highly publicized death at the hands of the “Butcher of Lyon” Klaus Barbie.

Why Removal? For starters, Moulin was no soldier during the Fall of France in 1940. He was a prefect (think government administer with broad powers). He was arrested shortly after the German invasion because he refused to admit that French Senegalese colonial troops had massacred French civilians. To be fair, there is much of the Second World War that could be described as “murky” at best, but the Senegalese (African units both from the French colonies in North Africa and also many from sub-Saharan Africa) were known after The Great War (think "The Black Shame") and after World War II (their mass rape of Italian women) for grotesque horrors committed on the civilian population. After the massacre, the German Wehrmacht had many of the Senegalese executed and requested that Moulin sign-off on the action to prevent them from being accused of “muh war crimes.” Moulin refused. He even refused after personnel from the German army personally walked him to the site of the massacre and showed him the bodies of civilian men, women and children who had been butchered, raped and mangled.

Now, most of the history of the Second World War is shrouded in propaganda and most everything the Germans claimed (with respect to conduct) has been described as “lies” by the press (especially today). In Moulin’s case, the Germans claimed that while he was imprisoned in a POW camp with those Senegalese troops (likely quartered with Moulin as payback for not acknowledging the massacre), Moulin developed “a taste for blacks.” Per the Germans, Moulin was a homosexual and during a lover’s quarrel with one of his African comrades, the dindu slit his throat with a piece of broken glass. Moulin claimed that he attempted suicide, but that doesn’t really stack up – considering that rumors about Moulin’s homosexuality still exist today and his close “friendship” with (((Max Jacob))) being a blatant red-flag – Jacob was a well-known communist and homosexual poet and painter. Immediately after the war, Moulin was painted as the epitome of the Frenchman womanizer, but in the Current Year™ - it’s pretty well known in France that he was a homosexual.

Moulin was eventually released from custody (because that’s what the evil Nazis did) and joined the French Resistance.

The Happening: In reality, Moulin’s involvement in the Resistance was exaggerated at best – and, he overshadows brave men who did fight and die in the Resistance. Like the others on our list, Moulin was clearly a communist infiltrator (and by some accounts utilized by the Soviets to get close to de Gaulle). Moulin had been described as a “fellow traveler” due to his friendship with open communists and he had supported the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War (a recurring theme). Moulin was eventually betrayed by a fellow member of the Resistance - some historians, including Klaus Barbie, blamed communist (((Raymond Aubrac))). Rumors on Moulin’s death, along with Barbie’s interrogation “tactics,” are so outrageous that they demand a certain level of skepticism – like skinning Moulin alive or using bestiality as a torture technique. For a man labeled the “Butcher of Lyon,” it’s somewhat suspect that he was (again) rumored to have been recruited by the West German government to eventually assist the CIA with tracking down Che Guevara.

2. An (((Uprising))) Crushed
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Rosa-Luxemberg-Removed.jpg
(((Rosa Luxemburg)))
- was a Marxist theorist, philosopher, economist, anti-war activist and revolutionary Jewish communist. A convenient piece of history that occurred in Germany after the First World War and is generally excluded in modern history books (at least in the US) – was that Germany was in the middle of a post-war revolution (called the November Revolution 1918 - 1919). The outcome being either the failed Weimer Republic or a Soviet Germany. The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany, led by Karl Liebknecht and (((Rosa Luxemburg))), who had previously founded and led the revolutionary leftwing Spartacist League, along with (((Leo Jogiches))), (((Paul Levi))), Ernest Meyer, Franz Mehring and (((Clara Zetkin - honorary))).

Why Removal? The Spartacist Uprising (also known as the January Uprising) was a general strike, including armed battles in the streets, in Germany in January 1919. On Sunday, January 5th, thousands of armed communists gathered in the streets of Berlin. By the afternoon, Berlin’s train stations and the newspaper district were occupied by the communists. They also took over a police headquarters and demanded the overthrow of the German government – their vision – the destruction of an already weak and exhausted Germany and its transformation into a Bolshevik state (led by communist Jews).

The Happening: The German government eventually unleashed the Freikorps – a band of World War 1 veterans with a fondness for physically removing subversives and communists. In addition to crushing the January Uprising, they would also fight the communists in the Baltics and defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic. It could be fair to call them one of the world’s first “death squads.” With respect to the militant Jewish uprising led by (((Luxemburg))) and her toady, Liebknecht – the men of the Freikorps quickly liberated the blocked streets and buildings and many of the insurgents were killed or surrendered. Unsurprisingly, (((Luxemburg))) and Liebknecht were found hiding in a Berlin apartment a few days later. They were arrested and handed over to the Freikorps unit - Garde-Kavallerie-Schützen-Division, led by Captain Waldemar Pabst. In the end, it probably didn’t matter how much the communists squirmed and tried to talk their way out of their fate – they were both shot in the head. Particularly fitting was (((Luxemburg’s))) demise, her body was unceremoniously dumped in the Landwehr Canal – it was discovered months later.

Her last known writing before she met the business end of a German 98 Mauser was “Order Prevails in Berlin.” It was written while she was hiding after the uprising was crushed. Here is the last line: ““Order prevails in Berlin!” You foolish lackeys! Your “order” is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will “rise up again, clashing its weapons,” and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing: I was, I am, I shall be!”

Sounds crazy. Sounds like she had it coming.

1. A First-Class Coincidence
http://therightstuff.biz/content/images/2017/01/Ruth-First---removed.jpg
(((Ruth First)))
- was a South African anti-apartheid activist and commie scholar born in Johannesburg, South Africa. Her parents were Latvian Jews that immigrated to South Africa in 1906. Predictably, as soon as they arrived in their new home they began the process of destroying it – they became one of the founders of the Communist Party of South Africa. Eventually, (((First))) would become a communist as well, with her mission being the overthrow of the White minority government and securing the country’s utter devastation. Just another coincidence in history – Jews immigrating to a new county and then advocating for said country’s demise through either radical leftist agitation or racial disunity (or both). She would later encourage mining strikes and communist subversion and found herself banned and exiled from the country. She was also married to another prominent anti-apartheid activist, proud communist and politician – (((Yossel Mashel Slovo))) – changed his name to “Joe” for easier infiltration (also a Jewish immigrant from the Baltics).

Why Removal? Do we still need to ask at this point? In March 1960, thousands of South African dindus essentially tried to destroy a police station in Sharpeville, South African. The White police officers, using Sten sub-machine guns and bolt-action rifles, along with armored personnel carriers, were eventually able to quell the crowd through deadly force. Today – the incident is called the Sharpeville Massacre. In South Africa the “official” story is that a peaceful and vibrant crowd of oppressed South Africans were brutally attacked by the evil and racist police state. In reality, less than 200 White police officer were being swarmed by 20,000 rioting blacks hurling stones at them – everyone in the Current Year™ knows the real score. It was fight or be torn limb from limb.

Anyway, (((First))) and her anti-White husband (((Slovo))) were doing what all Jews do – instigating and riling up the dindus against the White government (the government and people that created civilization in Africa). She and her husband had been the vanguard of anti-White rioting during the 1950s. (((Slovo))) had actually joined a communist and explicitly anti-White militia (designed off the Red Army). In addition, scores of White South African police officer had been assassinated, killed in raids or assaulted during the Jewish-led “soft” uprising during the 1950s.

By 1960 (and after the Sharpeville riot), her time in South African came to end. Back when governments actually cared for their people, the South African government came to the wise decision that this Jewish subversive needed to be exiled and removed from the country.

The Happening: Not content to live her life peacefully abroad, (((First))) moved to London and became involved in the British anti-apartheid movement. She would later move back to Africa (Mozambique) and continue advocating for the destruction of Whites in South Africa. Cue a man called Craig Williamson – quoted as once saying, “I respect a person who's willing to die for his country, but I admire a person who is prepared to kill for his country." Williamson, exposed as spy (and all-around “special operator”) in 1980, is accused of physically removing (((First))) in 1982. Evidently, she received explosive first-class prank mail – which ended her anti-White and communist campaigning.

[Each entry is accompagned with a photography of the subject on which is overwritten "Physically Removed"]

Daniel Greenfield #fundie frontpagemag.com

Muslim frustration leads to aggression. When the poor dears get worked up enough, they get violent. The more their violent efforts are frustrated, the more violent they become. Before you know it, they're throwing a suicide bomber tantrum and diplomats rush off with a pile of candy and concessions to reduce their frustration levels to slightly less murderous norms.

Instead of giving them an immigration time-out or a shock-and-awe spanking, they hunt down whoever made poor Mohammed Jr. feel so frustrated that snookums is out on the streets stabbing people.

"What do you want from Mohammed? He's frustrated. He's a very sensitive boy. Why can't you be a little more understanding of his feelings and stop trying to fight back when he comes at you with a butcher knife?"

All this global Muslim frustration, though, seems to indicate that the problem might be Mohammed.

[...]

There's a place we send people who start killing when they get frustrated enough. It's called prison. We can't lock up the entire Muslim world, but we can lock ourselves away from it by ending migration and immigration to the civilized world from a Muslim world where frustration justifies violence.

And maybe, if Muslims get frustrated enough by this civilizational time-out, they'll choose civilization over barbarism.

Mike King #sexist tomatobubble.com

For the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class), the neo-con propaganda outlet FOX News has, for the past 20 years or so, served the important purpose of keeping conservatives on a leash long enough to allow to them vent off their frustration, yet just short enough to keep them from wandering off into the land of total truth. The sole saving grace of the network was that, in allowing just enough cosmetic "conservatism" to air before millions of viewers, a percentage of the more astute elements of the massive audience would eventually wander off the plantation completely and join the ranks of the full truth "conspiracy theorists" TM. Indeed, during the late 1990's, your now fully enlightened Editor here passed through the FAUX News / Rush Limbaugh halfway-house before growing out of the "Left-Right" control cage altogether.

For that reason, in spite of our disdain for Rupert Murdoch's FAUX, we are nonetheless troubled by the recent and much-publicized rise of his de-balled sons (Lachlin & James) and their stupid and controlling communist wives (Sarah & Kathyrn). The scuttlebutt is that the contemptible, yet immensely popular, Bill O'Reilly was forced out by these beautiful women. O'Reilly's coveted 8 PM slot will be filled by Tucker Carlson, whose first guest as the new 8-PMer under the reign of the Bolshevik Bitches will be a man that O'Reilly once mocked -- the freakish trannie, Bruce Jenner (now referred to as "Caitlyn").

1. Kathryn made no effort to hide her love for Hillary and red-hot hatred for Trump & Bannon (She likes Ivanka though!)

2. Kathryn's "kinder, gentler" FOX will feature the degenerate freak Bruce Jenner.

Expect some of O'Reilly's elderly following to have heart attacks when Jenner appears with Carlson this coming Monday (April 24th)! But don't blame Carlson (who is actually not that bad) for having such a vile Satanic creature on his program. You can be sure that the Murdoch women, Kathryn in particular, are behind this obscenity. The Sisters-in-Law Murdoch had already previously amended the company's benefits package to include "expanded coverage for our transgender colleagues.”

Both Kathryn and Sarah are known to be "progressives." Of the two, Katryn (much like another silly little rich girl, Ivanka Trump) wields more power in her own right. She is a real fanatic when it comes to Trump-bashing, homosexuality, trannies and the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax. Since the Murdochs swallowed up National Geographic in 2015, that psuedo-scientific rag has continued to aggressively push the hoax while not allowing any real scientists to rebut the "settled science." The "philanthropist" Kathryn also worked for both the Clinton Climate Initiative and the Environmental Defense Fund. (here)

Old man Rupert once dismissed the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax as "alarmist nonsense." We expect this attitude at FOX News to "evolve" and eventually align with the views of the young Murdochs' National Geographic and Kathryn's beloved Environmental Defense Fund.

Now if you thought those National Geographic covers were bad, get a load of the EVIL boy-trannie child-abuse abomination that the next generation of the House of Murdoch recently put out. It's enough to almost make us want to plead with wretched old man Rupert Murdoch and that arrogant ass-clown Bill O'Reilly -- "Please, stay!"

Childhood psycho-sexual abuse --- coming soon to FOX's conservative audience.

The modern trend of men allowing their deranged women to rule over them is yet another symptom of the decay and decline of Western Civilization. Another high profile example of this alarming phenomenon is baby girl's Ivanka Trump-Kushner's uncontrolled White House antics -- such as her uninformed public support for the Global Warming TM / Climate Change TM hoax, "women's workplace issues," and her meeting with the baby butchers and baby body-part dealers of Planned Parenthood. Neither "The Donald" nor Ivanka's typically P-whipped Jewish husband, Jared Kushner, could reign in this spoiled little brat even if they wanted to.

And speaking of P-whipped, does it get any more pathetic than Pro Football Super Star and Trumpstein supporter, Tom Brady, failing to show up at the White House ceremony to honor the New England Patriots Super Bowl victory? You see, boys and girls, Brady's super-model wife, Giselle Bundchen, is an outspoken pro-abortionist, an anti-Trump tweeter, and a "Climate Change" TM libtard who is evidently embarrassed and fed-up with her husband's support for Trumpstein. We'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that the lovely Giselle put her high-heeled foot down and threatened to close down the candy store until pretty Tommy put an end to his public support for Trumpstein.

Your old-school Editor here at The Anti-New York Times has the utmost gentlemanly respect for the ladies. That respect does not extend to any "man" who allows a woman, no matter how blonde and beautiful, to de-ball and dictate to him. Unless and until men rediscover their balls and tell the Ivanka Trumps, the Giselle Bundchens, the Kathryn Murdochs and the Sarah Murdochs of our diseased and decaying society: "Shut up and sit down, you silly woman!" -- there will be no hope for the recovery of our collective sanity. Then again, in fairness to such men and in consideration of what our Marxist courts allow these wayward women to inflict upon husbands and fathers, many bullied men have no choice but to meekly accept the mischief of their wives -- or face alienation from their children.

Sick upside-down world!

Proverbs 21:19: Better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman.

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times that the Murdoch sons and their wives are much more liberal than the old man.

Boobus Americanus 2: It would be nice if they overhaul FOX News and make it more objective. As it stands now, I can't stomach it.

Sugar: Hey Boobusss! Ya think your panssie-ass could stomach a ssubscription to the Anti-New York Times?

Editor: If Boobus can't even handle the watered-down half-truths of FAUX News, then he'd surely puke his guts up over the true stuff we put out.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "LATEST PERVERSE DEMAND: Making Pedophilia Respectable By ROD DREHER"

Making Pedophilia Respectable
By ROD DREHER • December 5, 2018, 1:27 PM
Thomas O’Carroll, convicted pedophile, pedophilia advocate
I hope you’re sitting down for this. Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted British pedophile, has published an essay in a peer-reviewed academic quarterly arguing for legalized pedophilia. Justin Lee writes about the situation in his Arc Digital column. Excerpts:
At 73 years old, O’Carroll has long been a bogeyman for both the left and the right?—?not to mention the children he has violated. To the right, he’s the perfect condensed symbol for the Sexual Revolution’s true telos?—?the nihilistic destructuring of human relations. To the left, he’s an albatross, a useful idiot for conservatives intent on establishing a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. He’s also a testament to the degraded standards of interdisciplinary scholarship.
His Sexuality & Culture article, which reads like the senior thesis of a bright-enough undergraduate edgelord majoring in philosophy, attempts to make the case that virtue ethics fails to provide a convincing justification for rejecting sex between adults and children. Moreover, he argues that in an ideal world, virtue would be understood in such a way as to include such practices and even celebrate them.
Lee pulls this quote from O’Carroll’s paper. Remember, this is O’Carroll writing, not Lee. Lee has highlighted a part of the passage:
The assertion that children are incapable of reciprocal sexual relations is empirically unfounded. Where is the evidence? A comparison with animals is again suggested. Dogs appear to be perfectly capable of reciprocity in loving relationships with human beings, often to the extent of being every bit as devoted and loyal in their affections towards their owners as their owners are towards them, and perhaps even more so. Again, even the personhood-restricting Scruton has acknowledged this (Scruton 2013, 2014). Dogs may lack a sophisticated appreciation of the other’s “intentionality”, on which Scruton sets so much store as a qualifying criterion of moral agency within sexual relations, but this appears to be no barrier to reciprocity in what many would consider to be its morally essential features. There should be mutual affection and attention to the other’s wishes. What else is needed, really? It may be thought this analogy is insufficiently close because dogs are not sexual partners of their human masters. But they can be. Dogs are not shy about expressing sexual interest in humans, and when their owner reciprocates that interest a sexual (and loving) relationship may develop, as has been attested in Dearest Pet, a book by Dutch controversialist (and children’s writer!) Midas Dekkers, and endorsed in a review by philosopher Peter Singer (Dekkers 2000; Singer 2001). (emphasis mine)
Got that? O’Carroll says that because bestiality is permissible, so too is pedophilia. Lee summarizes:
This question-begging dismissal of intentionality serves a dark purpose: the banishment of “consent” as a relevant category of concern. Consent, after all, is predicated upon intentionality. This is much too reminiscent of Peter Singer’s argument for bestiality, which can be summarized thusly: We eat animals without their consent, so why not screw them? Children, especially young children, consent to little of what we subject them to, so why shouldn’t we let O’Carroll bugger babies?
—————————————————————
IS ANYONE ELSE OUTRAGED??

(irrelevant scripture removed)

I've been saying for years that their goal is to legalize child-rape, but we must resist their perversity.

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND. May God bless you and keep you.

cultureshift #fundie cultureshift.tumblr.com

["I am still and always will be pro-choice, but I don't know if I could ever, ever go through that again. My heart broke a little when I found out exactly how far along I was, and when I felt the abortion happening I felt like a horrible person."]

The horror you felt was your child being slaughtered while you cradled him or her in your womb. Whether your child was held in your arms or in your uterus, he or she was a living human being and you paid someone to rip him or her to pieces while you laid on your back with your legs spread. You literally exposed your own son or daughter to their butcher - a butcher you scraped $350 together to pay.

[...]

You did not act to protect your child, you only acted to protect your own self interest. Now that your womb is empty, I hope that it forever stays that way. You must never again be trusted to harbor life within you.

I do hope you will come to realize what you have done today. I hope that when you do, you fight like hell to protect other children from the fate you forced upon yours. Only then will you begin to reclaim your humanity.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

On a recent visit to perform in New York City, Taylor Swift commented, “Everybody here was someone else before,” Swift sings, before giving a shout-out to the city’s many gay-friendly neighborhoods (“You can want who you want/ Boys and boys and girls and girls”). Whether experienced New Yorkers like it or not, this is what the city represents to the rest of the country... SODOM AND GOMORRAH!!!

Clearly, Taylor Swift has no regard for God's commandments, Who prohibits all forms of sexual immorality (Colossians 3:5-6), which definitely includes homosexuality, adultery and bestiality. But the Holy Bible also condemns the sinful passions (lusts) which lead unto sin and death. In Colossians 3:5 we read the words, “evil concupiscence,” which means, “lust for that which is forbidden.” Also, we read the words, “inordinate affection,” which means “desires beyond normal limits.” That is, any sex outside of a legally-binding marriage commitment is sinful. Lust for sex outside of a marriage commitment is sinful. “Lascivious” in the Bible means “feeling morbid sexual desire.” Lasciviousness is an unhealthy spiritual and mental state of one's heart, which precedes committing sexual immorality. My point here is that Taylor Swift's raunchy music videos SEXUALIZE teenagers, which inspires unholy sexual desires in them, compelling their soul and body to engage in premarital sex, with multiple partners, and forgo any type of proper courtship which leads to holy matrimony.

Americans are as naive fatted lambs being led to the slaughter!

Caesercel #sexist #psycho #wingnut incels.co

[Serious] Is Rape really such a bad thing?

Before the soyim piss their pants, hear me out on this one.

Rape in modern society is very different from what it originally was. The abhorrent and evil crime of rape was originally about defiling another man's woman thus cucking him and possibly impregnating his wife. Thus diminishing his rightful chance at a legitimate offspring. Consent(the base of modern concept of rape), doesn't come into the picture. Husbands in olden times never needed consent from their wife, sex was a duty to be fulfilled, for family and community. There were also conquerers wifing up conquered people's women. Still no consent.

We can easily see that throughout history, the women never actually chose who they're gonna fuck. Men competed and the winners got to take their pick.

Modern rape( the one based on lack of consent) is a recent feminist construct. According to that logic almost all sex, that got humanity to where it is now, the reason why we all exist, is rape. In fact certain radical feminist groups unironcally proclaim that all sex is rape, even when its consensual. They want women to abandon heterosexual partnership and procreate via sperm banks. More moderate feminists would say that earning consent by using the situations of a women is also rape. According to them, escorting, beta-buxxing, sugar-dady relationships are also rape where the rapist is forcing consent by using women in bad financial situation.

So I pose this question....Is rape, the way it is defined now, such a bad thing? It allowed men and women to procreate. Allowed humanity to grow and prosper instead of dying out. Allowed people to live fulfulling sexual lives and build families. Is it so bad that we don't want to give much concern to something fickle like "consent" and instead want redistribution of sexual opportunities among the masses?

This is why people hate us. What used to happen before is not relevant now, we've evolved. Yes men would go around raping women, but they'd also fight and kill other men in the process. Saying rape isn't bad because that's how it used to be is like saying we should go back to times when men fought and killed each other for women. I guess some people here would think that that's the way it should be, what do I know.

The sex between a husband and wife is rape as well. As the husband is using patriarchal oppression to force sex upon a women who'd rather fuck chad(5% of men).
Is that arrangement also unwanted according to you?

Rape isn't. I think it's marginally worse than a brutal physical assault. Which...isn't great either, to be fair, but rape is not something that should warrant a significantly harsher criminal penalty than, say, grievous bodily harm.

Yes rape where a man hurts a woman should be a crime. It is a little more worse than assault. But in a world running rampant with whores with 20+ body counts. Where birth control flow like water. Is it still such a crime. And certain kind of "rape" like a woman fulfilling a duty to her husband or an escort serving a unwiliingly serving a client she is not attracted to should not be considered crime at all.

We got a lot of people here who think actual rape is fine. You put those people and their family in that situation and you will see how quickly their opinions change.

I am against sexual assault, if that is what you are implying. But there are reasons why these things are considered so abhorrent. And those reasons are floundered daily in modern era. Would you rather allow women to have a choice and become cumdumpsters for chad?

I'm not angry at them, they have better options than me. I would fuck the hottest woman I could get as well, that's human nature. I'm upset at the system that incentives for women to only fuck the top tier men and rewards them for having bastard children. I'm upset at women but what they're doing is completely logical, what's not logical is why there are no legal brothels for us to go to, why single mothers get free money, that's the shit I'm angry about.

You are upset at this system. But the system that allows you to get a woman would be considered that of a patriarchal rapist. This is contradictory. If you actually support the current system where women can congregate to top tier men then the only thing you have right to be upset about is, you were not one of those men.
Thus there is nothing you could possibly do. I am sorry but this thinking is too pussy. Its like a poor serf saying he deserves it for not being born with god's royal grace.

Sure, you can go ahead and try to do that but it will come with severe consequences.

Not if it is done in a civilized manner. Traditional marriage is one example. Roasties actually had to fuck men bellow their looksmatch. Blackpill tells us that the roastie doesn't want that guy and so it would be rape. But there are little consequence cuz the system is not build by cucks.

women are hypergamous, any man beneath 6.5/10 is seen as ugly by them

men meanwhile are attracted to majority of women if they aren't fat

The only reason humanity got this far is cuz women never really had a choice on the matter of reproduction.

Low IQ post.

If you wouldn't like to be held down and fucked against your will don't do it to others.

Moneymaxx and escortcel.

Choice can be manuafactured under the right circumstances. Escorting ,as you mentioned is one example.

If she's a virgin, it's bad.
But if she's a whore and it's dick #54968596, it's not a big deal, about as bad as assault.

But that's the thing. Raping virgin is bad exactly cuz she is another man's rightful first. But the modern gynocentric system spits on this very concept

It doesn't have to be violent and unsavory. Civilized redistribution of sexual resources is possible. Women could be raised to be dutiful, even to men like us that they biologically repel. Read the thread

Minister Leroy Swailes #fundie gaylesbiantimes.com

Because a beast has four legs and one gender[, i]f you put two men together, they have four legs and two penises, still one gender, that’s a form of bestiality. If you put Eve and Eve together, two vaginas, that’s still one gender, that’s a form of bestiality.

[...]

Everybody should have human rights. But you have to be human. Human means you deal with the opposite sex... We as a city, D.C., we’ve got to realize that you’ve got to discriminate against something that’s inhuman.